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.

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.

The incidence rate of anything doesn't make it outting (I mean you're alluding to being so feminine no would know you have a DSD plus it's not like there's some register of those with Swyers so this is a weird point!). Swyers in particular has been a relevant talking point given it's suspected Imane Khelif may have Swyers so no it's not a given that a particular DSD means everyone is in agreement that someone with Swyers belongs in women's sports or that they all look so feminine they should go unchallenged in single sex spaces. No need to reveal further info but I think your point that DSDs and the trans issue aren't connected still makes little sense and given you are lumping all DSDs in together is bizarre as only some are "dragged" into this debate and it's because they're relevant and you aren't even providing your opinion as someone with a DSD on their relevance in sports or spaces, your post is basically just saying you "pass" really well so none of it's an issue for you, which again clashes with whether we are basing SSS on how feminine someone looks.

Anyway you're fed up with DSDs being part of the discussion on trans issues so it makes total sense to start a discussion about them where we regularly discuss DSDs as part of the trans debate.

it's suspected Imane Khelif may have Swyers

See? This is always where the "but DSDs" people are going. Khelif does not have Swyers, he has 46 ARD XY. It's a male condition. He's a man with a masculinised body and male athletic advantage. He was incorrectly thought to be female at birth because this DSD leads to unusual external genitalia (they often don't look female but there's a tendency to assume that if it looks "wrong" then it's got to be a girl rather than a boy) and that's his misfortune. But he's a man, his DSD affects only men, men with this DSD don't belong in women's sports and once again for the peanut gallery, it doesn't have anything to do with being trans and it's not an argument for a dicks-out free-for-all among women and little girls.

Not surprised OP is sick of it, I have no DSD and I've had it up to here with this.

We don't actually know, hence the speculation.
Swyers is also considered a male DSD, as is CAIS, despite others being of the opinion those with CAIS are "biologically female" and we don't all agree with that. That's why they're discussed. You can't shut down all discussion because people don't agree with you and insist anyone who feels they need discussing on this issue when we are trying to define female for the purpose of women's spaces is arguing for a dicks out free for all in women's spaces. In fact, some could feel you're doing that by insisting everyone should agree that certain people with MALE chromosomes are female regardless of how they look.
Another one so fed up of talking about DSDs so why click on a thread about them? Unlese you're just fed up of people not automatically agreeing with you or fed up that you haven't formed an opinion omyet on DSDs youre uneducated about so just shut down discussion as a TRA talking point.

The incidence rate of anything doesn't make it outting

Of course it does. If someone I know in real life (who knows I have a DSD) reads this they're far more likely to wonder if it's me than if they read about a poster whose hobby is cycling and happen to know some cyclists.

And in fact that is precisely what has happened.

Another one so fed up of talking about DSDs so why click on a thread about them?

You seem to have a tendency of subtly misrepresenting people so it's not immediately obvious, just enough to wrong-foot someone and/or to make an argument. Like your claim that I said everyone on the forum was very knowledgeable about DSDs when I actually said people on the Feminism board were knowledgeable about trans issues.

The poster you're referring to said they were fed up of DSDs being used in the trans debate, not that she was fed up talking about them. Not the same thing.

...a person with a missing bit of the Y gene is still fundamentally male.

Are they? If it's precisely that "missing bit" that is responsible for making a foetus male? For forming the Wolffian duct and the subsequent stages of development. I don't really understand the logic there.

What exactly is being outed if they knew you have a DSD? And wonder what about? That you're fed up of DSDs being discussed? Still not making any sense tbh

And as I said before, this issue comes up when there are people with MALE DSDs also claiming to be defined as female biological sex because of their phenotype while having to use HRT to induce that. It would be one thing if you thought these were totally separate issues and thought your chromosomes made you male but you're a woman, but when you also want to spin it that DSDs that only affects male chromosomes are biologically female you surely must understand how it's messy and gets discussed?

You know perfectly well that being "outed" means someone recognising a poster as someone they know in real life.

