That there can be differing viewpoints on this matter is demonstrative that sex as well as gender is a social construct: the categorization and distinguishing characteristics of sex are normative. It's deeply ironic that the people complaining about "gender ideology" are in fact its purveyors.
> Can't know what is a disorder is or not when you don't know whats "normal"
I hesitate to wade into this discussion, but in the case of the conditions listed in the article there are a number of additional symptoms and medical difficulties that go along with the genetic variants. It's not a simple matter of confusion about sex.
As for "normal": The biological systems involved are not functioning normally because a genetic mutation prevents them from doing so. For example, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome means the person's androgen receptors are dysfunctional, and therefore biological functions that rely on androgen receptor activation are not working.
I know the concept of "normal" and "disorder" can trigger people, but biologically speaking this condition arises due to rare genetic variants that stop biological functions from working as intended. The medical speak is not meant to cast social judgment on these people.
Are you actually confused by this? From a biological perspective it's pretty clear what "normal function" is expected. Sexual reproduction is a core goal of human organisms, so when the sex organs don't function, that is a disorder of the machinery.
> How do we know what the normal function is? How do we know how things are intended to work? (Intended by whom?)
Is this intentionally obtuse to prove a point? In the case of these conditions, a specific receptor in the body is not working properly. The receptor exists to bind to androgens and trigger downstream activity. In people with this condition, the receptor isn't properly activating in the presence of androgens. That receptor serves numerous functions in not only humans but across countless other species.
For an analogy, imagine you're trying to plug a device into an outlet in your country. Yet it doesn't fit. When you look at the prongs you discover it actually has 6 prongs pointing in random directions and can't possible fit into any standard outlet in your country. In fact, you can't even see how it would possibly work at all in any outlet anywhere because it doesn't make sense. It's safe to say that the connector isn't "normal". That's basically what's happening here. There's a clear and obvious version of what's typical, and it's likewise clear when a rare variant can't be observed to have some differences that can't possibly work. Meanwhile you can go anywhere else and observe typical plugs inserted into typical outlets and they're functioning typically.
There is a very clear "normal" in this case and it's easy to see how the receptors are supposed to work. Call it "typical" if that makes you feel better, but the medical community isn't using these terms for judgment or scorn.
There's a movement to pretend like we can't call anything "normal" lest we hurt someone's feelings. Yet most of these patients are discovered prior to the age of 10 (e.g. pre-puberty) because they seek treatment for various symptoms that they recognize as "not normal".
Genes are what define the instructions guiding biological development and so could be considered to be what defines the intention. With Morris syndrome, factors prevent the genetic instructions from guiding development as defined by the genes. With Morris syndrome, the lack of androgen receptors leads to the genetic sexual development, as guided by the genes, of a male to be suppressed. Swyer syndrome also commonly arises from spontaneous mutations (not being passed from parental genetic material) and can have malignant consequences. A large percentage of those with the condition develop gonadoblastoma.
I'm referring to how genes modulate development according to their set of instructions. The way that these genetic instructions are set to be executed can be considered their intention. I'm being liberal in my use of the word "intention" here, but I don't think your absurdist take on my wording was in good faith, so to speak, or constructive.
The state of the universe (including biological facts) has no intentions, i don't know what you are trying to say here or what else you would mean when you say "Intention". It sounds like the sayings of someone who believes in an higher order of things.
Obviously, our two options here (and pretty much always are) "don't use this word because it hurts feelings and reinforces stereotypes" or "let's all step back and try to decide/encourage the idea that it is actually useful enough to use"
Here, the latter seems appropriate? "Disorder" is "out of order," it is something that is rare. I suppose "rare condition" might work too, I'm open to suggestions.
