I have a DSD and am fed up.

[DSDFury]

A DSD (Disorder/Difference of Sexual Development) is a congenital medical condition, usually resulting in sterility, as it does in my case. Broadly, it means there is chromosomal or other genetic anomaly which has resulted in the foetus not developing along typical lines for a male or female. Not all the resulting abnormalities are external, and we are certainly not hermaphrodites.

I am sick to death of DSDs being co-opted by the trans movement as "proof" that sex isn't binary. I am not some weird third sex, I am not part of a spectrum, and I don't feel the need to tell everyone about my condition.

I am sick to death of DSDs being misrepresented as an identity (looking at you, Fife NHS). It comes with some shitty elements such as infertility, but that is just one of many, many things that makes me who I am. I am a very ordinary middle-aged woman who shops in M&S and doesn't have blue hair.

I don't want to be in the sodding rainbow, I don't want to be on a flag and I absolutely don't want to be seen as synonymous with trans (looking at you, Women's Institute).

To (possibly) coin a phrase, I have "gender euphoria". I have never doubted for a second that I am female and I was delighted to finally go through puberty once I had been diagnosed. I don't believe that my spirit has been fortuitously put in the correct body or any such nonsense; I am female because I embody a body which has a womb and a vagina rather than a penis and testicles. I look, and sound, entirely female in every respect.

I do want our existence to be acknowledged, as in certain situations (mainly medical, but some legal) it is important to recognise this group of conditions. However I think conflating us with trans hinders this far, far more than helps, as it obfuscates the issue.

I am not particularly concerned about the implications of the Supreme Court ruling, certainly don't regard it as genocide (ridiculous hyperbole) and think it would have been insane for it to go any other way, although I fervently hope that anyone in charge of policy has sufficient knowledge of these conditions to be aware that there will be people whose chromosomes do not match their phenotype/appearance because of a medical condition rather than because they are trans.

People on the Feminism board seem to be extremely knowledgeable, but I bet a sizeable sector of the general population would be surprised by more than one thing I have written,

Thank you for reading.

I fear I'm just wasting my time now...

That wasn't my question, because we aren't talking about vulvas either because no one can see that just as they can't see your uterus.

Are you seriously arguing that vulvas are invisible now? When discussing phenotype we're - obviously! - talking about what can be seen when you're naked, not what can be seen through clothing.

Would those with DSDs have a female phenotype i.e. their female shape without HRT?

Unequivocally yes. What they wouldn't have is a mature female shape. But then even some fully mature women have very small breasts and very straight hips.

Do you think you're exactly the same as XX females in all ways?

No. Obviously.

I think you're the one arguing sex is a spectrum by stating those with male sex can be biologically female.

Well that in no way defines a spectrum anyway as we're still only dealing with two possibilities: male or female.

Why are you against defining anyone with XY chromosomes as male sex...?

Well obviously I'm not against defining anyone with XY chromosomes as male if they either a) don't have a DSD or b) have a DSD which means they still have a male phenotype.

...and why are you against being a desperate identity to biological XX females?

I assume you mean disparate. I am not, depending on the circumstances. As I said previously, when it's relevant of course I'm happy to be identified as a woman with a DSD.

However in everyday life there is no reason at all for me to identify, or be identified, as male. And that would still be the case even if I had had no medical intervention (although I would probably be dead so it would be a moot point).

I look, and sound, entirely female in every respect.

Was I wrong for assuming you weren't referring to your vulva here? You were refering to your physical appearance that the majority of people see and hear, no?

Unequivocally yes. What they wouldn't have is a mature female shape. But then even some fully mature women have very small breasts and very straight hips.

I disagree, a poster pubescent woman has a female phenotype even if her breasts or hips or small, you cannot say women with small breasts or hips look unequivocally the same as someone who hasn't gone through female puberty at all.

Well that in no way defines a spectrum anyway as we're still only dealing with two possibilities: male or female.

So why insist on muddying the waters by saying those with male chromosomes are biologically female?

Well obviously I'm not against defining anyone with XY chromosomes as male if they either a) don't have a DSD or b) have a DSD which means they still have a male phenotype.

But you don't have a logical reason for doing so except that they've been assigned female at birth / identify as female, or agreeing that feminine presentation matters over biological sex.

However in everyday life there is no reason at all for me to identify, or be identified, as male. And that would still be the case even if I had had no medical intervention (although I would probably be dead so it would be a moot point).

I can't comment without knowing your DSD but just because you don't think you should ever be identified as male seems to be based on your own experience of how female you're perceived. Does this only apply to you or any DSD? Can anyone with XY chromosomes and a DSD identify as female even if they dont look phenotypically female given you're saying even if you didn't have intervention? If they had PAIS for example and identified as female but had a penis?

