Variations in sex characteristics (VSC): experiences of life in the UK for people with VSC and those who care for them

[IwantToRetire]

Analysis of the responses to the government’s call for evidence (2019) - Published July 2026

https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/variations-in-sex-characteristics-call-for-evidence/outcome/variations-in-sex-characteristics-vsc-experiences-of-life-in-the-uk-for-people-with-vsc-and-those-who-care-for-them

Saw this a while ago, and thought given posts on previous threads, some might be interested.

Have only skim read and cant understand why it has taken 7 years to do an analysis. And do wonder if the call for evidence had been say a year ago whether responses would be different.

It looks like VSC is the new DSD - I wonder why they didn't use DSD which seems to be the accepted medical term?

This caught my eye:
There is no comprehensive estimate of the number of people with VSC in the UK. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights estimates that between 0.05% and 1.7% of infants will be born with varied sex characteristics (United Nations, 2015).

Does that figure of 1.7% look familiar? It's the number of 'intersex' births, according to Anne Fausto-Sterling in “How Sexually Dimorphic Are We? Review and Synthesis.” [2000].
She later rowed back on that figure, and came up with 1 in 100,000 instead.

The figure 1.7% had legs. To this very day it appears as 'proof' that human sex is not binary, and that 'being intersex' - which is rarely defined precisely - is 'as common as being red-haired'.

In fact, 'red hair' is a red flag in anything about sex and gender, because it indicates that the 1.7% figure has been taken on board, hook line and sinker.

So it's interesting to see it crop up as a legitimate upper figure here - quoted from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, not the WHO
the United Nations estimates that anywhere between 0.05% and 1.7% of the global population is born with what it terms ‘intersex traits’ (United Nations, p.1, 2015). The latter figure, suggested by Blackless and others (2000) is the most frequently cited. [my emphasis]

Yes, the latter figure of 1.7% from the year 2000 may well be the most frequently cited, but even Fausto-Sterling doesn't stand by it.

I haven't read it all yet. Please tell me it doesn't mention red hair!

It's a very small sample, isn't it?
Analysis is based on 2 groups of respondents:

• those who have variations in sex characteristics
• those who look after people who have variations in sex characteristics in a personal capacity, such as parents, legal guardians, or carers.

The rounded sample sizes are 120 and 80 respondents, respectively. This analysis should not be interpreted as representative of the population with VSC, or those who care for people with VSC, as a whole.

YAWN. 🥱

Why the yawn?

It's hot, it's been a long and exciting day, it must be near KrazyKatty's bedtime - that's the only possible explanation for yawning

Just another FWR poseur who thinks they are more sophisticated than the rest of us.

Lately there seems to be a cult within FWR of those who want to show they are above the herd.

Or of course they just dont understand the implications, and the Government doing a report like this (even if it took 7 years!) which I doubt matches the rapid and often distortion of how this condition can impact on individuals.

Let alone of course being hijacked by the rainbow umbrella.

More renaming, have they asked the people who have DSD conditions if they want to be renamed.

"While the Office for Equality and Opportunity has made every effort to ensure the information in this document is accurate, they do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of that information."

Oh that's alright then, so long as they're not talking through their arse, we can have confidence in this report.

On another thread, I mentioned TENI - Transgender Equality Network Ireland and their huge role in the passing of the GRA+self-ID in Ireland in 2015.

On their website I found reports with impressive titles like The Post-Primary Experience of Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth in Ireland, carried out very professionally with a university, all the bells and whistles about methodology etc.:
Data analysis
Data gathered during workshops and interviews were thematically analysed using qualitative data analysis software (Nvivo). Thematic analysis involved coding data categorically to identify major themes (e.g. experiences relating to ‘names and pronouns,’ ‘uniforms,’ ‘bathrooms,’ etc.). Data coded under each major theme were then systematically analysed in order to determine sub-themes of importance as well as identify points of convergence and divergence among research participants. This process of analysis was iterative and involved in-depth discussions among the research team and TENI staff in order to refine analysis.
content

Sounds impressive, doesn't it?

But there were only nineteen respondents.
And they were 'TGD', i.e. not all transgender:
Throughout this report, we use the phrase transgender and gender diverse (TGD) to describe young people (aged 15-24) whose gender identity is different from the gender they were assigned at birth and whose gender expression is different from the cultural norms associated with their birth gender.
[my emphasis]

Is that enough to support the weighty data analysis processes described?

Is there any useful general conclusion to be drawn from the report, except describing the experience of 19 young people, some but not all of whom may identify as trans?

Just as the VSC report has the warning:
they do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of that information."
I notice that the TENI/UL report is
Description:
non-peer-reviewed

I get the feeling - that's all it is, a feeling, please tell my if you think I'm wrong - that subjecting such small samples to such big analyses may be intended to give an air of respectability to opinions.

Cynical - moi?😏

These reports will probably be quoted for years to come, much like the 1.7% intersex people/redheads 'statistic' still pops up.

What is noticeable is that there are now fewer groups on line advocating for those with "VSC". I have a memory from some time ago that there were quite a few, with different analysis etc.. And some very opposed to being co-opted into the rainbow alliance.

And quite a few individuals posting about this co-option.

So far haven't found many, including one that is now all about being queer.

Any how one of the groups did post a comment in response to the Supreme Court Ruling in relation to DSD (their term). https://www.dsdfamilies.org/charity/latest-news/supremecourtruling2025

I bet that organisation was consulted before the unilateral decision was made to reframe them. The arrogance of those who think they have the right to rename things. 😤