Eh, I disagree. From a purely factual point of view it seems fairly clear that biological sex is not binary, despite gametes being binary. Sex is a word that can describe common correlations in the following vector of characteristics:
- Chromosomes
- Proteins
- Genitalia
- Gametes
- Hormones
- etc.
However, it's physically possible to end up with all sorts of non-binary combinations in this vector space. E.g.,
- Possession of a sex chromosome without expression of proteins
- Possession of a sex chromosome without corresponding sex hormones
- Possession of an irregular number of sex chromosomes
- Chimerism, where one fraction of your cells are XX and another fraction are XY
- Possession of neither or multiple genitalia
- etc.
Obviously it's possible to go too far in denying the clustering of two common sexes in this vector space, but you are making a basic factual error if you assert that sex is purely binary. There are all sorts of people who are intersex in various ways, and they are entirely real, not theoretical. And it gets far crazier if you look further afield in the animal kingdom, with species that can change sex and do all sorts of wild things.
> Biology is not confused about this. Males produce gametes (sperm) and females produce large gametes (ova). There are no intermediate gametes, which is why there is no spectrum of sex. Biological sex in humans is a binary system.
This is not entirely true, due to the existence of various kinds of intersex genotypes, which may produce no gametes, or both gametes (functionality notwithstanding). Biological sex in humans is not a purely binary system.
That said, it absolutely is a bimodal distribution, so ChatGPT is still completely wrong.
It is a condition that causes some people with XY chromosomes to develop no male secondary sex characteristics, and instead develop varying extents of typical female sex characteristics, up to and including being indistinguishable from any other woman -- with the exception that they can't reproduce.
So, in your binary evaluation, what sex would you consider these people to be?
This is just one of several different intersex conditions in humans that are recognized by medical and biological science, independent of prevailing social fashions.
It sounds like you've been indoctrinated with a faith-based gender ideology of your own...
You are confusing the definition of a category with the realization of category members. We say that a horse has four legs and two eyes, but horses are born with three legs sometimes, or get into an accident and lose a leg, or they are born blind, etc. That doesn't mean they stop being horses or that we invent a new species of horses that have only three legs. Similarly the existence of Siamese twins doesn't mean we need to rewrite classifications of what an adult human male is, etc. That's not how categorization works.
You are choosing a narrow definition of "sex" that isn't supported in current medical literature. Yale for example defines "intersex" as "describing a person whose biological sex is ambiguous" (https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/what-do-we-mean-by-se...). In 2001, a UN committee was formed to establish some guidelines on the definitions of sex and gender, and "in the study of human subjects, the term sex should be used as a classification according to the reproductive organs and functions that derive from the chromosomal complement" (https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysio...). Scientific literature is still a bit fuzzy on the issue, especially when describing atypical sex or gender-related matters in humans, and researchers sometimes prefer the term "gender" because of cultural sensitivities (ibid.).
> Intermediate gametes do not exist.
These are called ovotestis in some people with particular forms of intersex conditions. A subset of ovotestis includes gametes containing both "male" and "female" reproductive tissue.
I think this all comes down to how you define "sex". Even if you define it based on what kind of gametes an individual produces, where do individuals that produce no gametes at all[1] fall?
“ While there are reports of individuals that seemed to have the potential to produce both types of gamete,[173] in more recent years the term hermaphrodite as applied to humans has fallen out of favor, since female and male reproductive functions have not been observed together in the same individual.”
Honestly it sounds like you just don’t understand the answer and assume it’s wrong. It sounds right to me . Do you ignore the existence of intersex people?