You're not giving a very clear response on why you feel DSDs are being coopted when you're parroting the same talking points i.e. that if someone uses medical intervention to look female and identifies as such that they are somehow biologically females despite the biological reality.

@melonsandlemonsandpears Just as a matter of interest, are there any particular XY DSDs that you do believe makes someone biologically female?

I’d have thought from your previous posts that your opinion is that Y means a biological male in any case. So I’m not sure why you’re pressuring OP for details.
But maybe I’m wrong about that?

Women with Turner’s and other conditions require hormone treatment from puberty too btw. It’s not exactly a gotcha.

I know, I have a family member with Turners syndrome which is a female DSD. What do you mean by it's not exactly a gotcha? She doesn't have a Y chromosome, there's literally nothing similar to her and a male using HRT, she is more akin to a post menopausal woman requiring HRT. She was phenotypically female without HRT, but needed it to induce her periods and she has since developed more as well. This is why not all DSDs are relevant to the trans debate.

I don't think that's at all similar to someone with a condition apparent much younger, has XY chromosomes and doesn't take HRT or have any intervention to look female being considered biologically female which is what OP argued she should be allowed to define herself as female regardless of if she had intervention. I also don't think we should be reducing biologically female sex to someone taking intervention to look feminine.

And no I don't personally class anyone with XY chromosomes as biologically female, I was asking for OP for details because I've never come across any male DSD I think should be classed as bio female. I could follow the logic around CAIS, a bit, but I still think it's not 100% logically to class them as biological female, even though I do think women is appropriate for them. OP doesn't have that so I asked what DSD she had that she felt confidently made her "biologically" female

Which XY DSDs do you think make someone biologically female and what then is the definition of a biological female ?

Which XY DSDs do you think make someone biologically female and what then is the definition of a biological female ?
I think you need to look at a lot more than chromosomes and that DSDs should be taken on a case by case basis as some are very complex. And that it should depends on the wishes and identity of the person involved too in the case of DSDs. (I think differently about trans as that’s different, though I think people should be able to dress etc exactly as they choose.) For sport I think DSDs should be assessed on a case by case basis too.

I don't think that's at all similar to someone with a condition apparent much younger, has XY chromosomes and doesn't take HRT or have any intervention to look female being considered biologically female which is what OP argued she should be allowed to define herself as female regardless of if she had intervention. I also don't think we should be reducing biologically female sex to someone taking intervention to look feminine.

I don’t completely follow what you’re saying here. However, some XY DSDs including Sywers and many cases of CAIS are outwardly — and in the case of Sywers inwardly except for ovaries — phenotypically female at birth and problems often aren’t apparent until puberty when the lack of hormones from the ovary becomes apparent. The same as Turner’s in that sense.

And this is why I said DSDs are always going to rub against the trans issue because they are all different and some clearly are relevant where there is a split opinion especially if you're going to start saying that XY is not categorically male.

I think we have different definitions of phenotypically female. I'm not just talking about having a female phenotype as a small baby. My relative wasn't diagnosed until very late and she had developed breast tissue, hips in puberty as she did have some function to her ovaries but needed HRT similar to biological post menopausal women. I don't think everyone with swyers would look unequivocally biologically female (beyond the age of a small child obviously) to anyone without HRT which is why I disagree with OP. Do you agree with OP that people with DSDs who take no medical intervention to align with their assigned sex should also get to claim to be biologically female?

Women with CAIS are biological males who would struggle more living in the world as a male and so get raised as girls, it doesn't change their biology to female. Is it only those with CAIS who get to change their biology or any other type of AIS? Are they still biologically female if they don't present and dress feminine at all? Having a female phenotype as a small baby is not the same as having the phenotype of an adult, it just isn't and we can't just deny biological sex because someone alters their phenotypical appearance regardless of if you want to say "it's different" and we shouldn't be lumping those with male DSDs into female DSDs as though there's no difference.

I'll ask again - What then is the definition of a biological female ? And do you mean that you consider those with CAIS and Swyers unequivocally biologically female?

You're misrepresenting or obfuscating or being obtuse again.

If you're "trying to understand the reluctance behind association [sic] XY with the male sex" (assuming you're talking about my case rather than generally) you're not trying very hard. Would you have liked to have been told you were actually male at the age of 16 when there was no previous indication you were anything but female?

...saying you don't believe sex is a spectrum when you're defining it as such...

I don't believe I am defining it as such.

...the hormonal treatment they've taken to induce a female phentotype...

This makes no sense, and I have already clarified/corrected in a previous post. I didn't take HRT to induce a female phenotype, I took HRT to induce puberty.

