>>Incidentally, in "Biologically, it's a spectrum" the it's has to be referring to something other than the genes, likely something earlier in the text that you did not include in the quote>>

I worry about your powers of comprehension. I literally give the extract where that arises: it's the bit that says "Since the 1990s, researchers..." It points out that there's a wide range of variations in genes that have effects. That's what is a spectrum: the variations and effects. Not the sex.

>>Despite the fact that the article says "biologists continue to show that sex is a spectrum,">>

Again, your comprehension is lacking. The article says "Yet if biologists continue to show that sex is a spectrum" - emphasis added. And I then show tweets by the author of the piece who emphasises that she is not saying that sex is a spectrum. I think she would know her intentions in writing the piece better than you, to be honest.

I think one reading of the phrase "Yet if biologists continue to show that sex is a spectrum" would be "if biologists continue along this path that they are on, and come up with evidence at some point in the future that shows that sex is a spectrum, …" - in other words, allowing for a future revelation. I'll put good money on that revelation never happening.

It is a little puzzling why that line is in there at all, given Ainsworth's explicit rejection of it subsequently. It's almost as if the line got pushed in there by someone else during the editing process, but there's no way to know.

However your comment is a perfect example of motivated reasoning: an article has a phrase that you want to be true, so you ignore its context, and all the associated evidence around it, to insist that your (wrong) interpretation is correct, and that even the author of the phrase is wrong. Quite an accomplishment.