Is it correct? What is wrong in the text?

It conflates actual analysis from the human brain with inherently flawed algorithmic summation but you go, quackie.

So very dishonest of you.

Oh but that’s been the game all along with him

Why should I bother analyzing text created by a nonsense machine?

I adopt this text as my own. And will defend it.

Just as you've defended all of your claims, right?

You haven't successfully defended your premise that sex is binary and not bimodal so I have my doubts you can do it here LOL

Same question.

It makes quite good sense. I think this time it’s probably accurate. But the burden here is not on you to refute it. It is on the person who provides the text to back it up with citations to the literature (which funnily enough you get for free if you quote a scientific paper!)

Well, too, the falseness comes from the prompt given. This was output based on a prompt assuming someone was misunderstanding biological hermaphrodism and conflating it with humans who have DSDs.

Thanks! I noticed that, but didn’t think about it. It’s worth thinking twice about.

Sure, it might. But why bother even looking into it? The sources it links to, maybe, but I can’t get those from a screenshot.

Even if you could get them, it’s still bogus. The thing is that I typically want to see the list of references for the source of the quote (or paraphrase), and then the list of references for each citation in the quote, if I’m going to make a reliability or suitability for purpose judgment. 1/

Even the WP article describes several different uses of the term. 1) To describe species that are not gonochoric 2) as a historical and medical term. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaph...

Look, I’m not interested in these irrelevant details. I forget which group you want to erase (trans?), but it’s pretty clear that you need a binary definition of “sex” to go on with that program. The problem is that what we have here is not a biological question that can be discussed fruitfully 1/

The simple fact that there are two discrete sexes is being erased by the pseudoscience of gender ideology. I am not the one engaged in erasure.

That “simple fact” that you haven’t been able to substantiate after five days.

in biological terms (for example, frequent updates for COVID vaccines via mRNA tech), but a social issue involving a widespread mental dysfunction (the belief that “trans in bathroom” is a threat to women), a scientifically unresolved question about whether trans in sports is a real advantage, 2/

If you think the question of whether men perform better at sport than women is not "resolved" I cannot help you. You are nuttier than squirrel shit.

It is resolved. In many sports men perform better. In several sports, open contests were ended when women started beating men. And I doubt you’ll find any men even trying the uneven parallel bars. But here the question is whether a specific class of women are better than other women.🤦🏻‍♂️

economic policy questions of whether trans in the service should get care on the US’s dime (just the overpayment to Trump hotels on Trump’s travel would cover that), etc. None of those questions require a precise biological definition of sex to resolve. So what are you on about? 3/3

If the main text is generated, then I usually need to go another level deeper in the reference graph because you can’t expect a unified point of view or level of reliability from a random set of citations. (“Random” is literally true here.😳) 2/2

The text is correct, in proving you wrong and showing your love of stepping on rakes

“…humans with this condition have a range of variations in their sexual anatomy and often do not have perfect sets of male and female organs, nor are they necessarily able to procreate with both…”