A baby can have a female phenotype - the term does not refer specifically to a mature body. My phenotype is, and always has been, 100% female with the possible exception of some redundant streak gonad tissue.

Would you have liked to have been told you were actually male at the age of 16 when there was no previous indication you were anything but female?

But you were told you were male. Again, I'm not saying you should have to be called he or him but you did find out that you were biologically male and depending on your DSD you've then undergone treatment a biological female wouldn't have required. If you were someone with CAIS, you'd be using dilators for the rest of your life for example. I'm sure it was a big shock but it's naive to say that after you were told your condition nothing in your life differed from the biological females around you.

I don't believe I am defining it as such

Please then define the male and female sex? Because what you're saying is that female sex includes those with XY chromosomes which is stretching female into a quite a spectrum. Why do you object to the sexes being binary and that understandably those with DSDs that make it hard for them to live in the world as their biological sex are gendered differently?

This makes no sense, and I have already clarified/corrected in a previous post. I didn't take HRT to induce a female phenotype, I took HRT to induce puberty

And as I said before, the phenotypical sex differences between males and females babies isn't huge. It's massively different post puberty. Would you have looked unequivocally a female phenotype without HRT? I don't think you would have or that every DSD would have. Again, I'm not talking about genitals, I'm talking about what people would see when you're playing in sports or walking into a female space.

Was I wrong for assuming you weren't referring to your vulva here? You were refering to your physical appearance that the majority of people see and hear, no?

Yes, you were completely wrong in that assumption. It would hardly be "in every respect" if I didn't include my genitals, would it? After all, they're the most important external body part in this discussion.

I disagree, a poster pubescent woman has a female phenotype even if her breasts or hips or small, you cannot say women with small breasts or hips look unequivocally the same as someone who hasn't gone through female puberty at all.

You're doing it again. I didn't say that. I unequivocally have a female phenotype and that was the case pre-HRT. You asked, "Would those with DSDs have a female phenotype i.e. their female shape without HRT?" Yes, people with my DSD would.

So why insist on muddying the waters by saying those with male chromosomes are biologically female?

FFS. For about the 20th time, because phenotype is also biology.

But you don't have a logical reason for doing so [claiming someone with XY chromosomes can be female] except that they've been assigned female at birth / identify as female, or agreeing that feminine presentation matters over biological sex.

I, and many others on this thread, have presented you with logical reasons umpteen times, namely a) a Y chromosome without a functioning SRY gene will behave differently and not create Wolffian ducts, etc., and b) women with conditions such as CAIS and Swyer's have entirely female phenotype.

I can't comment without knowing your DSD but just because you don't think you should ever be identified as male seems to be based on your own experience of how female you're perceived. Does this only apply to you or any DSD? Can anyone with XY chromosomes and a DSD identify as female even if they dont look phenotypically female given you're saying even if you didn't have intervention? If they had PAIS for example and identified as female but had a penis?

It's based on my (female) phenotype, which is generally the way we identify the sex of anyone in the first instance. Of course it doesn't just apply to me. If someone had a DSD which meant they had XY chromosomes and a penis - hypospadias, for example - I would assume they were male.

I am not engaging further as I am starting to suspect you are just trolling.

...it's naive to say that after you were told your condition nothing in your life differed from the biological females around you.

I literally said the exact opposite.

You just keep asking the same questions and ignoring the answers or interpreting them to suit yourself.

Disagreeing with you isn't trolling! I understand you've explained your logic to being biologically female but it isn't an accepted fact and opinions differ greatly. You've explained why you think some people with XY should be classed as biologically female but haven't explained then what is the definition of male and female sex and what separates them. That's your logic /opinion but it's not an accepted fact. You surely then understand why DSDs aren't being "dragged into this", they are naturally rubbing up against the issue and tbh the trans activists you're complaining about and yourself are parroting the same nonsense talking points that medically induced phenotype matters more than biological sex to the point we should define someones sex by their phenotype. If you made this thread for a bunch of people to agree with you blindly, I'm sorry, but disagreeing with you is allowed.

If someone had a DSD which meant they had XY chromosomes and a penis - hypospadias, for example - I would assume they were male

How often are you seeing people's genitals? Hypospadias is not a DSD? It's a problem that mostly in biological males where it hasn't formed although it can affect people with DSDs too. Can someone with PAIS decide to identify as female and take estrogen HRT and be considered biologically female? Does their biological sex then change back to male if they take testosterone?

You said as far as you had been aware you were female but then you found out you weren't. The belief that you were biologically female doesn't change the reality that aren't and you've known that reality for 40+ years now, it's hardly the same as asking a newly diagnosed 16 year old to fully accept and comprehend the reality that they're biologically male but raised and live as a woman but you can't insist that's reality now.

