[khaki54]

Is this the new standard boilerplate / disclaimer?

> Before getting into the evidence, we need to first talk about sex and gender. “Sex” typically refers to biological sex, which can be defined by myriad characteristics such as chromosomes, hormone levels, gonads, external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics. The terms “female” and “male” are often used in relation to biological sex. “Gender” refers to how an individual identifies—woman, man, nonbinary, and so forth. Much of the scientific literature confuses and conflates female/male and woman/man terminology without providing definitions to clarify what it is referring to and why those terms were chosen. For the purpose of describing anatomical and physiological evidence, most of the literature uses “female” and “male,” so we use those words here when discussing the results of such studies. For ethnographic and archaeological evidence, we are attempting to reconstruct social roles, for which the terms “woman” and “man” are usually used. Unfortunately, both these word sets assume a binary, which does not exist biologically, psychologically or socially. Sex and gender both exist as a spectrum, but when citing the work of others, it is difficult to add that nuance.

[eioio]

Unfortunately yes, this idea has taken over academia like a wildfire. Those dissenters who point out things like, isn't it regressive and inaccurate to reduce women and men to a set of sexist stereotypes, are censured and harassed for doing so.

[ngcc_hk]

One can defer woman as those that reproduce. Asexual reproduction still have female, mother, ... etc. There is certain requirement even if man can bring children, or machine doing it (tube-mum). And that affect a lot like change in physical and chemical etc. features of the bearer. What is the implication and the bias towards this group is a separate matter. Let us fix the basic definition first.