You said they are males.

In my very first post on this thread I said:

Kai, when TRAs bring up DSDs/VSCs, I think it's best just to say that people with these very rare, distinct medical conditions have repeatedly asked that their often traumatic medical histories not be brought into the convo about transgenderism, coz DSDs have nothing to do with transgenderism.

In the next one that appears I said:

In answer to your questions about whether there's "a better word (or term) to call these people," I suggest calling them people. People with medical conditions known as disorders or differences of sex development (DSDs) that cause them to have variations in sex characteristics (VSCs) that are anomalous.

In another post I said:

Violet, sorry to be a nitpicker, but I don't think it's true that any individuals with testes - internal or not - can be said to have developed to support the type of gamete that is female, meaning ova. These are XY people who originally were supposed to develop to have the potential capacity to produce sperm at some point in life, but whose sex development went awry in utero. As a result, they ended up unable to produce gametes at all.

From a strict biological perspective, this is not the same as female - and it sort of debases the meaning and importance of the female sex to suggest that XY persons with DSDs who can't produce any gametes = female. Though for all practical intents and purposes in everyday, ordinary life, the vast majority of people with CAIS are considered female by others and they see themselves as such - which biologists and many/most "GC" feminists including me have no problem with.

Sexual reproduction is actually very varied, but it always involves the merging of a female gamete with a male gamete. And again, male and female gametes come from male or female gonads. I don't think that it's correct to say someone with male sex chromosomes and male gonads is biologically female. Socially, they can be viewed as girls and women, but not biologically. But this is something perhaps it's best to just agree we disagree on and leave it at that.

In response to some sweeping claims that Violet made that were - and still remain - unsubstantiated about persons with CAIS having anatomy that in utero developed to support ova; that they have "female hormonal reaction and levels, female body structure," female height, skeletons, bone density, hearts, lungs, athletic abilities and brains that make them "same as any female without DSD"; and that persons with CAIS therefore would be able to sustain a pregnancy to term if they got uterus transplants, I did say:

we were talking about the definition of biological sex - male and female - which in all plant and animals across the board is determined by whether a person, animal or plant has anatomy organized around the potential capacity to produce either ova or sperm at some point in life.

In humans and other species, gametes come from gonads, and female gonads are ovaries, male gametes are testes. The fact that someone has CAIS doesn't turn that person's testes into ovaries. Phenotypically, persons with CAIS appear female, and socially most are seen and treated as such. But from a strict biological point of view, they are male coz they have male gonads even though their male gonads can't make sperm.

All of which is considerably more nuanced, precise, thoughtful, respectful and well-researched than the simplistic statement - "they are male" - that you are claiming I said and are insinuating is the one and only thing I said.

Ugliness is in that people with rare conditions are dragged into discussion and dehumanized in absolutely and completely irrelevant discussion to our conditions. And none is even trying to help us or support youth with DSD.

How do you know what people on this sub and thread do on other forums and in our real lives offline? Do you have proof that none of us know, or have children or other relatives with DSDs and never have taught, treated or been helpful to adults or youth with DSDs? Have you examined all the banking transactions of the posters here to see to which persons and organizations we are in the habit of contributing money to?

Seriously, do you think organizations like SEICUS should be shut down? That people like Zach Elliott of the Paradox Institute is phobic and that his videos on DSDs reflect that no one "is even trying to help us or support youth with DSD"? That it's "ugly" and "phobic" "GC" feminists who got advocates like intersexfacts and Claire Graham mrkhvoice thrown off Twitter?