You haven't answered the questions though? When did you define what sex is and what is the difference between male and female sex? You say you're not a third sex and sex is no spectrum yet are taking a lot of offense at the idea that your biological sex is male while accepting you are different to a biological female, so which is it?

Agree with all of that.

A baby or a three-year-old girl is just as phenotypically female as a 30-year-old woman, as I understand the term. The 30-year-old woman would be more physically mature, obviously, but not "more female".

Give me the name of which hormones can turn a penis into a vulva and I will agree I am "parroting the same nonsense" as TRAs.

What difference does it make how often I, or anyone else, is seeing people's genitals? It doesn't change what they are. Or have Schrodinger's genitals somehow entered this debate?

@DSDFury, I just spat my tea all over the cat (appropriately) at Schrödinger’s genitals. Thank you for that amusement.

A baby or three year old female is just as female as a female woman. Pretending that a biological male who can be mistakenly or deliberately assigned female as birth is going to be as phenotypically female as a biological female woman were they not given access to HRT is crazy. They're not going to naturally mature into the female maturity. You have to live on another planet to really believe this. You sound like those men pretending their HRT side affects are comparable to menstrual cramps and periods.

You're very welcome.😺

It doesn't matter what someone changes their genitals is the point, it doesn't change the reality of their biological sex.
You seem to be saying that because your genitalia wasn't ambiguous that you're the exception to the sex binary, conveniently forgetting all those males with DSDs and the same chromosomes as you that don't have a vulva or are ambiguous. Who said hormones can change a penis to a vulva? No one. I said what if someone with PAIS wanted to live as girl or were raised as a girl, can they just start taking estrogen and have their bits fixed and they're suddenly a bio female? Why does someone else with XY chromosomes and a vulva who doesn't look at all phenotypical female with a DSD get to coopt female biology too? Just because they've got a vulva?

Biological women can lose their breasts, have a hysterectomy or vulvectomy and they're still going to be biologically female because they're not defined by that.

Of course they're not going to naturally mature. I never said they would. (Why do I keep having to repeat this?)

But they are still female, not male.

Just because an immature female is not the same as a mature female it doesn't mean they should be defined as male.

What makes them female other than their genitalia being in some cases mistaken for a vagina?

You've explained why you think some people with XY should be classed as biologically female but haven't explained then what is the definition of male and female sex and what separates them.

@melonsandlemonsandpears
You keep looking for simple explanations and definitions.
You seem fond of them. To you, having a Y chromosome means someone is irrevocably and ‘biologically’ male.

But DSDs are complex, not simple.
There is more to biology than chromosomes imo. Why should someone’s Y chromosome define them as male if it is not functioning to make a phenotypical male? The medical experts working in this area look at a range of biological functionalities when considering DSDs. They also consult with the person involved (or parents). What they don’t do is just consider chromosomes. Why do you think your opinion is more valid? Why are you so determined to tell a woman she’s really a male?

Chromosomes aren’t everything in the case of DSDs, the Y chromosome doesn’t always work to make a man.

You’re being obnoxious.

Also I think you should do some research regarding DSDs. You seem quite ignorant about them.

Biologically reality isn't obnoxious. I'm fully in agreement chromosomes aren't everything for someone being defined a man or a woman. It's not an accepted scientific fact that DSDs that affect males make someone biologically female, so it's not obnoxious or obtuse to not hold that opinion and it's the reason you'll see science describe them as conditions that affect people who are either genetically male or genetically female. I've asked you and OP to otherwise define what biologically female means if we're including people with XY chromosomes into the category, I'm happy to be awakened of it's so simple, yet you haven't.

The doctors and medical experts are taking those things into account to determine the patients SOCIAL sex i.e. gender for their wellbeing and so they can establish what treatments are needed. They're not determining their biological sex, they already know what that is and it isn't determined by their opinions or the parents opinions!

For the 100th time I'm NOT saying OP has to be called he, a man or anything like that,I accept there are people with DSDs classed as women. I'm not going to be told I have to accept that I have to call those with XY chromosomes biological females though and I think the insistence on denying that fact is further muddying the waters.

I've asked you and OP to otherwise define what biologically female means if we're including people with XY chromosomes into the category, I'm happy to be awakened of it's so simple, yet you haven't.
I have certainly tried but you don’t seem to listen or understand 😅
For example, I have literally said it’s not simple on a number of occasions now, so you are clearly not reading what I’m saying.

I'm fully in agreement chromosomes aren't everything for someone being defined a man or a woman.
Really? That contradicts what you said earlier.

Mammalian biology is binary.
Every mammal is male or female and had been for millions of years.
Humans are just another mammal.

Any alternative opinion is religion not reality.
Gender is most definitely a religion.