>> let’s say that the traditional view of sex is correct. Even then there is variation in what is considered “male” and “female.” Occurring along a binary spectrum where “male” is anything from 0-0.5 and “female” is anything from 0.5-1 with the determining factor being gametes. This disregards instances, though rare, where ovotestes are entirely sterile. That’s reducing it purely to gametes while acknowledging that variation occurs. 0 and 0.5 with spermatogenesis are both “male” but they’re not the same type of “male.”>>
This is incoherent. There isn't "variation in what is considered 'male' and 'female'". There is *difficulty* in a very few cases (DSDs) in determining sex. There's no such thing as "a binary spectrum". You describe 0-0.5, but also 0-5-1. In case you hadn't noticed, those values overlap. "Maleness" or "femaleness" is determined by (organisation around) gametes, but by nothing else. That's all you need. Occam's Razor: don't let entities multiply unnecessarily. If organisation around gametes is all you need to define sex, that's enough. You can use other descriptions to build other ideas on top of that.
>>If sex is just gametes, male and female are outdated and archaic terms that aren’t very scientific at all.>>
No; they're still completely relevant, descriptive terms because we still reproduce sexually. Your biological mother and father were from the two different sexes, and this will continue to be true for countless generations. Science builds on top of existing knowledge.
>>Anyway, while informed, your arguments are still conservative, socially regressive (and harmful), and linguistically regressive.>>
I take "while informed" to mean correct. The fact that sex is built in to us is just a fact; it doesn't have a political relevance. There was a time when conservatives refused to accept the idea that humans had a common ancestor with apes, and blocked the teaching of evolution. Does that make evolution progressive, socially or otherwise? No, it just makes it science.
>>honestly, it’s hilarious how you’re popping into every comment to just fucking rage against every point of criticism. You take it all in bad faith, including failing to respond appropriately to critiques of logos such as obvious examples of circular reasoning in your article, and in almost all of your responses you’re all up in your feelings trying to misrepresent them as facts.>>
I feel it's helpful to respond to people's comments, since some have trouble understanding what many find quite basic elements about sex. You haven't pointed to any circular reasoning that I've seen. I have seen people who've confused sex and gender, or haven't followed their own logic to its conclusion. I'm confident in the science.
>>Considering the social impact of biological sex arguably doing the same, isn’t it reasonable to likewise reanalyse our conceptualisation of sex and possibly discard it or expand upon it?>>
Come up with an explanation for how humans and other mammals consistently reproduce through the combination of unalike gametes - one motile, one not - and you'll have your new theory of the science of sex. That's why it's called "sexual reproduction". Einstein's theory of relativity encompassed Newton's laws; it didn't wipe them away.
>>NEWSFLASH! Science isn’t static! >>
In case you didn't trouble to read it, the very first sentence of the article points this out, and then gives examples.
