My bad, I meant to say sex, I obviously know the difference I started this conversation with the difference, spare me the explanation if I mix them up again. The current consensus says no such thing, point me to a source.

even by the gametes definition there's at least 3 or 4

male, female, both, neither.

I never claimed that there are an infinite number of sexes. I claimed being intersex isn't necessarily a defect, and that that means there are at least 3 genders, 4 if you include not producing any gametes.

i agree that poll is insufficiently specific, however, even if 100% of that 58% agreed with you, that would still not meet the criteria for scientific consensus, which is typically in the 90's. Show me a poll that indicates those beliefs are agreed upon in the 90's without an intersex objection and you will prove me wrong!

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10563654/ this might interest you, if you bother to read it, I disagree that it has anything to do with a lack of evolutionary knowledge, in fact I find the people most ignorant of evolution strongly hold this belief regularly, but that is a mere anecdote. None of the roundtable had anything to do with that, those claims seem baseless and dataless.

Gender is appropriate for sociology. Biology doesn’t give a shit what you identify as. It has no place in a biology textbook. It’s not moving the field forward, it’s trying to push a worse and irrelevant definition.

As discussed, the intersex debate has pushed forward talks about biological precision in terminology, and ways to properly define such things. These are worthwhile discussions that are harming nobody.

Bully for you, but your opinion is irrelevant to the scientific consensus.

It is in fact not. You're confusing "determining" and "defining"

here's an article on the matter: https://www.theparadoxinstitute.com/read/defining-sex-vs-determining-sex

The author also wrote an article that is addressing your exact questions: https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/how-our-shoes-can-help-explain-the

I control f'd for intersex, didn't mention it, i expect he'd give an opinion that intersex doesn't count as a sex even if the produce both gametes baselessly, because this is a matter of opinion, like he did in the above article, making it a matter of his opinion, and having nothing to do with either scientific consensus or facts.

Again, this is not just some random opinion. This is is not equal to your opinion. This is a PhD in evolutionary biology writing about the scientific consensus.

You don't know who I am hahaha. My opinion that intersex individuals are a special exception is a common one amongst PHD's in biology, this particular guy just doesn't agree with that.

You’re free to disagree with the scientific consensus, but you should admit you’re no better than a creationist spouting off “god did it”.

This has nothing to do with scientific consensus, and everything to do with the opinion of ONE PHD.

here's a few PHD's who would likely disagree with him:

https://sites.brown.edu/publichealthjournal/2023/05/01/sex-binarism-and-the-intersex-pediatric-surgery-crisis/

https://search.worldcat.org/title/861528157

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b48/0e9ed3d69747f048cda5a6bfb992cb6897f3.pdf

It’s a defect because it’s a defect

Circular logic.

We all have them. We just have become sensitive to saying it’s a defect or deviance.

This has nothing to do with my claim.

Since most is them we’ll be sterile and possibly ostracized from society, I’d say it has a negative impact for many.

Defects specifically do not include social aspects, being ostracized does not make it medically a defect. Being sterile is also a defect, but just because you're intersex doesn't mean you're sterile.

They should also be allowed to decide their own medical treatment.

Almost none of your comment has anything to do with my claim.

It's only a defect if it negatively impacts the individual. In this case, if the person is perfectly healthy, there's a case to be made that it is simply variation, whether or not it is a defect is then a matter of opinion.

Yes, i'm left wondering... when does this ever come up? Are biologists complaining about this constantly in peoples minds?

You did not address any of my questions or points, you just re-affirmed your belief without engaging with what I said.

How do you define people who produce both gametes?

How do you define people who produce neither?

Scientifically, this means there are 4 options minimum, no?

If you're claiming the obgyn chart determines it... it does not. That is also a matter of opinion. There are countless cases where they cannot decide and just make a random decision.

Perhaps if we don't count someone who doesn't produce either as any sex at all, that at the very least leaves 3 options, although i'd count "neither" as an option. But that's my opinion.

Their sex is still male or female.

How do you define people who produce both gametes?

How do you define people who produce neither?

The fact is, there are people who don't fit neatly in one or the other.

I'll accept it if you concede and admit there are at least 4 options. Perhaps 4 options is not enough to count as a spectrum... but this is yet another opinion.

There's no definite way to classify intersex and non-sexed people that isn't simply a matter of opinion. This is a fact and won't change, ever. If you ignore these cases, sure, you're right, but these cases exist, so the topic is more nuanced than that.

Are you misreading the article?

