[phs318u]

You didn’t read my linked article. And you are still trying to shoehorn an entire spectrum of biological expression which is a function of chromosomes, genes, hormones, fully or partially developed sex organs and secondary sexual characteristics, into two buckets - which are really just two “blessed” combinations of the above characteristics.

The thing about reality is that it persists no matter how stridently one denies it.

[appreciatorBus]

> which are really just two “blessed” combinations of the above characteristics.

Nope. Not what I said at all. Nothing I said in any way related to the idea that some combinations were “blessed”. Merely that there are two pathways. Individuals may travel those two pathways in numerous ways, but until someone discovers a third gamete, there are only two pathways.

> The thing about reality is that it persists no matter how stridently one denies it.

Very true! No matter how many drugs or how many surgeries or behaviour changes, reality persists - males in dresses are still male, females in suits are still female.

[phs318u]

You sir, are no biologist.

[joenot443]

Which part of his comment are you disagreeing with when you say that?

[phs318u]

The part where he’s chosen to ignore all the physical developmental factors that contribute to how sexuality is expressed in the body and focus solely on gametes in order to fit the world into a preconceived notion of “male” and “female”.

I’ll give an analogy. Male and female are to biology as orbitals are to nuclear physics. A really, really useful shorthand. But they do not describe actual physical electrons “orbiting” a nucleus. Don’t mistake the shorthand for the reality. Scientific shorthand is generally not useful for reasonably discussing edge cases.