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.

Thank you very much for starting this thread @DSDFury. It's certainly given me a lot to think about.

I am fairly GC but also scientifically illiterate, so probably have been guilty of the XX/XY oversimplification before. I have tried to educate myself a bit - my understanding is that it's thought that DSDs are present in something like 0.02% of the population (anyone know if that's right?).

Well when you are prescriptive with science and the purpose of the gametes rather than the function that's the end result of that way of thinking i.e. that those with CAIS are and always have been male, regardless of whether they can function reproductively as male. That's why I thought it off you were using such language.

Ok, so I'm homophobic and a liar. And a man. Is that what you're trying to prove?

I've read a mixture of things both well-informed and uninformed, both respectful and insulting. Exactly what you'd expect on a forum with thousands of users.

That's quite a leap - not sure why warning you that the language and train of thought you were using is unscientific and (surely obviously) suggests there is something wrong with homosexuals doesn't mean I was calling you homophobic, it means I'm alerting you that you're using the same logic homophobes use but unknowingly.

As for calling you a man that's the majority of the knowledgeable people on here. I'm curious that you've read a lot here and are agitated solely at one side of the debate but not those who proudly insist they would call you a man to your face, think you should use male spaces, male prisons, play on male sport teams etc given the latter is overwhelmingly more represented on here.

Also @DSDFury have you actually specified which DSD you have because I note you said you have a womb and a vagina, so why is this thread so focused on CAIS? You surely don't have CAIS

It is interesting that the SC defined women as "biological women" but not the set of people with 46XX and 45XO. Of course, this opens up a path for people like Upton, and some trolls on X, to say they are biological women because after all they are not robots or minerals. Sigh. And they did not mention assigned or observed at birth.

But I think the SC has been quite subtle and correct in leaving it as "biological". This allows medic al teams to be involved, if needed, in opining about the very very small proportion of individuals where one may have to look at the whole picture: their genes, embryological development and medical history - all biological factors.

There is some controversy about the statistics, but I believe that is broadly correct, yes.

@DSDFury the relevancy to those with DSDs and the trans debate really depends on their DSD. You've been extremely vague, why aren't you sharing which DSD you have? You've been commenting a lot on the responses regarding CAIS, do you have swyers?

Christ Almighty, @melonsandlemonsandpears, wind your bloody neck in. It is absolutely none of your business. OP has shared what she wants to share and your prurience is absolutely vile.

This forum regularly speculates about people's DSDs without their consent. I'm asking OP what hers is as she has started a thread "furious" and is indulging a lot in conversation about CAIS which isn't relevant to her. What DSD is relevant to how connected to the trans debate it is. She's welcome to not disclose it but I'm therefore assuming OP doesn't necessarily have one. It's certainly not CAIS anyway.

Also a discussion about someone's biological sex is not prurience. I have no interest in OPs bits, I have an interest in the conveniently timed thread and OP going down a CAIS rabbit hole or posters assuring her she is a biological female when she either doesn't have CAIS or very badly researched it before starting this thread.

What's your interest in this? Do you have a DSD? Do you identify as trans?

The OP started a thread about DSDs in general. She declared that she has a DSD. If that's as much as she wants to share, she shouldn't be pushed to say any more. We can discuss any DSDs without knowing her exact medical history.

And given that the madder end of the blue hair brigade have magnanimously spread their deranged umbrella over ALL people with DSDs, why on earth is one more relevant than another to "the trans debate" (which isn't a debate, IMO).

Why do you have such an interest in another anonymous poster's personal and private medical information?

We can have a discussion about the topic of the thread without having to know the sex or medical history of any other posters.

She's on an anonymous forum, declaring her DSD is in no way outting. As I said before, the relevance to getting dragged into the trans debate really depends on the DSD and it's a bizarre choice to not share what it is, unless she's still deciding.

I'm also posting on an anonymous forum. I don't wish to share any of my personal medical information despite being anonymous on here, so I wouldn't expect anyone else to do so unless they chose to (freely, without being goaded by people like you).

Again, declaring their DSD is not disclosing their private medical history. It's an anonymous forum, declaring if she has swyers or another isn't outting at all, what it does do in clarify how relevant to the trans debate her DSD has been. For example turners is rarely discussed as it doesn't tend to clash with women's rights or spaces like women's sports whereas others have been part of some pretty heated debates..we regularly discuss DSDs on this board, Often about those not consenting to be discussed. OP wants to start a thread about how she is a biological woman despite her DSD, it's kinda relevant what DSD it is.

Would you start a thread about how you're furious at people discussing your medical condition without disclosing which condition you're referring to though?

With a womb, a vagina, no testes and puberty once she was diagnosed, I assumed OP had Swyer's syndrome. It is the only DSD I am aware of that fits that description, although perhaps there are others that I've forgotten. And people with Swyer's syndrome are female. I wasn't going to press OP on it and I'm still not going to.

I might have made the wrong assumption but if I was right, OP is definitely female. It doesn't really make a difference to her point. Even if she is actually male and misleading us, it doesn't matter. DSDs are totally irrelevant to transgenderism, where you literally have to know which sex you are because you feel that you want to be the other one. They are simply appropriated and exploited by bad actors who want us to think that the existence of variations of sexual development mean a man should be able to get his knob out in the ladies' if he wants to and women shouldn't be allowed to object.

It really doesn't matter what DSD she has. TRAs have dragged DSDs (or 'intersex') into their movement without asking if those people want to be there. They haven't said they only include certain DSDs under 'intersex', so it's really irrelevant what DSD the OP has as the trans movement has dragged them all under their umbrella. We can discuss any of them in this thread.

Demanding that other posters disclose personal information in a public forum is unacceptable.

It's not so simple with women's sports though which understandably gets muddled into the same discussions of the trans debate, which is why I was asking which DSD OP has as some are more relevant than others

I asked, not demanded and I'm allowed to draw my own conclusion based ont the info provided if they don't clarify. Do you think those with swyers syndrome should be playing in female sports ? Do you think no one should discuss athletes with swyers?

My understanding (happy to be corrected) is that there's no male sporting advantage with Swyer's, as these people have no male parts, nor with CAIS as their bodies do not masculinise since they don't respond to androgens.

I also don't agree with all intersex people / those with DSDs being lumped in with trans people. There is however an overlap in those that aren't as clear cut as I mentioned earlier those with PAIS who can then grow up on disagreement internally at what they were assigned at birth. It's not as simple as DSDs and trans being separate or the same, it's messy and depends greatly on the DSD how much overlap there is on the issues which is why you'd think OP would have said...