Q: How do we know that the people who want more than 2 options for sex are, in fact, these same 0.018% of the population who have DSDs?
In my limited experience, they are not the same people at all. Clair [https://differently-normal.com/author/clarecais/] has CAIS, and has "F" on her passport. Statistically, non-binary people have no DSD, and are unambiguously either M or F but wish to identify as something else. Therefore making an arguing for additional options in the passport sex field using an intersex stat is precisely what Clair complains about in her blog: ie, she's pulled into a fairly toxic social/political debate by a group that wants to use her condition for its own gains.
Clare is one data point of course, but her slant tallies with the assertion that "arguments made using this group and trying to apply it to society as a whole is likely not made in good faith".
> That's your belief of what others are trying to do and I believe you may be misrepresenting and casting as homogeneous these "others".
Correct, it is my belief of those using this group in arguments, but I do not believe a boogey man "others" as I think this group is disparate enough that over time it will eat itself. The problem with purity tests is that eventually everyone fails it.
Regarding my opinion that you cast doubt on - maybe we can prove me wrong right now. Do you believe a persons biologic sex is male, female, and medically-intersex-from-birth?
The key thing is that is lower bound as 0.18% comes from a fairly well accepted restrive definition of intersex, there's a larger pool of "commonly accepted as intersex".
So, we can at least agree that these people exist.
> I believe arguments made using this group and trying to apply it to society as a whole is likely not made in good faith.
That's your belief of what others are trying to do and I believe you may be misrepresenting and casting as homogeneous these "others".
Your in good comapny here, the author of the paper does the same in his initial paragraphs when casts "feminists" as a near monolith with a predominant belief. Clearly he hasn't gotten out much.
Fo my part I'm a pragmatic data science, mainly geophyics with a dash of consulting.
I take issue with livestock tracking software that cannot accept by design in breeding patterns - this is something that happens in reality.
I also take issue with older versions of religuos genealogy programs that cannot deal with cycles in a graph representation of a family "tree" - as abhorent as fathers having offsring with daughters may be it's a reality that must be dealt with in order to correctly document Pharohs, Royalty, and various families from the backwoods.
In the same manner it's just poor software practice to restrict fields for Sex: to a simplistic two value entry when clearly the real world is different to that imained or desired.