Have I completely misunderstood GCSE biology...

[proximalhumerous]

...or is the purpose of spotting an anomaly not specifically to disregard it in order that it doesn't lead to an inaccurate conclusion?

If so, why is everyone fixating on DSDs as "proof" that sex is a spectrum, when the anomalous 1.7% (if indeed it is as high as that - from what I've read that figure is only achieved if you include conditions such as PCOS which have a tenuous claim at best to be one of the "intersex" variations) is clearly a set of results that don't fit. Because something has deviated from the norm. It's not like calculating the mean of a range of heights, FFS.

Please can someone more scientific than me explain what is going on here? Or is it simply that certain factions are so hell-bent on arguing that anyone with ladyfeels can be a woman they're happy to completely disregard any sort of science or logic in order to do so?

This has naff all to do with registering birth certificates. Hilarious!

None of those agencies lump in trans people as you did.
None of those agencies, to my knowledge, say that 1.7% of people having some atypical hormonal or chromosomal traits mean they are not male or female.

@sanluca
Do you not read ANYTHING?

....Because, in the Uk, the process for altering a Birth Certificate is by GRC or rectification. And as this government article states ...'.in the case of an Intersex person, a GRC MAY not be required because registration as a child was a mistake'.
This rectification is required when the original was wrong.....
as a child, an arbitrary choice to tick a box was made even though there was no medical evidence to determine sex.

As according to the ECHR press release, the full judgement appears to be only available only in French, I'm sure Sanluca will be appreciative of a link to the full English translation of the judgement which you have read.

@Underthinker

You don't read much, do you?

The global medical position is that sex is not a strict binary.

This was your claim:

(The accepted global medical position is that humans are NOT a strict binary, as evidenced by the 240,000,000 people alive today with intersex traits or incongruence)

You have used a number that includes people who don’t have incongruence in their bodies variations that means they no longer fit a ‘strict’ binary. Because as so many of us have fucking stated the only ‘strict’ binary is that there is only two sexes. In those two sexes are a huge range of body variations.

It is you who pulled this figure out and made the statement about it. You cannot support it at all but you keep deflecting.

Your statement starts with making a point about ‘strict’ binary and then pivots to include people who can be easily categorised as male or female without further testing, in other words who have bodies that can be said to fit the binary nature is the human sex classes.

@Waitwhat23
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=002-13994&a={%22appno%22:[%2276888/17%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22CLIN%22],%22languageisocode%22:[%22ENG%22],%22display%22:[%220%22]}#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-13994%22]}

@Waitwhat23
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=002-13994&a={%22appno%22:[%2276888/17%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22CLIN%22],%22languageisocode%22:[%22ENG%22],%22display%22:[%220%22]}#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-13994%22]}

A good reminder. Thanks

@Helleofabore

You may have anger problems, however....if YOU don't LIKE how the WHO present the global medical position, write to them.

Frankly, I don't care what you like or don't

If the sex of some people with DSDs can't be determined why would they need to change the sex on their birth certificate? How would they know the sex on the original certificate was wrong if no one can determine if they are male or female.

You would only need to change the sex on a birth certificate if you were mis sexed at birth and your real sex was discovered later

How strict is your "strict" binary? Obviously not all the males are identical and not all the females are identical, but the global medical position, if by that you mean the average view of medical professionals around the world, is that sex is binary.

@Helleofabore
@nutmeg7

The Leonard Sax article has been rejected ad nauseum by the global medical community , for inter alia the fact that he isn't anexpert in necessary medical areas of either genetics or endocrinology .

If he were the "expert" the ohchr etc Al would quite him.
They don't.

@spannasaurus
@Underthinker

Go on....read something rather than typing nonsense

Yes, I saw that. It's a summary, not the full judgement.

Please link the full judgement in it's English translation.

Literally none of these links actually say what you claim they do 😆

Please explain to me then why someone who is neither male or female would need to change the sex on their birth certificate given there is a binary option of male or female.

Why would they bother to change a sex that is incorrect to another sex that is incorrect

We're not talking about people whose sex was misidentified at birth but people who you say are neither male nor female

Why do you think a geneticist is the most expert person here, or a surgeon or endocrinologist, and not a developmental biologist?

You never got round to explaining what features a female spider and a female pumpkin have in common….

May be start with how babies are made and the role of this sex spectrum in that…

@Waitwhat23
The full judgement can't be shared. My access is by professional subscription and cannot be copied.

The summary is absolutely clear on the two salient points -

1. some people are neither male or female and
2. no matter how incorrect, registration in a two box system is arbitrary in respect of such a child.

The decision is also clear that changing registration systems is up to each individual country

Well, that's handy, a top secret judgment.

I read the y vs France case as suggested by @Anteater1 . Not sure what I was meant to have learnt though.

A man said "I'm a not a man" The court said "yes you are"

@Bangbangwhizzbang

Wouldn't it be better for you to actually read something about human biology and the various specialisms within medical science, rather than asking silly questions?

Since Sax isn't a developmental biologist your reference can't be relevant to him.

I've no interest in spiders or pumpkins. But , whatever keeps you happy.

A person's sex is not determined by the ability to reproduce, as those who can't, prove

@HaddyAbrams
Obviously you didn't read it

You told us to read Y v France. In fact, you said -

'It's getting more bizarre.

Seriously, just read the Y v France case and learn something'.

But we can't, unless we have an (unspecified) professional subscription.

I simply don't believe that you have read it. I think you've desperately scrabbled for evidence and been caught out with the equivalent of the usual abstracts which are thrust at us with snarls of 'educate yourself'.

We've seen it all before.

A person's sex is not determined by the ability to reproduce, as those who can't,

has anyone on this thread suggested that a person's sex is determined by the ability to reproduce ?