If your anonymous username has outed you beyond the point of deniability to someone who already knows the very scant information you've shared in your post I still fail to understand the issue. You're not the only person in their mid 50s either.

If nothing is outing on an anonymous forum, why don't you just post lots of personal information about yourself? Anything will do, your personal medical information, where you work, where your children go to school, that sort of thing? (Obviously I'm not expecting you to actually do this, just trying to explain to you more clearly how ridiculous your demands of the OP are.)

By the way, (and this time I would like a reply), you didn't reply to my question when I asked you if you identify as trans. So do you? Or do you have a close family member who does? Such as a child, sibling or spouse?

sometimes threads remind me of that Monty Python sketch about people who just want to have an argument. I’ve had some of my posts not very subtly misrepresented too. Not always worth engaging further beyond that point, let them have the dubious pleasure of ‘the last word’. At this stage I’ve lost track of what point some posters are really trying to make anyway!

Well as if to prove my point, that has nothing to do with what I was saying in the post you quoted.

But regarding your post, HRT induces secondary sex characteristics, it doesn't induce a uterus or a vagina.

I don't really want to continuing arguing in ever decreasing circles. As has already been said: 1) phenotype is also biology and 2) a Y chromosome does not equal male if the SRY gene or androgen receptors are faulty. That's my understanding/opinion, and also appears to be the opinion of people who know a lot more than I do.

If I mix flour, water and yeast in a bowl I've got the ingredients for a loaf of bread, but if the yeast isn't activated I get an entirely different result. It's still there, but it may as well not be.

Yes.
if someone has problems understanding that, the fault lies with them.

Not everyone with a DSD being argued as biologically female has a uterus and a vagina. Those with CAIS don't have a uterus for example and their vagina is a blind pouch, requiring dialators. Would all those who have a DSD that requires HRT to induce puberty have an outwardly female phenotype without it? Probably not.

We all have different opinions on it hence it being discussed. You can't just say no one should discuss DSDs and accept your opinion that those with XY chromosomes should be called biologically female just because you consider yourself one and we can't comment our opinion because you don't want to disclose your particular DSD (fine!)

I think you're just being deliberately obtuse now. Generally the reason people don't want to be outed is because they may say things and share views on MN that they wouldn't say in real life, or they don't want to be linked with other threads.

That isn't the case here, as it happens, and I have had similar discussions in person with the friend who recognised me, but mathematically if you refer to something unusual on MN there's a greater chance of being recognised/outed.

If you try to deny either of the above points it will be obvious you're just being provocative for the sake of it.

Because I'm not starting thread topic about myself? And again it's not asking for a bunch of info from OP it's asking her particularly DSD given she thinks she is biologically female with XY chromosomes. She doesn't want to share, fine, but otherwise was the OP just to tell people to stop discussing their opinions on DSDs but also accept that those with XY chromosomes are biologically female.

By the way, (and this time I would like a reply), you didn't reply to my question when I asked you if you identify as trans. So do you? Or do you have a close family member who does? Such as a child, sibling or spouse

I must have completely missed this as I only saw you ask my sex and if I have a DSD. And nope I'm not trans, and I've never met a trans person if I'm honest. I'm female (biologically although apparently that doesn't have a defined meaning anymore but what I mean by it is XX ..)

You seem to have a tendency of subtly misrepresenting people so it's not immediately obvious,

Nothing subtle about it, just straight up misrepresentation and dishonesty to a very clear agenda. They always think they're being clever and they never are. The entire argument is based on misrepresentation, obfuscation and dishonesty so there is nowhere else to go.

Your baking analogy is very good, clear, accurate and easy to understand. Don't be surprised by the response it'll get.

@DSDFury @ThatCyanCat I get the analogy but are you saying there is absolutely no difference between those with DSDs you want to class as biological females and those without a DSD that are biological female? There's nothing different in their physiology, life experiences, needs etc? There's absolutely no reason for them to be defined differently at all?

