>>The article itself says when people "change sex" they do so "without belief that “transitioning” leads to a change in the type of gamete produced">>

So in fact they don't change sex according to the biological definition (objective reality), just the legal one (human-made reality). Good to have that cleared up, but you didn't really need to write this article for that.

>>Your definition example is a textbook produced for a class in Minnesota, not a peer-reviewed piece of work>>

Textbooks lean on the state of the science as it is understood. Complaining that "I can't find a recent peer-reviewed paper which explains a basic biological concept on PubMed" is weak. (You can, if you put in the right search terms.)

The Nature article's author has repeatedly clarified that no, there isn't a spectrum of sex: that there are two sexes, but a spectrum of presentation. You didn't read the article.

>>"gender" and "sex" are used interchangeably in most everyday situations, including in legal language>>

Then it's lazy use of language in the latter case, because they can be different, otherwise "transgender" wouldn't exist as a concept. Perhaps that's why in the UK there's consideration of clarifying the Equalities Act to specify when/whether references to "sex" mean biological or legal sex.

>>Refusing to read the responses you asked for is just feeble.>>

I read the ones that were worth reading. I didn't find anything relevant to the discussion.