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've yet to see anyone arguing the toss on DSDs who didn't seem to be going in that direction, including the other poster in this discussion.

Except I haven't gone in that direction? Insistence that DSDs are irrelevant usually comes from the direction to completely shut down discussion on the topic because it's more complicated than you want it to be. Stating the very real fact that sex is complicated and DSDs are real and have real life consequences when you try to legislate everything to be simple doesn't mean that men should be able to identify into single sex spaces. You clearly think that because you get into arguments with TRAs on the subject and therefore have decided that sex being complicated is a TRA talking point therefore you must not agree with it. Again, it's not necessarily a small number of people that this issue will rub up against. It's a very odd stance to take that because a number of people are small (based presumably on you assuming that?) means they can be completely disregarded while we legislate things that impact them. It's also not okay for you to take that stance because otherwise you have to think a bit more outside the box to argue against a TRA so you'd rather just deny the existence of people. You don't have to go the other end of the argument to saying sex is unreal just because it's more complicated than you want it to be.

See?

See that you want to close your ears to points beyond your understanding? Yep. You act like your post was only regarding very rare DSDs while ignoring that this forum isn't even in consensus on those with CAIS being classed as female while you state they're biologically female as an undisputed fact.

Thanks for proving my point that if you argue DSDs are complicated you'll eventually be called a TRA though. And yet you call those with CAIS female which would make you a TRA according to many posters.

@melonsandlemonsandpears you sound really angry. You are coming at this with a very specific grievance, about conversations happening on a different thread, and tying this conversation and these posters in to it.

That doesn’t work- it feels like walking in to someone’s rant, and not knowing what’s upset them. I accused you earlier of trying to force a gotcha, and nothing’s changed. You want us to admit that MN can be inconsistent when talking about DSDs. It probably can, because you don’t get the same people talking about the same DsD in the same circumstances, so opinions will vary. It’s not a big deal.

If I were OP I wouldn’t engage with you either.

DSDs are relevant for sports, Trans is relevant for sports. DSD is rarely relevant for trans.

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow! You cataracts and hurricanoes, spout.

What is the mix then if you don't mind. I watched a video of young totally pretty young lady who has female organs but no womb. Had undeveloped Penis and testicles and the doctors got rid of those when she was newborn, not sure did the parents consented. The lady thought if she had testicle, at least she could produce a baby with obviously another woman

I'm not angry this is just how I speak. Only here can you be called rude and insensitive for calling someone with CAIS he, and then a TRA or a gotcha catcher purely because I'm querying why OP and PP are saying DSDs are completely irrelevant to these discussions when clearly they are if someone of us think the same DSDs makes people categorically male and some categorically female. I also haven't come here with a very specific grievance but I will absolutely reference threads of PP are going to pull the whole "I've never seen X" when it happens on threads they've partaken in.

(Also given how I haven't made any personal attacks, your accusations of anger comes across a bit "you're getting all hysterical! Calm down missus")

It probably can, because you don’t get the same people talking about the same DsD in the same circumstances, so opinions will vary. It’s not a big deal.

Agreed yet apparently it makes someone rude angry, a TRA, inappropriate for asking OP to say what DSD shouldn't get "dragged in" to the debate which is a pretty pointless talking point given it really depends on the DSD. Why the insistence of an agenda and strawmans? OP apparently wanted to talk about DSDs until it was time to be specific.

Edited to add - before the personal medical info accusations again, OP could have shared which DSDs she feels are irrelevant to the debate or clarify if she thinks not a single one is relevant. The latter is clearly wrong though.

And yet you call those with CAIS female which would make you a TRA according to many posters.

@melonsandlemonsandpears
I know this comment was directed at another poster, but I really must read this other thread, though it seems perhaps that a little knowledge has been a dangerous thing?

Mostly people with CAIS are seen as female, although it also depends on how the person with the condition self-identifies. But that seems to be female for the most part to match the outward phenotypic appearance.

I believe there is some sporting advantage. With DSDs and sport I think they should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Theres been a few lately. I'm conflicted because I agree with the logic of classing them as female especially because for most people with CAIS that's what they've grown up with and identify with as per the OP but for the purposes of sport there must be some male advantage or they wouldn't be overrepresented so stating either way that they're blanket male or female isn't really helpful especially when it goes unchallenged either way and repeated as an accepted fact.

You can’t believe everything you read…especially not on SM ☺️

How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is,
To have to keep having the same old thankless non arguments dredged up more often than Jason Voorhees.

I'm not even reading them at this point. I'm bored of all of them, same stuff over and over and over. I might make use of them if my insomnia returns.

Quotes from @melonsandlemonsandpears in bold below.

"OP apparently wanted to talk about DSDs until it was time to be specific."

No, I wanted to talk about DSDs until you joined the thread and changed the entire tone of it. I am not prepared to be bullied into revealing any further information.

"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."

The incidence of Swyers is c.1:80,000, so it's potentially an awful lot more outing than stating your DH's hobby is cycling.

"I mirrored OPs strange language given she made a lot of posts agreeing that those with CAIS are female while her OP is annoyed at those with DSDs being dragged into the trans discussion by TRAs and that this forum is very knowledgeable about DSDs..."

I did not say that "this forum is very knowledgeable about DSDs," I said, "I've read a mixture of things both well-informed and uninformed, both respectful and insulting."

Granted I did say that, "People on the Feminism board seem to be extremely knowledgeable" but I was referring to people's grasp of trans issues in general rather than DSDs specifically.

"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."

