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?

Provide JUST ONE medical oversight body (?) which states that humans are bipedal.

There we go then,it is proven that legs are a spectrum. Or assigned at birth, sometimes erroneously. Or 240 000000 humans have other amounts of legs. Or something.

@Bangbangwhizzbang
So, that's a "no", from you. You can't provide the name of one single medical oversight body that suggests humanity is a strict binary.

That'll be because they agree with the WHO.

Enjoy the pointless shouting at eachother .

We all know that only women gestate and birth babies. That every single human being in the world was birthed by a woman.

People are welcome to believe the earth is flat, that sex is oh so complicated and that women and girls have no right to boundaries from men who demand access to them undressing. But the rest of us don't have to share their delusions.

Go well.

I've looked at the WHO website. They've gone full genderwoo. I'm embarrassed for them.

Why not round that number up a bit more? PP rounded up by 24 million from their already false figure just because…

@MrsOvertonsWindow

We went over this about 8 hours ago. Lots of back reading to do.

Strangely until 2020 the WHO did think that sex categories were binary, then they must have had an attack of Covid or something, because they dropped that definition from their 'gender' web page and started talking about gender identity.

Er, hang on. There's only one turtle, with four elephants on top and the world's disc balanced on top of them.

The turtle moves...

have you provided the links for your assertions regarding the NHS and GMC yet, out of interest?

@lcakethereforeIam ...well, you make sure and write a stern letter to the WHO and tell them why they are so wrong.

Please let me know how they reply

I'm not really clear what your point is - that women shouldn't have sex base rights because some people have Swyers?

As per the OP, DSDs are a rare anomaly.

Rachel Reeves might as well plan the budget around the assumption that everyone is going to win the lottery.

That can’t be right. Surely the WHO would have informed me?!

Or is it that nobody knows their sex because some people have Swyers?

@Waitwhat23

Is your search engine broken?

You can't find the NHS pages on DSDs or Intersex and you can't find the GMC guidance to general practice on incongruence. Really ?
Wow. Now that really is broken.

We can certainly add it to the list.

People on this board are quite good at getting incoherent policies changed.

@nicepotoftea
Rights and obligations are not the same thing as biology.

Different things.

What do you mean by defined exactly? Assigned?

Rights and obligations to what?

Why would I be interested in what a non-scientific bodies state about biology?

WHO isn’t a scientific organisation either. They are heavily influenced by WPATH with several WPATH members sitting on their GDG. WPATH of course being the organisation who suppressed information that countered their narrative and whose latest ‘standards of care’ included a chapter on eunuchs written by an authored who was big into sexual fetishism

https://genspect.org/the-wpath-files-revealed/

I linked the NHS page earlier. It doesn't mention anything about 1.7% (which you had claimed). You have yet to link what you are claiming.

The GMC's page about gender incongruousness doesn't mention anything about 1%. You still haven't linked it. The BMC website does mention 1% but is based on a hilariously shite report by GIRES.

As well as that, you demanded that we read a judgement which is apparently only available through a professional subscription or by commissioning a translation from the French.

Either link and prove your point.

Or don't.

Up to you. But you're making yourself look increasingly ridiculous.

Thank you for plopping by.

I don't recall saying that he was.

This number of medical bodies captured by gender ideology and therefore spouting nonsense is not evidence, unfortunately.

These are people who have happily sealioned the medical castration of children so excuse me if I'm not worshipping their idea of 'science' right now.

@Bangbangwhizzbang
Enough of your conspiracy and lunacy.
I shan't be entertaining you any more. Bye

I linked the NHS page earlier. It doesn't mention anything about 1.7%

Is that the 1.7% that is mainly made up of women with polycystic ovaries?

At this point anyone who uses that stat is trolling.

😂😂😂

The irony........

@nicepotoftea
Well, since the global body responsible for the rights of intersex people , the ohchr, use that figure, then either you are wrong or they are.

You know, I think I'll stick with the WHO and ohchr on these things and just ignore the demonstrably bizarre echo chamber in Mumsnet

Bye all.