It is nothing short of breathtaking the way he accuses you of having "idiosyncratic and quite unscientific definitions for the sexes", while his definitions rest entirely on his own unique-to-him interpretation of a single word in the English language. Truly adorable!
Okay, what ***practical*** impact does this classification have? What's the actual for-realsies impact to them?
This is getting ridiculous.
There isn't an eye-rolling emoji big enough for this.
The weirdest thing about this is that Steersman is pretty strongly opposed to the radical trans rights activists... But they're also extremely and deeply invested in making around 40% of the population be magically transformed into "sexless" critters who are neither male nor female. They also seem pretty oblivious to the fact that they're stripping sex away from a much higher portion of females than males, given that menopause is an exclusively female phenomenon, and that females don't produce ova while pregnant. But hey - Steersman has very graciously allowed that females can continue to have a sex for a whole month at a time, even though we only mature and release ova over a period of a few days each cycle. Very beneficent of Steersman to grant us females that much.
Because not everyone with CAIS is in the closet about it, as I already mentioned upthread.
Title IX protects female leagues and spaces; CAIS individuals can no longer legally participate therein.
I did not say or imply they will cease to exist in reality, but rather in policy.
By George, I think you've got it!
Rather depressing that virtually no one else has.Are you trying to invalidate my existence!!11!!
drive.google.com
humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com
Don't think you -- and Myriad, and smartcooky and far too many others -- quite understand how categories work and what they are. They're just a recognition that many individuals have particular traits in common, and that, subsequently, those traits become the "necessary and sufficient conditions" that an individual MUST have to be counted as a referent of the category names. Like "male" and "female"; like "teenager"; like "bachelor":
Don't think you need to get your knickers in a twist, or get the idea that I'm "picking on women". I figure that, to a first approximation, there are about equal numbers of men and women who are infertile, who are sexless -- apparently about 16% of each:
Ima helper ... 
I don't feel any different, but for some reason I want to ask the following question.By George, I think you've got it!
Are you trying to invalidate my existence!!11!!
"He" works fine, entirely consistent with my real name that I have on something I submitted to Statistics Canada where I objected, rather strenuously, to their endorsement of gender woo:
Wiggins_StatisticsCanada_Final_Y210312A.pdf
Submission to Statistics Canada in response to their call for consultation on their Gender and Sexual Diversity Standards.
Link is also in one of my Substack posts on several other Statistics Departments -- Britain's and New Zealand's -- doing likewise:
Statistics Departments Corrupted by Gender Ideology
Lysenkoism and The Gangs Who Couldn't Shoot Straight
If that's not enough for you then you, in particular with your math qualifications, might take a look at a couple of my Demonstrations on the Mathematica platform; full names likewise front and center:
https://demonstrations.wolfram.com/BooleanAndGeneRegulatoryNetworks/
Don't think you -- and Myriad, and smartcooky and far too many others -- quite understand how categories work and what they are. They're just a recognition that many individuals have particular traits in common, and that, subsequently, those traits become the "necessary and sufficient conditions" that an individual MUST have to be counted as a referent of the category names. Like "male" and "female"; like "teenager"; like "bachelor":
Extensional and intensional definitions - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Don't think you need to get your knickers in a twist, or get the idea that I'm "picking on women". I figure that, to a first approximation, there are about equal numbers of men and women who are infertile, who are sexless -- apparently about 16% of each:
1 in 6 people globally affected by infertility: WHO
Large numbers of people are affected by infertility in their lifetime, according to a new report published today by WHO – showing the urgent need to increase access to affordable, high-quality fertility care for those in need.www.who.int
And one might reasonably argue that "vasectomees" are likewise sexless -- no "reproductive function", no sex; do not pass Go, do not collect $200. In addition to which, there are the prepubescent, likewise equal numbers of XXers and XYers who are sexless:
View attachment 59430
"any different" than you did before? Or any different from Emily who I had addressed that comment of mine to?
Good question, no easy answers, one that has been "hotly" debated for some time. You might have some interest in these answers on Quora, the first one by an American ex-policeman, and the second by a woman in New Zealand:
Thanks for all that. I think you mean, and I agree with this, that a drivers license should indicate sex as determined by most of those in this thread that are disagreeing with you, so a post-menopausal women is still a member of the female sex, not that having a drivers license indicate sex in that manner is an argument against your position, it's minimally just a pragmatic solution that is better than others."any different" than you did before? Or any different from Emily who I had addressed that comment of mine to?
Good question, no easy answers, one that has been "hotly" debated for some time. You might have some interest in these answers on Quora, the first one by an American ex-policeman, and the second by a woman in New Zealand:
I hadn't thought of the policeman's point of view before, but, as he suggested, what about a "fully intact" male with the UK's "Gender Recognition Certificate" and a driver's license that says "female"? Which prison cell should he be put into? Should he be frisked by a male policeman or a female one?
As for the New Zealand woman, I'm somewhat skeptical that NZ's driver's licenses don't specify sex, though maybe she recognizes or is working under the assumption that sex and gender are different kettles of fish.
But I kind of think the foregoing emphasizes Paul Griffiths' point that sex -- at least the strict biological definitions, or even the looser folk-biology ones of Colin Wright and Company -- are really not designed for the "social engineering" purposes that many are trying to press them into doing.
Not at all sure what the best solution is, though using "sex" is maybe past its "best before date", at least for those social engineering purposes. Maybe our driver's licenses should simply specify genitalia and gonads, throw in sex chromosomes for good measure. In the second case we could say "women's" sports are restricted to ovary-havers ...
You might have some interest in this paper that sort of addresses that issue:
What is your gender? | Practical Ethics
A friendly guide to the public debate about gender categories.blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk
Of maybe some incidental interest, I seem to recollect chatting with the author, Brian Earp, some years ago on Twitter and, in response to a question of mine, he had confirmed that he was somehow related to Wyatt Earp. Cleaning out Dodge City and Tombstone ...
Is it your genuine and honest opinion that some people with CAIS make a habit of going around and telling everyone they interact with about their medical condition?
Looks like that policy isn't actually related to DSDs in any fashion at all. It seems rather like a sneaky way to force transgender stuff into policy by pretending that DSDs are in some fashion related to transgender identity stuff.
Not gonna happen. I refuse to play the gender game altogether, and as a result of that nobody gets to have gendered pronouns from me. Everyone is "they". Consider yourself lucky I didn't opt for "it" as my default.
I end up laughing at the entrenched and unacknowledged sexism in it. The underlying premise is that education is for males... and males have graciously extended a hand out to let some females explore "co-educational" opportunities alongsided men, as sort of a gift.
And, pray tell, what might that definition consist of? The problem is that there generally isn't, at least until Trump's EOs, any sort of definition for the sexes codified into law. That's how the "judges" in the Tickle vs. Giggle and Renee Richards cases I probably mentioned earlier "concluded" that Tickle & Richards, with their neovaginas, had changed sex.
-- though it kind of puts CAIS people into the male category, and it is inconsistent with Trump's EOs. But it ain't the strict biological definitions that are sort of essential to biology. Methinks you're kind of begging the question: "an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion".
Your link gives a "page not found error" -- Musk's minions seem to have consigned it, and probably millions of other documents, to Davey Jone's locker. Fortunately, other sources still seem to have it:
Methinks you're being more Catholic than the Pope. Parsing a conversation or description becomes harder when the pronouns used are non-standard.
No skin off my nose -- maybe preferable as "it" at least is singular as opposed to "they" which is typically plural. Think I have my multiple personalities more or less in check, and in line. 
