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.

This is interesting:

"In the UK, all individuals born with DSD have a registered sex at birth, which is considered their biological sex. When a baby is born with an atypical genital appearance, further medical assessments are conducted. A multidisciplinary healthcare team, in consultation with the family, determines the appropriate sex assignment, which is legally recorded as the child's biological sex. Similarly, when a young woman is diagnosed with DSD, e.g. during puberty, comprehensive evaluations are performed to understand the atypical sex development pathway. Unless she, supported by her medical team, chooses to apply for a revision, her registered sex remains her biological sex.

It is uncommon for individuals with DSD to seek a revision of their sex registration and there are limited systematic data available on this matter. DSD-specific provisions for revising sex registration have already been established through the General Register Office (GRO) and require medical evidence. Our current understanding is that the revised sex registration reflects the individual's biological sex. We have contacted the GRO and the Office for Equality and Opportunity to confirm this and to obtain specific legal documents related to this process."

So presumably if a person with 5-ARD or any similar condition was registered female at birth then they are legally female and there's no legal basis for ousting them from women's spaces?

Well that's the prevailing objective fact on this forum, no? . OP very coincidentally set up this thread right after those insisting people with CAIS should be called male and man were talking about how those with CAIS don't want to be in this debate. According to the SC judgement, those with CAIS have been excluded from womanhood now and I suppose single sex spaces also.

Not true per what I've just posted above about their legally registered sex being considered their "biological sex". So objectively, the fact is that they are biologically women.

I’m afraid quite a few women on FWR - some on this thread, quite a few the other thread referred to seem to have been stuck in an oversimplified dogmatic view that XY == ‘male’ , without the proper consideration for SRY gene, functioning androgen receptors.
Its unhelpful all round.

Yes. I have no idea why anyone (except transactivists) have problems understanding and accepting this.

Hang on, spell it out for the hard of understanding like me.

CAIS is a male DSD, but people with CAIS are biologically female? Because their SRY gene doesn’t function?

I was content to say male for very specific purposes (medical, olympics) but pragmatically female.

Whatever the case, DSDs aren’t relevant to the trans/women’s rights discussion and I’m sorry it’s upsetting for those caught up against their will. Melons is clearly trying to force a ‘gotcha’ rather than engaging with the discussion.

Can you tune it out, knowing it isn’t aimed at you?

Not trying to force a gotcha at all, I'm asking what then did the SC mean when it said biological women of we're including people who are biologically male? Personally I'm of the opinion that it makes sense for those with CAIS to be biologically male but considered women, hence why I think the SC decision discriminates against them. I don't see how the argument goes that they are biologically female.

It is unhelpful though I note very few challenge it on this forum

It was uncommon for individuals to seek revision of their sex registration because we didn't have legislation barring them from using spaces associated with their appearance. I suspect many more will seek to change it now.

Asthe likes of Robert Winston and their own clinicians say they’re biologically women, and this tallies with what @girljulianhas posted re legal position, I’m not sure our opinions matter much. I really don’t think that there should be any issue for CAIS women as a result of the SC judgment.

Lmao a poster is immediately labelled a TRA of they state this regardless of if they're GC. It's the majority opinion of this board.

@DSDFury
I'm a biomedical scientist. The arrogance and scientific illiteracy of the general public still appals me. The main thing I've learned from FWR is that the sex distribution of the arrogance required to assume that a superficial trawl of the internet makes one qualified to comment on a 'technical'/scientific topic probably isn't as skewed as I previously thought.

@DSDFury did you start this thread coincidentally after there were multiple threads on the topic of DSDs here over the last week?

For those who are looking for a better understanding of the CAIS DSD, this is very well written (imo), and also gets properly into the “how
do people with this disorder get classified”:

theparadoxinstitute.org/read/the-case-of-cais-understanding-the-complexity-of-sex-reversal

That wasn’t my meaning. I can understand why transactivists have problems with this (or claim to). I don’t understand why other feminists get hung up on it.

How do they claim to have a problem with it? From what I've seen on here anyone who tries to have any sort of nuance definition of sex or gender, like for example that it's unnecessarily hurtful to insist on falling someone with CAIS male after being asked not to gets labelled a TRA and quite a lot of abuse tbh. I mean, you were on one of the recent threads about this and I note you didn't challenge anyone on this?

I've never been called a TRA or received abuse on this board for saying that someone with CAIS is female

Did you also miss the many threads on this topic last week then? Perhaps go back and share your opinion there

I have shared this opinion on many posts.

My understanding is that "The fundamental purpose of living organisms, from a scientific perspective, is survival and reproduction."

Perhaps that is incorrect - I do not claim to be an expert. Either way it's certainly not a value judgement.

Yes, I started it coincidentally, not because of or related to any other specific thread. I don't think I've even seen the one you keep referring to.

I don't need to read a thread about DSDs for this issue to come to mind, given that I have one myself.

Have you read the link posted by @TwoLoonsAndASprout ?

The Case of CAIS: Understanding the Complexity of Sex Reversal — Paradox Institute

This makes it quite clear that women with CAIS are female and would have been born with unambiguously female genitalia, so would have been registered as female at birth. No need to revise their sex registration.

Well it's come to your mind to post it on this forum, right after a multitude of threads on the topic, describing the forum as extremely knowledgeable on the subject so I'm curious what you've read about DSDs on here.

Because they don't have functioning androgen receptors. I don't understand why you would take chromosomes into account but ignore that critical fact, or, in other cases, the faulty SRY gene. It's still biology.

I'm sure there are analogous developmental processes where there is a chain of events and any link of the chain going wrong can result in a different outcome.

I wasn't talking specifically about those with CAIS as they are almost always assigned female but other DSDs especially those who find out later on. Those with PAIS can be assigned either female or male for example and about 10% don't agree with their assignment.