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?

Um, the issue is about SEX. Not 'humanity'.

It must have been around the time they denied Covid was airborn....

A more discredited quack 'medical body' I haven't seen. They're up there with Robert Kennedy.

DSDs/intersex CONFIRM the binary nature of sex. Every DSD is either a male DSD or a female DSD. So if you are going to say 'but...but...but....INTERSEX!!!' quit while you are (well) behind. The intersex community have said repeatedly that don't want to be weaponised in this discussion. How about you respect their wishes instead of using them as a cheap shot.

Cruel people making speggs sad.

I think a lot of the supposed disagreement is about language, not the actual science.

We know that sex categories relate to reproduction and the categories are stable across all living things. That is why we talk about male seahorses giving birth, and don't assume that they are female.

I think the resistance to acknowledging this is partly driven by genuine concern for humans who have developmental disorders. Being different is difficult. But it's a platitude.

Yes.

We so often see arguments that rely on language being manipulated. The number mentioned yesterday was clearly relating to a very wide range of medical conditions and yet was being used to give credibility to a very narrow and very rare medical condition which fit within that large number. Then came the endless doubling down. But it was dishonest use of language to prop up a poor argument.

It happens constantly though. Which is why accurate language is so important.

Particularly the behaviour of male entitlement.

DSDs/intersex CONFIRM the binary nature of sex. Every DSD is either a male DSD or a female DSD.

@ThatBlackCat
Sex is binary.
But…though it’s true that most DSD categories are male or female categories, some DSDs are very rare or unique and resist categorisation so easily.

I recently read a paper about a person who has one of the ‘male’ category DSDs according to the list you linked above (46XX/XY Sry positive, predominately XY chromosomally in fact). All the sex-determining Y genes that were looked at were normal, unmutated. She was phenotypically female, had become pregnant and given birth natually and wasn’t discovered to have a DSD until her child was found to have one and they looked at the parent’s genetics.

There are more genes than Sry involved, there is a lot we still don’t know, and lists like the one linked above are simplified overviews. And that’s fine, as long as those reading them knows what they are. But they’re often posted as ‘proof’ of something and that’s a step too far imho.

I think XX males are also not included on that list?

ETA: They are second and third on the list [facepalm emoji]

But all this just takes you back to the conclusion that chromosomes do not always determine sex, which is defined with reference to gametes.

On another note nobody seems to have a problem defining humans as mammals despite the fact that some women cannot breastfeed and some women choose not to breast feed and some women have mastectomies and some women have very small breasts. I suppose the difference is that it's a scientific description that isn't assumed to confer a value or status.

But all this just takes you back to the conclusion that chromosomes do not always determine sex, which is defined with reference to gametes.

It’s usually defined that way, and works for the case I described above, but it doesn’t hold up for a minority of DSDs and a broader picture needs to be looked at in those individual cases.
Sex is still binary in humans.

I know that case too Cappuccinosisters. However, that woman who gave birth was also easily categorised as female. She had working ovaries.

Yes, there are some unique conditions that will require extensive testing and maybe time to understand. However, I don't believe that there are not methods to correctly identify someone's sex category using today's technology. If there is no gonadal material at all, which would be extraordinarily rare, and no reproductive system built in the body at all, then the medical team shall have to consider genes / chromosomes etc.

Of course, there are those who are 'male' and have testes yet because they don't process/make testosterone at all they also have developed female reproductive body parts (except for ovaries). Those people have specific and unique needs and it is vital that they get early care. They still fit into the 'body formed around the production of one or the other gamete' definition of categorising sex though, whether they ever produce those gametes or not.

This never got answered I presume? So just another TRA with god knows what background or authority but with a clear hyper focus researching papers looking to ‘prove’ sex is not binary to ‘prove’ that when a man says he’s a woman, everyone has to agree.

Really not quite sure why anteater warranted so many pages of responses but I applaud the effort.

Oh yes, she was undoubtedly a woman.

My point was that the lists of ‘male’ and ‘female’ DSDs are simplified, and that these conditions can be very complicated. You can have cases that are unique. In some cases the decision which sex to assign is still difficult, particularly pre-puberty. Watchful waiting is advised and surgical decisions may be postponed until the person is of an age to decide for themselves. Sometimes families find this difficult understandably and aren’t on board with waiting.

I cannot image how hard it is.

The thing is that the strict categorisation of male and female is simple and people with variations are not defying the binary, as you say. How society provides for the very rare people is complicated. And sadly, those have been politically abused by those who utilise their conditions to destabilise the definition of sex classes in humans.

Yes, I agree @Helleofabore.

I just find that MN posts often say glibly that all DSDs are male or female when the medical/scientific literature actually says things like this (wrt to OT DSD)—

The current consensus favors that all children, after careful consideration of all diagnostic tests, have a social sex assigned at birth, for reasons including mental well-being of the child, integrity of the family, and avoiding stigma. However, neonatal sex assignment is exceptionally difficult in children who have ovotesticular DSD…(my bold).
https://karger.com/hrp/article/96/2/180/835112/Ovotesticular-Difference-of-Sex-Development

I’d agree with you. Leave DSDs alone! Don’t include them as support for ‘sex is a spectrum’, but don’t dismiss them as uncomplicated either. Neither is fair.

And sadly, those have been politically abused by those who utilise their conditions to destabilise the definition of sex classes in humans.

It doesn't help people with e.g. Swyers to argue that if somebody with that condition is female, sex has no meaning and a father of 4 can also be female. It's insulting.

I understand. Perhaps what posters need to do when they say it is ‘simple’ is to then add something about while it is ‘simple’ in that everyone is one or the other, acknowledge the very rare groups have specific needs, while not disproving the sex binary.

But maybe also, we can consider that most feminist and regular posters understand this yet find that it then encourages the ‘Whatabout’ posts that are trying to leverage this group politically. It is hard to find the balance. I have been in all types of situations and while I understand well enough, the Whatabout posts do cause a shortening of posts.

I would assume that few people disagree with you here.

Thank you for your infinite patience Helleofabore.

since I can’t go on Facebook without one person posting dsd ad evidence that sex isn’t binary we can’t just say “keep them out of it” as that comes across as “you don’t want to talk about that because you know it proves our point “ rather than being respectful of what can be a very difficult thing

doctors know what sex each dsd is - and the
social choice is a separate element - many dsd are only discovered when puberty doesn’t go as expected where the reason they get given is their sex. Which is different to their socialised experience . but the sex is still understood. And in almost all cases ( 1 in a billion or more) it’s a very simple male female categorisation

doctors know what sex each dsd is

No, they don’t always know, not in very rare cases, especially not in babies. Things can become clearer post puberty.

Sex assignment is a social choice made for those babies precisely because it’s not straightforward, even now.

I’m worn out from saying this 😔

I have to say I do find "dsd people have asked to be left out of the debate" problematic because they are not a monolith and some certainly do identify with the trans experience.