The definitions of male and female presented in response to TRA claims are often dismissed while some other definitions are demanded that exclude the people who do not have functional gonads and can not "reproduce"
It does not necessarily have to be from a TRA. It could be from an anti-feminist who appeals to limited definitions of male and female
I really do wonder how you can possibly make the claim [that people with dysfunctional gonads have a sex] since it is flatly contradicted by the standard biological definitions for the sexes endorsed by Lexico, Google/OED, Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, biologists Jussi Lehtonen and Geoff Parker (FRS, writing in the Journal of Theoretical Biology), and philosopher of biology Paul Griffiths
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless]"
Given that sex is all about reproduction, it's rather odd - at best, if not profoundly antiscientific - to say that some organism - any organism of any sexually-reproducing species, for that matter - has a sex if it can't actually reproduce
You look to be trying to create your own rather idiosyncratic, irrational, illogical and quite unscientific definitions, presumably because you think people will be "offended" by the logical consequences of them - i.e., some third of us, at any one time, are sexless. Sure isn't intellectually honest
The logical consequence of biological definitions for the sexes is that those without either type of functional gonads are sexless
Unfortunately, the so-called social sciences and most feminists peddle the idea of structural criteria as that "necessary and sufficient condition" – i.e., absent any necessary functionality – for sex category membership which is, of course, flatly contradicted by the biological definitions. And I expect that that is because of their own "prior commitment" to a rather desperate article of faith that "biological sex in humans is immutable"
Is it seriously unscientific to believe everyone is either male or female even if they have no functional gonads?
I wish Colin Wright would bother responding to the comments on his posts ...
