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.

Quite, which is why I stick by the medical and scientific definition that XY are male chromosomes unlike random people on the internet happy to define biological sex by someone's phenotype alone.

What do you mean by "normal female?" Apparently OP is a normal biological female, not someone with a DSD that affects those with male chromosomes.

@OldCrone what you meant to write is there was no reason to think they were not biologically female until it was discovered later on. There is no meanness or lack of value to being biologically male, it's actual worse for you to say "normal" or "abnormal"

Just as an example of the medical literature @melonsandlemonsandpears.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31751516/

Yes obviously an article about the gender identity and psychological support required by those with DSDs is going to just use XY instead of males, as per the reasoning already in the literature that the terms make and female some find distressing. You'll find similar articles justifying TiMs and their HRT changing the phenotype. It doesn't mean that the definitions of male and female or XX or XY have changed in science. You'll note that also doesn't call them biological females.

I wrote what I meant to write. I don't need you to correct my language.

The word 'normal' is a word in the English language meaning 'conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected' (according to one dictionary - others have a similar definition). A typical female would have XX chromosomes. This is the norm. There's no value judgement there. But replace with the word 'typical' if you prefer as it's synonymous in this context.

I didn't use the word 'abnormal', so I don't know why you're berating me about using a word I didn't use.

You're also completely missing the relevance of them defining XY "females" with CAIS because they're talking about males with the conditions not females with CAIS as per previous poster @Teora

Did you not even read the title of that paper?

The XY Female: Exploring Care for Adolescent Girls with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome

Yea I did, I also have an understanding that publishing a people of literature on which you choose to call them XY females doesn't redefine anything. Likewise all the TRA leaning medical literature. It's an opinion not a definition. What does XY mean?

What does XY mean?

Are you really asking this question?

You still haven't posted any links to back up your assertion that CAIS is always referred to as a male DSD.

All the medical literature that I’ve seen is like that.
XY female and XX male are the terms typically used when it comes to these DSDs.

You insist that we have to use the word male for anyone XY when discussing DSDs with discordance. But we don’t.
In fact, that is not the current practice medically/scientifically.

Someone liked this, so I feel I must point out it's wrong! Meiosis doesn't start in males until puberty, unlike in females, for whom it does happen during embryonic development. So the awesomeness is female-only!

That was me :-). I read all of the thread, so I came across a PP noticing that mistake. I wouldn't have picked up on this, High school biology was too long ago... Thanks for pointing it out!

You can call them male if you like, but the courts say they're female for the purposes of equality law.

Do you describe XX males as 'really female'?

And what is a typical female? What do you mean is the different between a normal / typical biological female and someone with swyers for example ?

I didn't insist you call them male, they are women they're not biologically female though. If you bothered to read the literature you linked you'd have read she goes on to "describe these XY females" as those with male chromosomes and biologically XY individuals who are under -masculanised. What strange words she uses about biological females?

I didn't say they weren't classes as female on their sex marker / legal documents which you'll find many other XY men are also 🤨 I said they're not biologically female.

The Supreme Court defined sex in the Equality Act as biological sex, which is a concept defined by case law, according to which the biological sex of an XY 46 CAIS individual is female. This is important for sex-based rights.

The female sex marker is on their original birth registration. Individuals with PAIS who were registered male but have feminising treatments are allowed to correct their registration to female and this takes legal effect ex tunc ('they were always female').

Men with GRCs can't do that. They get a new, additional, registration in the GRR. It's a different thing altogether.

What was your answer about the XX males?

That's not actually specified as such on the act, what you mean is that they've already been recorded as females. I'm already aware that those with PAIS can apply to the same gender recognition panels as trans people to change their sex marker, it doesn't make any difference to me given how enamoured they are with gender ideology. The fact they met them backdate it doesn't mean they were always biologically female given the same panel allows those with PAIS raised at girls to backdate it to always male also.

It's a DSD affecting the female sex, they're biologically female.

You insisted we had to use the word male when discussing DSDs (not socially I realise). To you anyone with an XY chromosome (DSD or not) is defined as being biologically male. For you chromosomes and chromosomes alone define biological maleness. Isn’t that what you’ve been saying all along?

Precisely, you linked me an article that agreed with me

I really don’t think I did 🙄

Can you point out the part it says that please?

Of course it's not specified in the Act: that's why there was a massive court case about it.

CAIS and (feminised) PAIS individuals are legally biologically female, not merely because of the happenstance of their birth registrations, but because there is case law that says they are. The court took a pragmatic approach, which you could learn from.

As for XX males being biologically female - that's going to come as a surprise to the PP who's married to one.

Why do you give so much weight to karyotype and none to the SRY gene or whether the individual has gone through male or female puberty?

Read the post you quoted.

As I said earlier, my main concern with insisting that XX males are biologically female is that it would be really dangerous for actual biological females if phenotypically normal men with normal penises were supposed to get changed and go to the loo with women!

I don’t care that my husband has XX chromosomes but it would be a horrible precedent to set if such men were grouped with women, for the sake of women. Luckily they’re definitely legally biological males!