Do you have a particular edge case in mind? One that’s commonly brought up is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome, but that doesn’t fall outside the sex binary. Having a bit of nonfunctional tissue doesn’t affect one’s sex.
Colors aren’t a great analogy either, because in anisogamous species, gametes are strictly binary. There’s sperm and ova, with 0 overlap and 0 other options. “Purple gametes” just don’t exist.
This also isn’t my opinion, this is the accepted definition in the field of biology.
A better analogy for the author’s clarification would be “Red and blue, each with a continuum of variation in hue”. There’s still no purple, just different shades of red and different shades of blue. I don’t really have more to add beyond pointing out that this is the author of the paper directly clarifying that point.
You’re free to invent whatever categories you find useful of course. But biologists will continue to recognize human sex as binary, because that is a useful description of the reality they encounter.
People’s bodies are still organized around the production of either sperm or ova, even if they’re unable to reproduce due to a developmental issue. You can call that a third category if it’s useful to you, but that doesn’t form a third sex as understood by biologists.
Ok, yes. That’s where I believe the binary is false.
You have red, you have blue, and then there’s a bunch of egde cases. To me that’s not the end of the story. I believe purple exists.
Do you have a particular edge case in mind? One that’s commonly brought up is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome, but that doesn’t fall outside the sex binary. Having a bit of nonfunctional tissue doesn’t affect one’s sex.
Colors aren’t a great analogy either, because in anisogamous species, gametes are strictly binary. There’s sperm and ova, with 0 overlap and 0 other options. “Purple gametes” just don’t exist.
This also isn’t my opinion, this is the accepted definition in the field of biology.
Not anymore, no.
Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic | Scientific American https://share.google/T8SeIlF6VVw1nWogD
From the author of that paper:
https://xcancel.com/ClaireAinsworth/status/888365994577735680
That last quote reads as “Red and blue. Don’t need a word for purple.”
But we do need a word for purple.
This is an English and categorization problem.
A better analogy for the author’s clarification would be “Red and blue, each with a continuum of variation in hue”. There’s still no purple, just different shades of red and different shades of blue. I don’t really have more to add beyond pointing out that this is the author of the paper directly clarifying that point.
You’re free to invent whatever categories you find useful of course. But biologists will continue to recognize human sex as binary, because that is a useful description of the reality they encounter.
Removed by mod
So those who cannot reproduce and aren’t in either category are still human. And therefore in a third category.
Red, blue, none. Three categories.
Also, intersex can sometimes reproduce.
Removed by mod
People’s bodies are still organized around the production of either sperm or ova, even if they’re unable to reproduce due to a developmental issue. You can call that a third category if it’s useful to you, but that doesn’t form a third sex as understood by biologists.
Intersex is a confusing term, and doesn’t dispute the binary. People are still male or female, with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Ok there Isaac Newton. Call it violet.
Removed by mod