Conservatives

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