If I were to selectively quote something I hadn’t read, I probably would try to come up with a better excuse than “that’s all that’s needed to support my point.” And if I hadn’t selectively quoted, I’d simply provide the full context. Because that’s easier and less fucking weird than what you did.

There is nothing in that paper that contradicts my position that there are only two sexes and they are discrete: male and female. This is the empirical fact that the entire Paper is based on. Every objection raised has been a spectacular misunderstanding.

I notice you've left out "and no more than 2 sexes can evolve" this time.

Multiple things contradict your claim that there are only two sexes and they are discrete. But that's nice of you to acknowledge that you can't defend your prior claim that the paper is about evolution and why there can only be two sexes.

Does...he not know Klinefelters and Turner's syndromes exist?

He doesn't think that means the sexes aren't binary. But he also can't define sex in a way that makes it binary.

To be fair, he did also try and limit the discussion to classification of reproductive systems (or roles) only to then immediately pivot to classifying people and pretend those weren't two significantly different things.

Thats ridiculous. Those two syndromes alone don't fit within the 'sex is binary' assertion. I would kill for quality STEM in schools.

This is, I believe, a British TERF. That we're batting around as a chew toy. So.

Oh, even more fun!

Yes. For several days now has insisted there are only 2 entirely binary sexes & then keeps stepping on rake after rake trying to prove it. And has, helpfully with his own sources, proved that sex is bimodal & not binary at all. It's not super often a chud manages to keep proving themselves wrong.

But why male models?