Yeah, I thought it was a wall-mount too until reading OPs comments

Don’t have a particular case, just curious how this definition works. I appreciate the answers.

Fair enough. So somebody with no plumbing at all would just be undefined in terms of sex then?

I’m actually thinking of people who have neither sets, working or not, but you’ve got me thinking: if a non-functional set would still count in the case of it being the only one (I.e. someone infertile but otherwise nothing out of the ordinary) I’m not sure why it wouldn’t when it’s beside a working one. If it’s binary, surely they either count or they don’t?

males and females are defined universally by the type of gamete they have the biological function to produce—not by karyotypes, secondary sexual characteristics, or other correlates

That’s not typically the definition people use, but I do admit it’s a way of “solving” the issues of a binary that often arise when using the more common definitions. You’re either a sperm-maker or egg-maker.

So using this definition, there are likely still some intersex people or at the very least people who have an “undefined” sex.

He got better?

Just ask for a boyfriend

Sure, but even the most backwards countries at least have some version of Cole’s Law

Poe’s Law exists for a reason. One person’s sarcasm could just as easily be another’s genuine take.