That article seems to counter your above points about using secondary characteristics pretty directly.

As well:

However, the existence of such conditions does not undermine the binary nature of sex, because the sex binary does not entail that every individual can be unambiguously categorized as male or female.

The article counters the claim that everyone can be placed into the binary.

It seems that “sex is a binary” but we have to exclude folks that don’t fit into it. Looks like the meme we’re commenting on is still pretty applicable lol.

So now to me it looks like sex is a binary nested in the larger binary of unambiguous and ambiguous sex. Giving folks 3 places they could end up, one of those places (ambiguous sex) being a spectrum. But thats only if we are going to be super technical. I probably wouldn’t correct someone for seeing that disjointed spectrum as a regular spectrum.

I do love a pedant though. I’m not even joking. For example: the comedian David Mitchell.

It’s been fun taking the time to learn all of this. Thanks for all the links.

the body isn’t organized around producing no gametes.

After looking some case reports it looks like a lot of folks with ovesterticular disorder have both sets of genetalia and neither can produce gametes. These folks tend to choose a gender (usually the one they grew up as pre-puberty) and get hormone therapy and such to affirm it.

Since “sex is a binary” is a universal claim, it only takes one existential example to disprove it. I was pretty convinced by the case reports I read that the sex binary can’t include every person.

I’d be convinced if ya presented a definition that could be used on everyone.

But at this point I think we are splitting hairs. It seems obvious to me that there is a range of ways sex can exist in humans. At this point a definition for the binary would have to be pretty complex and people close to the boundary would likely be very similar despite getting opposite labels. It’d be like saying there is a binary of black and white and the line is at R127,G127,B127. I mean sure, but we both know we are just drawing a line in a spectrum.

So, just how you can’t say that a rock on an even platform has failed to fall, I don’t think you can say that an intersex individual has failed to produce gametes. Since neither had intention. Therefore I feel like your binary definition is extraphysical. Given that, I think you’d understand why I wouldn’t accept such a religious adjacent idea.

Fair, I guess I only looked back two weeks or so. Would you respond to my above comment that talks about Ovotesticular syndrome and variation in müllerian duct development?

Damn that post history do paint a pretty consistent picture. Seems there is only one thing for powerstruggle to talk about lol. Same talking point too with the “organized around producing certain gametes.”

Thanks for pointing that out.

I see what you’re saying. Something like “there are two sets of characteristics and most folks grab from the majority of one or the other. Therefore we can place everyone into one sex or the other.”

I feel like when I first read your comments I took issue with how black and white your words seemed. I still kinda feel that.

Is there some structure that’s presense or lack there of definitely defines sex for every person? If so I think its fair to call sex a binary.

I feel like I’d only be convinced if I could understand what makes the options only 0 or 1 yk? It doesn’t seem to be chromosomes, which is what I was taught growing up. X/Y Chromosomes have more that two ways of existing in humans.

I’ll read through those wiki articles a bit. To me it seems like your saying that there is some kind of structure that has no middle ground in humans. It always only goes one way or the other. No variation. It’s hard for me to picture life doing that. If ya have any more info to point to I’d be down to look at it.

Edit: for example, would Ovotesticular Syndrome be a counter example to sex binary?

Edit: it looks like there is some variation in rare cases with the development of Müllerian ducts. So that doesn’t seem to be a binary.

organized around producing one or the other of two gamete sizes

This implies that the organization can fail then? That is how we put the outliers in the binary? That means that that kind of organization has a goal?

That feels like common sense. Like in the culturally-rooted sense. Not necessarily a reflection of reality, but an easy idea to swallow. I don’t think human development has intention in that kind of way unless you are religious.

I guess, what makes gamete production the goal of human development? What makes you confident that there is a goal to human development?

To me it seems like it would be hard to answer those questions without anthropomorphizing human development.

Would you care to explain yourself? Maybe explain how folks that would never produce either gamete fit into your binary based on gamete production? Or is that too advanced? I hear we are sticking to basic biology after all.

huh? no, uncommon in terms of human biology.

How do you differentiate this from the meme?

they exist. they’re real. they’re just not the majority. and that’s ok. they don’t have to be.

Like the elements in the meme? How do you differentiate this from the meme?

I’m not sure what that has to do with elements on the periodic table.

This post is explicitly about a meme comparing gender to elements.

I am pretty sure you getting downvoted because it looks like you either forgot or are ignoring the post you are commenting on.

Kinda feels like you dodged the question. I think they were asking you to define what it means to “organize around producing a gamete”, how folks that were never going to produce either fit into that definition, and how you construct sex as a binary despite that.

Edit: looks like powerstuggle is responding to other comments but not this one. I think it is safe to assume they are going for low hanging fruit and trolling rather than actually trying to explain themself.