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.

Oh, but you did. Sucks for you, bucko.

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?

Science defines it just fine. But defines it as bimodal.

On the contrary, the definition you’ve been using all along is perfect. It just doesn’t mean what you think it means. Sex is an emergent pattern in biology, to which individual instances conform to a greater or lesser degree. There are exceptions and edge cases that defy binary categorization.

We are closer then that I thought. But Sex is not emergent. It is a fundamental aspect of life for reproduction. And problems in clarification do not mean there are not classes. That is not logical.

^^ You wanted me to show you where you’re guilty of reification? Everything about life is emergent. Life itself is emergent: we’re just amino acids that got really complicated. Classification derives from reality, not the other way around. “Sex” is just a pattern we observe: no more, no less.

And everything is made of electrons as quarks.

That gray area doesn’t bother me. That’s just how almost everything in nature works. But it really, really bothers you. It bothers you so much that you have to consign anyone who lives their actual real-world lives in that gray area as monstrous and delusional. We call that a “you” problem.

Who lives in this grey area you say exists?

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"!