I have given you two meanings. SO it is now up to you to explain why they have the same meaning. Again, 1) a hermaphrodite animal has an evolved capability to act in male and female reproductive roles 2) a human "hermaphrodite" has a disorder of elopement and cannot reproduce at all often.
Sorry, the fact that you gave two meanings does not mean there actually are two meanings.
I have just given two meanings. These concepts are different. One is a evolves sex configuration. The second is an old fashioned and disputed term for disorders of sex development. We can see this in dictionaries they are treated as different concepts.
Those first two definitions overlap.
No they do not. One is an evolved reproductive strategy. The other is an old-fashioned term for medical conditions. Stop being so dishonest and accept you are wrong.
Both can be true. I can accept your two definitions, but there’s obviously some overlap between the two. In both cases, the result is some degree of expression of genes that produce two differentiated of sexual characteristics.
Context is everything. If we’re arguing about definitions to go into a 1st year biology textbook, then fine. “Sex is binary” is broadly correct. If we’re setting policy on who’s using what bathroom, then it’s about X and Y and a raft of other genes, environmental factors, etc.
What are you in about in the last part of your sentence? Why are genes the important thing for bathrooms?
Maybe I mistook your view for someone else’s in the thread. I assumed you were using definitions of sex also extended to gender. For example, do you object to people using whatever bathroom facility they wish based on their gender identity?
We have separate spaces for when as a protection for their dignity and safety. There is zero reason to do this on the basis of “gender identity”.
Zero reason? What do you think will happen when, per your policy, a burly trans man tries to use the women’s bathroom?
Really? Why do you say there's no basis for providing separate spaces on the basis of gender identity? We already do.
An animal having both male and female reproductive organs doesn't overlap with a person who has both male and female sexual characteristics? I... wow.
Pot calling the kettle black here.
He's almost an impressively bad-faith arguer here. He would fit in with the current administration.
Can you point to any point I have made that can be characterised as bad faith? Or any form of argument I have used that is bad faith?
Claiming that the majority of cases of gynecomastia are voluntary and failing to provide evidence or rescind the claim when challenged.
I mean there's the part that claims you understand the paper, and then it turns out you haven't actually read the full thing. You present snippets of the paper that, in many cases, run counter to the argument you actually making. When called on it you tell us to ignore our eyes and just believe you.
Thinking about it, your comments on LLMs might be the most accurate thing you've said so far. Much like the LLM, you search for what sounds like the closest thing to an answer to the question and give it, while fundamentally not understanding what you're actually talking about.
Or caring about the subject at all.