I am not, he addresses this point by saying "this is not a sex", there being sexless humans implies a non-binary of sexes, this is just one way to look at it and a matter of opinion. He did not disprove my stance, he merely stated he dislikes it.

Nowhere is a single PhD cited that agrees with you.

I already gave this:

https://www.stateofunion.org/2024/03/07/poll-finds-majority-of-scientists-at-british-universities-agree-sex-is-binary/

You might think this source supports your claim, but notice "Specifically, 58% agreed sex is binary except in rare intersex cases, while 29% said it is not and 13% had no view. "

Plenty of PHD's agree with me, even the 58% agree with me.

Let's review, your claim is that sex is completely binary, my claim is that sex is not binary, because there are exceptions to males and females being the only option.

The article acknowledges that there are people where you cannot say if they are male or female, or they are sexless, therefore, my claim is validated by the article. Your claim is not.

Thank you for being aware of the sex binary. In incredibly rare cases (as in you can count them on the fingers of one hand), there may have been cases where humans produced both gametes, likely due to chimerism. But just as you say, it’s both gametes, because sex is binary. They’re producing both of the two binary options.

Yes, or none, which makes it not as simple as a binary. You've already admitted even if you disagree about it being a spectrum, that it isn't a binary. I disagree that the only way to determine the sex of an individual is gamete size, but even if you run with that definition, you end up with exceptions.

Besides the given example in the article and directly given to you already where an academic is trying to push for a bad definition of sex (in Scientific American, not just some random podunk journal), here’s one example[1]:

That link doesn't even resemble what I asked for, and that example in the article is people expressing legitimate desire to improve the definitions and move the field forward, this is not somebody injecting things for no reason, like you claim. Is discussing the topic not allowed in your eyes? Is literally any discussion or debate on the topic inappropriate?

Producing neither gamete is a silly point to bring up. Your sex is the size of the gametes you do or would produce. It’s also not a new sex to produce neither of the two gametes.

There are many cases where it is impossible to know which you would produce. This means it's not as simple as a binary, in these cases, the gamete option is not a viable way to determine sex.

It’s less accurate. You responded to me with “whoa what about intersex people”, because you were working off of a bad and unclear definition. If you had read the article, you would have known this. Reminder that the article is titled “Denying the Human Sex Binary Turns Biology into Nonsense”, written by a PhD in evolutionary biology. He’s addressing your exact points.

He failed to address them, none of my points make any of what i'm saying any harder to understand, nor do they cause any actual crisis. The article basically consists of "I don't like it when people do this, and it's easier for me to understand even though this doesn't cover edge cases too well" it's just an opinion piece, not a factual statement.

biology has plenty of these issues, where the answer seems obvious until you engage with enough literature and ask enough questions, for example, try defining a species for me!

It is an objective fact. I’ll link you to Wikipedia[1] because it’s easy, but feel free to cite anything that contradicts it: “The type of gamete an organism produces determines its sex”

Yes, that is a fact, as is the fact that sex is a spectrum because of intersex people. These are not incompatible facts.

You literally avoided reading the article, where a PhD in evolutionary biology explains exactly why you’re wrong.

Plenty of PhD's in evolutionary biology would agree with me, even in the article

"Sometimes, the complex machinery involved in reproduction can develop wrong, and people can suffer from infertility or exhibit reproductive traits that are atypical for their sex, including ambiguous genitalia (intersex conditions). However, as pointed out by others, these are not additional sexes because these body plans do not produce a new type of gamete besides sperm or eggs. Someone who does not produce any gametes would also not be a third sex since they would be fundamentally incapable of sexual reproduction."

They make the claim that this doesn't count as another sex, but even not being any sex would be a sex all on its own... resulting in it not being a simple binary. There's nuance here that is going over your head.

No sex is not a spectrum. It’s male or female.

This is a matter of opinion, not an objective fact.

No, intersex is not a third sex in the traditional sense of male or female. It’s an umbrella term for people born with sex characteristics that don’t fit typical definitions of male or female.

Yes, which is why it's a spectrum. They don't cleanly meet either, they are somewhere inbetween and where exactly they are cannot be cleanly defined. You can try to determine this by size of gametes, etc, but you'll find complicating factor and exceptions in any definition. Since there's no clean, clear way to define these things, it is in fact a spectrum.

for example:

https://www.stateofunion.org/2024/03/07/poll-finds-majority-of-scientists-at-british-universities-agree-sex-is-binary/

You might think this source supports your claim, but notice "Specifically, 58% agreed sex is binary except in rare intersex cases, while 29% said it is not and 13% had no view. "

Intersex individuals can have any gender identity and sexual orientation, and many identify as either male or female

So?

