You wrote: >>You might say that “a man who has had a vasectomy nevertheless has a body organised to produce sperm” but a man who has had a bilateral orchidectomy certainly doesn’t have such a body; likewise a woman who has had a hysterectomy does not have a body organised to produce ova.>>
That's ridiculous. That's like saying if you cut someone's legs off they can't walk ERGO humans aren't bipedal animals whose main means of locomotion is walking. That's generalising from the particular, in a way that you know is unreasonable.
>>"you’re simply following the “fatuous synecdoche” of conflating “reproductive sex” with “sex” in its broader sense">>
My point, which you've carefully overlooked, is that no trans person has ever gone from being a large gamete producer to a small gamete producer, or vice versa. Biologists (who you've also carefully ignored) define sex according to gamete production. It doesn't happen. Sex, defined by the measure in which it's meaningful, is immutable in humans.
And yes, biologists do use gamete production as their definition of sex. Example, in a textbook: https://open.lib.umn.edu/evolutionbiology/chapter/7-4-sex-its-about-the-gametes-2/
>>The topic of the article is debunking the veneer of pseudoscience that is used as justification for the extreme right wing legislative efforts in the US (and beyond) to introduce laws that enforce gender qua sex>>
It would be simpler then to point out that gender and sex are commonly accepted as not necessarily the same thing, rather than veering into trying to deny lots of repeatably demonstrated evolutionary biology.
Unfortunately your first sentence, and the first two paragraphs, deny utterly basic science. Your third paragraph is the syllogism: nothing about the fact that you're set up to produce a particular set of gametes means you can't be trans - as long as we're talking *gender*, which is why people say "transgender", isn't it.
Griffiths's paper is about biological sex across the animal and other kingdoms, and provides zero support for any of your suppositions. If anything, the definitions he references echo mine.
Radial Category Theory - no, thank you.
Frye's - not accessible.
