I'm genuinely impressed with this article, it manages to talk about a topic rife heated opinions in a very level headed way! Kudos to the author to presenting biological sex as something real and fundamental while not falling into the trap of concluding that one's 'social sex'/gender must follow from it.

undefined

undefined

Get this inflammatory strawman shit out of here.

> Human societies can’t delegate to biology the job of defining sex as a social institution. The biological definition of sex wasn’t designed to ensure fair sporting competition, or to settle disputes about access to healthcare. Theorists who want to use the biological definition of sex in those ways need to show that it will do a good job at the Olympics or in Medicare. The fact that it’s needed in biology isn’t good enough. On the other hand, whatever its shortcomings as an institutional definition, the concept of biological sex remains essential to understand the diversity of life. It shouldn’t be discarded or distorted because of arguments about its use in law, sport or medicine. That would be a tragic mistake.

Try and parse that into something intelligible. I dare you.

The author seems to be some sort of ill-read hack. There are fungi [0] with thousands of biological sexes. Additionally, within humanity, there are more than two configurations of sex chromosomes [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophyllum_commune

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex