We have said what a male or female is: it is a phenotype with a reproductive role around a gamete type. We know we can recognise these sexes trivially (c. 98% though face alone) and we can do so objectively (no surprises who gets pregnant). This is all trivial. Can you accept this as fact?
So the question to you is to justify and start quantifying your claim. If you have good info about a person (and access to any medical report test you might desire) what percentage of people do you claim *cannot* be classified as male or female?
Remember, I’m not making a countervailing claim about the definition of individual sex. I’m just disproving yours. Would you agree that there is no biological definition of individual sex that resolves your 2% ambiguity rate without resorting to arbitrary valuation of secondary traits?
You are mistkaing the definition of a sex for how we recognise a sex. Once again. A continuous error. Your complaint is how we do not have a good way of recognising sex to enforce a sex-based bathroom policy. Please be consistent.
No, that’s just an example to demonstrate why this question matters. It’s not about recognition. It’s about definition. Stick with it.
We have defined what a sex and you have agreed there are only two. Yoru quibbling is always abotu recognising sexes. I am fearing you know you are losing so are blustering now and deliberately not being clear.
Show me we can trust you as an honest debater here. Starting with false negatives, if a man attempts to be abusive and enter a women's protected space, how often will women not recognise him as a man? What do you think?
It’s not about recognition. It’s about defining what is there to be recognized. You’ve claimed that there are criteria that make each individual person discretely male or female. You can’t fulfill that with a fuzzy phenotype that 98% of people might agree with each other about. That’s not a binary.
We have been over this - there are two reproductive roles. That is what we are recognising. I am slowly and reluctantly coming to the unfortunate conclusion that you may only have the brains of a bag of gravel.
You keep conflating sex at the level of the human species and sex at the level of the individual. Yes, there are two human sexes. But your claim was that every individual human can be assigned to one of them on a discrete biological basis. That is what you were asked to substantiate.
I have never claimed everyone *must* be classified as male or female. That is an open question. My position is that it is likely everyone can be classified as male or female. My challenge to you was to show a person who was not male or female.
Right, but that question only makes sense under the premise that you are (or were? Are no longer?) arguing for. My position is that people are what they are. Yes, most people more or less align with a consensus definition that works in a social or medical context as needed. I have no need /
A million biologists point at a person and say “you are male,” and the person says “no, I’m not.” What says that they’re wrong and the biologists are right? If it’s “because your characteristics correlate more strongly with people who make small gametes,” that’s fine. It’s just not what you claimed.
What says they are wrong is if they are actually male and have a male phenotype. Some men pretend to be female for example as this gets them off. We do nto have to believe what these men say. Do we? If you dad said he was female you would know he was a liar.