So you didn't even read the article. 😂😂😂😂

So you haven't read even the first page?

And there is an actual glossary. This is what I adopt. The definition is a class definition on phenotype. Please use this in future reference if you want to say what I think a sex is.

Unfortunately for you, you apparently didn't read the whole glossary.

Yes. The word sex is polysemous. So the authors clarify the context.

Yes! And it's not based on phenotype, which isn't a thing anyway. It's unusual that someone so completely destroys their own argument, but you're doing it well. Again, you've demonstrated that sex is bimodal, not binary.

The authors say it is exactly based in a phenotype. Can you supply a robust and coherent definition of the terms “male” and “female” that shows I am wrong?

No, actually, they very clearly don't. That is the definition of sex they use. But additionally phenotype is nothing more than how something appears. Sorry you're so bad at this, but that's your problem, not mine.

You asking someone else to provide a robust and coherent definition of something is the funniest thing that’s happened in this thread.

Can you do it? I have. And referenced the pet reviewed. Biology Can you supply a robust and coherent definition of the terms “male” and “female” that shows I am wrong?

You sure did! And proved that sex is bimodal, not binary! Very helpful.

I did no such thing you clown.

You’re the one who came here claiming that there are bright-line definitions of individual sex. Don’t ask us to make your case for you.

Is it your position that science cannot define what a sex is? If so, why is that?

Ah, they're soooo close.... But still they flop! Have you totally missed the many people pointing out that "robust and coherent" definitions are just not possible, and therefore quacks trying to pretend otherwise must be wrong?

Yes, of course you can you can have robust and coherent definitions. GOOD GRIEF. That does not mean there mere be soem cases that are difficult to classify - it is still objective, robust and coherent.

And yet you've failed to say what to do with cases that do not fit into your defined schema other than pretend they don't exist or insist they're irrelevant.

Why "of course", given that you've utterly failed to provide any? Every single attempt you've tried has been a flop. GOOD GRIEF! Remember, you need something that is accurate in 100% of cases. Even the tiniest fraction under that isn't "robust and accurate"!

That is exactly the same thing as what I posted. You're not helping yourself.

Hey, why did you abandon our conversation about your “thought experiment”?

Personally, I think it's because he's flailing madly after unintentionally proving sex is bimodal by adopting the definition in the glossary, but that's just me.

The definitions in that glossary either ignore the existence of organisms within an anisogamous windows that don't produce gametes or imply that there exist organisms within an anisogamous species that are neither male nor female.

Please give examples.

"within an anisogamous windows' should read "within an anisogamous species".

We need examples of your claim. And also. Can you supply a robust and coherent definition of the terms “male” and “female” that shows I am wrong?

What you're doing here is begging the question. It assumes there exists a robust and coherent definition. That's not how this process works. I need not provide an alternate definition to disprove yours, I only need to show yours is insufficient.

If there isn’t, say so. Have the courage to say the terms male and female are meaningless. And then try to justify that.

There are contexts in which you can assign firm definitions to male or female. But no definition fits every context. This is why scientists include definitions so the reader understands what the author(s) means when they say male or female. Adopting their definition for all situations is dumb.

He doesn't understand the concept of categories being contextually dependent.

In your world, anything that can’t be cleanly defined, categorized and labeled is “meaningless.” That’s really the heart of all this.

So what do we mean when we say your mother was female?

What do you mean “we?” You’re the only one who keeps trying to put sex labels on people’s parents as if that’s an important question to answer.

Saying there's no all encompassing robust and coherent definition does not mean the terms are meaningless. It means their value as defined terms is contextually contingent. When I taught intro to life sciences I used the terms differently than when in talking about networking plugs.

This is disingenuous as at no point have we been wondering what male and female meant for networking plugs. It has been about what these words mean when we describe animals being male or female. You have been trying hard not to say what this means.

Context still matters if we're just talking about animals. Is it for the purposes of writing laws to protect fish populations? Is it for the purposes of answering some sort of biological research question? Is it for the purposes of trying to strip rights away from a whole swath of humanity?

For someone who keeps whining about science you sure seem to not know how the scientific process works.

You ever stop and wonder why it's so goddamn hard to find legitimate peer reviewed literature in support of your bigotry? Or 'obvious' just not obvious enough?