[EnergyAmy]

You can't legislate reality away. If you're tracking biological sex, then it doesn't matter what a court decides. If you're tracking legal fictions then you might.

I look forward to your citation disputing the truth of what he lays out in that paper. In the meantime, feel free to peruse the list here of people affirming the same stance:

https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/

Or someone else:

https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is...

You should ask the people you run with why no human is born with a body not organized around the production of gametes. You'll notice that when you read about conditions like anorchia or ovarian agenesis, the sex of the person with that condition is not a mystery, it's literally in the name.

Biology is messy indeed, and that's why finding such a universal definition was so useful.

[defrost]

> You can't legislate reality away

So why are you trying to?

> I look forward to your citation disputing the truth of what he lays out in that paper.

Just look to his reputation in the field .. it's up there with Jo Nova on climate physics .. laughable.

> You should ask the people you run with why no human is born with a body not organized around the production of gametes.

So you're implicitly admitting that humans are born without gamates then? You've certainly dodged that question multiple times in your comment history.

You're also not admitting to yourself the existence of those humans born with conflicting organisation re: sexual reproduction - when the physical form, the chromosones, the gamates, et al don't align.

From an empirical PoV for people in field work here it's simply silly to claim that only two cases cover all variations - it's a mystery why any one would work so hard to force it.

[EnergyAmy]

The gamete-based definition of sex is merely a description of reality.

I continue to look forward to your citation disputing the truth of what he lays out in that paper, or the other links I provided that affirm the same stance. Ad hominems are boring, don't you have anything?

You unfortunately don't really understand the point here, but to reiterate, just because someone is born with nonfunctional/missing gonads doesn't mean their body isn't sexed. As an analogy, if someone is born without a hand, we don't just shrug and say that it could've been a fin, or antlers, or a firetruck. That's the point of saying that their body is organized around the production of one of exactly two gamete types.

There's no conflict, physical form and chromosomes are variations within a sex, which is entirely defined by gametes. Chromosomes are part of how sex is determined, but gametes are how sex is defined.

I look forward to your citations of these people doing field work that support your points.