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.

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?

Yes, I have the same question, @melonsandlemonsandpears.

Why is the chromosome so important even when the bit that makes it do its job doesn't work? Which renders its being a "Y" chromosome fairly redundant.

This is good from dsdfamilies https://dsdfamilies.org/charity/latest-news/supremecourtruling2025 - there is case law to support the complexity of biological sex for people with DSD.

Endlessly debating the bodies of people with rare and complex medical conditions, is a really horrible thing to do. Women with CAIS have no choice but to be seen as women by anyone with eyes and ears and still rarely tell anyone, even family - and this is because if they do, they will be shamed, othered, ostracised and have their bodies endlessly debated. It’s definitely not a good time to be born with a DSD - and for anyone with daughters, nieces or granddaughters, they could be diagnosed at puberty and nobody would ever know. How do you want the world to treat them?

I think the (mercifully few) PPs pushing this line are keen to draw a bright line between transgender people and the rest, apparently unaware that the law has already done the job for them. Biological sex = registered sex (including revisions based on medical evidence). Biological sex =/= sex recorded on the GRR.

For completeness - if your husband was legally biologically female, it wouldn't harm any women, because he could legally be treated by everyone as 'not a woman' under the heading of permitted perceptive discrimination. But it would harm him by excluding him from everything that the law affords to men as a sex.

Because your DSD means you literally require opposite sex hormones in order to go through male or female puberty to maintain the phenotype you're giving the most importance to.

You're welcome to define sex phenologically only and disregard your sex chromosomes. Don't then say you believe sex in binary when you're spouting otherwise.

As it stands XY and XX are defined as male and female biological sex. You haven't provided anything to disprove this, you seem set on policing people's language against calling those with XY chromosomes biologically male regardless of it being true.

I didn't say they weren't legally recognised as such, it doesn't change their biology though or they wouldn't need cross sex hormones to go through puberty which in the case of those with PAIS can be either male or female puberty. You're welcome to want to define sex phenologically, you won't police my language away from biological fact though.

Yes like @Teora you'll find titles and abstract paragraphs aren't how you read literature you do have to actually y'know, read it? Just because a nurse has titled an article XY females doesn't mean it's a biological fact that those with XY are female,.which the nurse goes on to explain when she has to actually define these people with multiple references to how they are chromosomally males

As it stands XY and XX are defined as male and female biological sex.

@melonsandlemonsandpears
Can you link to a reputable source for that definition in the case of DSDs please?

Read the whole article instead of the title and the abstract? I've even given you the words used so you can search. It seems like you have a very limited understanding of medical literature and scientific fact. Did the numerous literature written by gender ideologues not tip you off that just because you publish an article it doesn't make your opinion fact? And as you'll see when you bother to actually read what you linked, she can't describe these "females" without pointing out their male origins

There isn't one definition for those with DSDs and those without as you bloody know hence why you're asking for a definition of them for those with DSDs because you know they mean male and female. Do you agree that sex is binary? Because if you don't there's really no agreeing between us and if you believe it is binary - what is that binary and how is it defined?

@Melonsandlemonsandpears

Do you understand the difference between the y chromosome and the SRY gene and do you understand which of those makes you male

She does not say her patients are biological males.
Nobody is denying they have XY chromosomes, it’s literally in the title of the article.
Unlike you she does not define their sex by their chromosomes.

Yes. It doesn't mean they don't have male chromosomes and you're not going to change my stance on that. Is there a reason why people here want to coerce my speech for a random OPs feelings? Why is not enough for me to call her a woman? Why does she have to be biologically female? And what is the bloody definition of that anymore if it includes everyone?

It isn't the y chromosome that makes you male

And yet she uses the quotes I sent you, why? They're biologically female after all no ?

I’m a research scientist.
PhD in a related discipline.

@Teora why would she describe them as

"biologically XY individuals who are under -masculanised" ? Why would it be a condition for a biological female to be under masculanised? 🤔
This biologically XY or XY females is not different to be kind gender woo, a bunch of changing biological fact and reality to suit the feelings of a very small % of people and causing great confusion everywhere else. They literally would not have a medical condition were their biological sex and everything else aligned and they have the necessary legal frameworks in place for them, we don't need to also change all biological fact

It is very different.

This is a complete waste of time, isn’t it?

Nobody is denying the male chromosomes.

Acknowledging the role of the SRY gene is not "including everyone".

Of course it's different. For one thing, unlike a trans woman, I don't have a penis. Or are we just completely disregarding that?

Why does she have to be biologically female?

Because, if she isn't, she's not entitled to any sex-based human rights. Not as a male (because she's excluded under the heading of permitted perceptive discrimination), nor as a female (because she's not biologically female).

I forget which questions I put to whom, but...

Do you think XX de la Chapelle individuals should be barred from inheriting peerages that pass down the male line, in favour of XY CAIS individuals? Do you think XY Swyer Syndrome individuals are biologically male? You do know they can get pregnant, right?

We're just doing it for the lurkers really.

So you know better than to link an article you haven't read more of the title / abstract of then

The definition of biological sex doesn't have to revolve around a small % of those with DSDs. They're already LEGALLY categorised in a way that allows for your questions. They don't need to also be defined as biologically female. Are those who change their sex marker now biologically the other sex? No they aren't and yet their sex marker still gives them whatever legal rights.
I don't think those with swyers should be in women's sports for example, because there could be a biological advantage. I don't give a toss who can get pregnant either. You may want those with swyers in sports and we'll have to agree to disagree but you don't get to compel me to change my speech when what I'm saying is correct.

Were either you or @Teora going to answer why these females are under masculanised? Or are we gonna any other way these "XY females" are defined because we want it to be as simple as calling them XY females?

Cringe