I have only referenced CAIS in five or six of my 30 posts, and those comments were all in direct response to other posters. I did not refer to CAIS until other posters started to.

Thank you to the majority of posters who have been supportive and respectful.

For whatever it's worth, I believe OP. I can't be sure, it's the Internet and we get a lot of trolls here, but personally I think she's genuine and I don't care that she's not sharing full details.

Some time ago, on one of those "men should be able to get their knobs out in the ladies' and steal women's sports opportunities because DSDs" pile of shit threads, a new name suddenly appeared, claiming to be "intersex", have no gender identity, be neither male nor female and, in this capacity, be completely supportive of men getting their knobs out blah blah blah. I didn't ask this person for their DSD but I did say that they had obviously been misled and if they were to tell us which DSD they had, we could tell them if they were male or female. They accused me of stalking them, trying to get their private information, being obsessed with their genitals and you know the drill.

Obviously, this person had no DSD and was full of shit. But although OP also doesn't wish to share information, I do believe her. Even if I'm wrong to do so, her point stands.

Thank you. There's no way of proving it even if I did disclose more information, short of possibly posting a copy of my medical records which I'm not minded to do.

I certainly wouldn't have dreamt up this scenario (of DSDs being used to argue that men can claim to be women) in a million years.

For whatever it's worth, I believe OP. I can't be sure, it's the Internet and we get a lot of trolls here, but personally I think she's genuine and I don't care that she's not sharing full details.

I believe OP too.

My earlier comment regarding not believing everything you read on social media was referencing posters on MN who can be insistent yet uninformed, or at least not fully aware of how complex biology is. It sounded like there was some misinformation on the other thread, though I must admit I haven’t read it yet! But just going on what pp was saying.

Sorry if it sounded like I didn’t believe you OP…I do.

Thanks.

To be honest I think it's actually fairly obvious which variation I have from everything I've said.

It might be obvious to people who know a lot, for whatever reason.

Most of us don’t. We have a better than average working knowledge round here, because of the trans hijack, but few of us would be experts.

Personally I never assume anyone else is wrong or lying, more that there’s a misunderstanding somewhere along the line. I ask a few more questions and try and find a way through.

Admitting sex can be more complicated for a very few people, doesn’t create a wedge for adult men to barge their way into female spaces. The unicorns highlight the mundane reality of horses, rather than suggesting horses can also fly!

Gravity is more complicated than "things fall down", but it's not so complicated that they don't.

People don’t seem to have such strong, conflicting opinions on gravity 😁

Why do you think the legal issue has anything to do with the biological issue? I suspect it's a pragmatic approach, in the same way that if you find out the father named on your birth certificate isn't your biological father, nothing changes legally unless someone takes steps to have that done. Your genetic test is still going to show you are unrelated though.

I'm not at all convinced by the "phenotypically female" argument, either, given that there is no uterus or ovaries, and the vagina is a blind canal, all of which can be ascertained by touch or visually.

Besides, you can't understand the medical history of the disorder from that perspective, it's completely incoherent.

Why it's being characterised as unkind to say such a thing is completely bizarre, there is really nothing wrong with having a male DSD, any more than any other genetic disorder. The push to soft soap it is very strange.

And this business about Down's syndrome - it's completely backwards. In the same way that a person with Down's is still 100% a human being, despite having an atypical number of chromosomes due to a cell division error, a person with a missing bit of the Y gene is still fundamentally male.

In day to day life of course they live and function as women, but that's a decision made by society to best fit an unusual situation. It works for the people affected but also doesn't have any real harms to others, so it makes sense as a pragmatic approach.

Are you saying that those with dsds like Sewyer's or CAIS, have bodies formed around producing female gametes? I'm not sure how you would conclude that.

As a few people have pointed out, there is some reason to think there can be a sporting advantage in some of these instances, although it's not well understood.

I'm not at all convinced by the "phenotypically female" argument, either, given that there is no uterus or ovaries, and the vagina is a blind canal, all of which can be ascertained by touch or visually.

Unless you’re the person themselves, only if you’re a gynaecologist or possibly an intimate partner…or if you have x-ray vision @TempestTost??

The analogy with Down syndrome doesn’t work. Of course people with this syndrome or any other trisomy are human. There aren’t two forms, there is no binary here.

There are two sexes however, and chromosomes are just one of the things that needs to be looked at in cases of DSD. This is not controversial among medical experts as far as I am aware.

I don’t know that ‘a person with a missing bit of a Y chromosome is still fundamentally male’. Depends on the missing bit, doesn’t it? (This is not what happens in CAIS anyway. It’s caused by a mutation on the X chromosome usually, one that affects signalling from Y and thus development.)

Some of this is just about semantics. Is ‘chromosomally male’ always the same as ‘male’ in the context of DSDs? Even if critical signalling from Y is non-functional? Personally, I would think not.

CAIS is a 46,XY DSD. You can call that a male DSD if you want, but it’s mostly women living with this condition.

People don’t seem to have such strong, conflicting opinions on gravity

Of course not, there's no way to exploit it as a scientifically illiterate way of arguing that men should be able to get their knobs out in the ladies' and smash women's heads in in boxing rings and take their medals, but I'm sure the TRAs are working on it. Principle is the same, though.

I didn't get how physically the disorder represents, do you have a Penis and vagina or just missing womb

They used the example of defining life and death in the SP tribunal. Death can be confirmed using somatic, circulatory and neurological criteria.

However, that does not mean that death is a nebulous concept and I can apply for my granny's pension on behalf of her ghost.