>>But there most CERTAINLY are intersex people. People who’s genitals you might look at and not be exactly sure what you were seeing.>>

Thanks for demonstrating that there most CERTAINLY are people who don't read the article, but feel obliged to comment. I describe what definition of sex biologists use (and so I use); I describe what DSDs are, and why that's the description nowadays used rather than "intersex", which misleads people such as yourself into thinking they somehow straddle the biological sexes, whereas they may instead have ambiguous genitalia or other unusual characteristics.

Thanks for the anecdote about lesbians. I don't think it illustrates anything - it's not data in any meaningful sense - but it's nice to know that at least one tech company could be indifferent about sexuality and gender presentation and, one presumes, promote on merit.