[CWuestefeld]

You appear to have forgotten the existence of differences in sexual development (DSD).

Not at all. You apparently have forgotten to read your own link. Nothing in that paper contains the slightest suggestion of non-biological entities having any sort of sexual development whatsoever. The fact that biological processes can be quirky has no bearing on whether non-biological entities can be thought of as having them at all.

Actually, I think you're just trying to make your own political point on top of what I already noted explicitly is not a politically-related comment.

[ZirconiumX]

> Being female or male is a fact about the biological world.

I was responding to this line, which I feel marginalises intersex people and could have been more inclusively worded.

I apologise if my comment somehow seemed to defend LLMs having a biological sex, despite me having said nothing to that effect.

[CWuestefeld]

I apologise if my comment somehow seemed to defend LLMs having a biological sex

No, it didn't seem like that at all. What it seemed to do was to try to turn a technical point into a political conversation, just like I said. And your reply has confirmed it.

I feel marginalises intersex people and could have been more inclusively worded.

Well, my entire statement about this was 212 characters long. The broadest estimates I can find are that 1-2% of the population have DSDs. So if we want true proportionality, I should have made, at most, 4 of those characters devoted to them. Which characters would you choose?

There's a thing in writing about focusing on the point you're trying to make, without weighing it down with baggage extraneous to the point. Failing to follow this makes one's writing tedious and difficult to follow. I prefer to keep my writing clear over tedious and difficult.