Go look at any biology book at the college level and you won’t find sex is a spectrum. That’s a fringe theory that ignores human biology.

So? They aren't talking about gender identity, this is a specific guide for a specific course, not representative of all positions by all experts in every field, textbooks are not masters of nuance, they explain things in simple terms to build mastery of a topic, just because a textbook author didn't want to get into the weeds of this doesn't mean it isn't a spectrum and there isn't complexity and nuance to the topic.

Talk to an expert with a PHD about this, ask them this specific question, you'll find a better answer than what the textbook says.

Intersex people aren’t a monolith. What size gametes each intersex person produces determines their sex. This is the biological definition and is not a spectrum.

they often produce both or neither...

It is binary and immutable. Gender activists are trying to shove gender into inappropriate places.

Give one example.

If it doesn’t matter, then it should be no big deal to drop all of the gender woo when speaking of sex, right?

It doesn't matter and it's a better, more accurate descriptor of the situation, so why would we drop it? That's like saying we should drop dwarf planets because it doesn't really matter and you prefer the old way.

There's a reason science and culture are evolving these terms, it's because the previous way of using them was simplistic and not as useful.

Academia has become gripped by a new religious dogma that must not be questioned. They’re trying to redefine the basic scientific terminology of sex in order to appease an unscientific political movement.

Nobody is doing this senselessly. This is a fantasy. Gender and sex are two different things, and sex is legitimately scientifically a spectrum, hermaphrodytes and intersex people actually exist...

There's no real problem here, just bigots being upset about things that legitimately don't matter. The world is complex and simplifying it so that you can understand it easier is not a logical way forward.

This is akin to being upset that Pluto isn’t a planet anymore—just because science updates its understanding with new evidence doesn’t mean it’s “catering” to anyone. It means it's doing its job. If your worldview crumbles because nature isn’t neat and binary, that’s your personal fragility, not a scientific crisis.

Gender is not a scientific concept, sex is. Gender is a cultural construct.

this entire thing is a strawman on your part. Nobody in the academic world is getting confused by this.

your worldview is so black and white.

yes, lynching can be fine in some niche circumstances, like this one.

killing can be acceptable depending on the reason. most lynchings are horrible and evil, but this is an obvious exception.

when keeping slaves was legal, if some slaves rose up to kill their master, would that be acceptable? I say obviously yes, you would say "well what they were doing is legal so this is a lynching and therefore immoral!"

was the american revolution immoral? They murdered a lot of people! If someone is depriving you of your human rights, such as healthcare, killing is justified.

so no, lynchings are not universally evil. Killing is not universally evil. There are some universally evil things, but some evil things can be justified. Killing is one of those, there is nuance, and every case must be looked at individually.

Was there even a shred of a doubt that he wasn't guilty of mass murder? Does anyone doubt that this person was in charge of this mass murder?

Is there even a 1% chance that he isn't guilty of mass murder?

Beyond all reasonable doubt happened, this is no less legitimate than state-sanctioned violence. Again, i'd prefer the courts handle this... but this type of mass murder is perfectly legal.

The only question is, does this count as murder? and the answer is obvious, he's killing people for more money, it should.

Lynching is bad, but there are exceptions for every rule, and this is an obvious exception. In this case, he killed to help save lives, so, there's nothing wrong with that.

but this man hardly was the sole reason his healthcare company chose this policy

He was proud of it and could've done anything to prevent it. This company leads in false denials over all others.

You are blaming an individual for institutional issues

An individual at the top of an institution that does it with literally no remorse.

If he was not willing to implement them he would be removed.

Then get removed and work in another industry.

But this is hardly relevant, this is, from a legal standpoint, murder, and thank God it is, since no sensible person would want to live in a society where someone can just murder anyone because of ideological convictions and political goals.

No, in a sensible society what he's doing would legally be murder, so, we wouldn't have to do anything like this in the first place.

But from a moral standpoint this is, of course, still murder.

Justified murder, an act of defense of others.

We denounce the use of the capital punishment on the most horrible criminals, but when a CEO is murdered on the street, without trial, suddenly death is perfectly fine as a punishment.

He's one of the worst possible criminals and deserved the death penalty. This country just doesn't believe that mass murder is wrong as long as you're making money off of it.

This is not “defense” of anything.

It's a rejection of the notion that these CEO's aren't mass-murderers. They are, vigilante justice had to happen because there was no justice happening elsewise. If the courts were planning on doing anything, planning on doing a trial against this obvious murderer, then you'd have a point.