You can say the yeast isn't doing a thing in that analogy, but it doesn't mean it's irrelevant to the definition of what kind of bread it is.

Ok, a vulva then. HRT doesn't create those either as far as I'm aware.

I didn't say DSDs should not be discussed. Again with the misrepresentation. I said I didn't want them used as proof that sex is a spectrum, I didn't want them represented as an identity and for that reason I don't want to be part of LGBTQ+.

If a particular DSD gives someone with a female phenotype (and probably therefore a female identity) a sporting advantage I completely agree that that would need careful consideration. But a Y chromosome in and of itself does not.

So even more so you've been "outed" to someone who already knew you have a DSD AND your opinions shared in this post. I think you're actually the one who doesn't know what outed means. Being recognised isn'y being outed given you don't have any issue with this person recognising you.
Anyway we're you going to answer the question about the purpose of your post given you don't want to share your opinions on individual DSDs, is it just to say we shouldn't discuss them and that people with XY can be female? If so, I've already said I disagree with you there but if you don't want to discuss particular DSDs (again not your own if you don't wish) I'm not sure what the point of the thread is or what there is left to discuss if you don't want tpeopke to have or share an opinion that differs from your very vague OP

It reminds me of when I briefly dated a narcissist. I am not a habitual liar so tend to take people at face value. Dating a narcissist/liar - for me, at least, as I'm either naive, too trusting or just a bit slow - is rather like being the proverbial frog in increasingly hot water until I eventually realise what's going on. Fortunately I do at least have the sense to jump out of the pot at that point.

Thank you - I was quite pleased with that analogy. <preens>

That wasn't my question, because we aren't talking about vulvas either because no one can see that just as they can't see your uterus. Would those with DSDs have a female phenotype i.e. their female shape without HRT? Are we to still call them female if they don't look "feminine" ? Do you think you're exactly the same as XX females in all ways?

I think you're the one arguing sex is a spectrum by stating those with male sex can be biologically female. Why are you against defining anyone with XY chromosomes as male sex and why are you against being a desperate identity to biological XX females?

No, I'm not saying there is absolutely no difference. One of my primary objections to "TWAW" is the philosophical/logical nonsense of saying that men are women so it would be hypocritical of me to argue this.

Where it is relevant, I am happy to classify myself as "a woman with a DSD", or even (reluctantly) as "a woman with a male DSD". My main objection in terms of clarification is where everything other than chromosomes is ignored, when this only makes sense in cases where everything works as intended (granted that is in the overwhelming majority of cases).

There are obviously significantly different physiological differences and (perhaps less obvious) differences in needs (medical, including possibly psychological) and life experiences. Regarding the latter, with my variation life experiences during adolescence particularly can be very different.

Analogy

To extend my analogy, let's equate the male/female sex binary to leavened (risen) and unleavened (unrisen) bread. If I do not activate my yeast, I still end up with unleavened bread, despite the presence of the yeast. The resulting loaf might have a slightly different flavour I guess, and either type of bread could use white or wholemeal flour and have added seeds or what have you, so all leavened bread is not identical and neither is all unleavened bread.

I don't know whether it would be acceptable for a Jewish person to eat bread containing non-activated yeast during Passover, but for goodness' sake let's not get into that...

Where it is relevant, I am happy to classify myself as "a woman with a DSD", or even (reluctantly) as "a woman with a male DSD". My main objection in terms of clarification is where everything other than chromosomes is ignored, when this only makes sense in cases where everything works as intended (granted that is in the overwhelming majority of cases).

And this is where we are disagreeing because I don't think chromosomes only matter when everything works "as intended" (although I still disagree with this wording) I'm trying to understand the reluctance behind association XY with the male sex and then saying you don't believe sex is a spectrum when you're defining it as such and that how someone identifies and the hormonal treatment they've taken to induce a female phentotype overides everything to the point they should be defined as "biologically" female and this is why you'll be dragged into the debate.