"There are only two genders, change my mind".

Its chromosomes - except it isn't
Reproductive ability - except it isn't.

Yes, yes it is.

It's chromosomes. XX people are female, ie. of the type of human that produces large, immobile gametes (eggs) and gestates young

XY people are male, ie. of the type of human that produce small, mobile gametes (sperm)

People with chromosomal disorders, have chromosomal disorders and are outside standard human sexual development - doesn't make them any less human, or mean there is more than one sex, or change how sexual reproduction works. 1 sperm producer + one egg producer required to make a baby. No amount of sperm producers alone can make a baby, just as no amount of egg producers alone can make a baby. That's what 'sex' is. It's how reproduction works.

Just as humans are bipedal (have 2 legs) and people with 1 leg (or 3 legs) are no less human for having a different number of legs than is standard, and it doesn't change the fact that humans are bipedal as a species.

So how about:

Just because some cases of a are b, doesn't mean all cases of a are b.

Do agree with it debbie?

How about logic debbie - why not use that? It might help.

No, we need to understand biology. Sex is binary. It just is, it is a statement like "water is wet" , it is axiomatic. Inescapably undeniably prima facie just truth.

Well here we are after numerous post still with sex is a binary but only because.

Its chromosomes - except it isn't
Reproductive ability - except it isn't.

Its biological fact but no one can show what that simple fact is other than Ockham's Razor must apply because otherwise we may have to accept that sex and gender are not binary.

Maybe we just need to be more open and accepting.

irretating:- I thought we were defining sex. Are you saying people with one leg are not human now

she said the exact opposite. Which is also why your idea of sex is wrong.

There are two sexes. Human beings are either male or female depending on reproductive potential. That some human beings are infertile does not remove them from the respective classes of male or female. It's not about actually producing gametes; it's about having a reproductive system designed to produce them.

The existence of intersex disorders is evidence for human sexual dimorphism, not the other way around. We are only able to describe them because we have working models of normal, healthy male and female development. That's why they're disorders.

^^ ah ninja'd. That was to debbie.

I was applying your logic to a comparable situation. It falls flat because the logic is bad. This is your problem, not mine.

debbie what are you playing at?

irretating:- I thought we were defining sex. Are you saying people with one leg are not human now?

Don't think i could agree with you on that either.

Lancelottie, So if sex is defined by the type of germane they produce then anyone who is infertile by that definition doesn't have a sex then. AKA a third option.

We define humans by bipedalism. Do we need a second category of human for people who are atypical in this respect?

Tricky to write the books if your hands have turned into wings, I should think.

Or are you contemplating the evolution of a whole extra pair of limbs? You'd have to go a lot further back in the evolutionary tree for that.

A line of evolution could have created a version of winged humans, indeed it still could, whether we would still call them humans though would depend on who is writing the books on evolution at the time.

Ever heard of Ockham's Razor Debbie?

I think now might be a good time to use it.

Debbie, male and female are biological terms.
Gamete a producing or gamete b. Having a disorder or interruption in your gamete production doesn't invalidate the fact that this is how humans and mammals and birds and I don't know what else, reproduced sexually by the union of these two different gametes.
It is an objective truth.
Not how somebody feels or acts or dresses. People can do what they want in this regard. But they will always be gamete type a / type b people. Doesn't always matter but when it does, it does.

No Debbie - there are other causes of infertility than chromosomal abnormality - but they are not what the op is about.
'Infertility' is not always caused by abnormal sex chromosomes.
Chromosomal abnormalities that lead to disorders in sex development/ambiguous sex characteristics and infertility are not a third reproductive sex.

Oh and nature having infinite variation does not mean all variations currently or previously exist, just that its possible they could.

A line of evolution could have created a version of winged humans, indeed it still could, whether we would still call them humans though would depend on who is writing the books on evolution at the time.

Lancelottie, So if sex is defined by the type of germane they produce then anyone who is infertile by that definition doesn't have a sex then. AKA a third option.

GuardianLions Likewise you have taken variation of chromosomes and bundled them up into the binary model and ignored the very differences they do have as they are not always sexually indistinct. Indeed infertility is one thing that makes them distinct from fertile versions of the chromosome combinations.

They only fit the binary model because your ignoring the things that prove the model is incomplete

There are two main 'genders' - masculine and feminine. These are posited to be binary as if most female people are totally feminine and most male people are totally masculine but obviously this is nonsense. There are lots of other 'new' genders such as genderfluid, non binary etc. They incorporate elements of masculine and feminine I guess.
However all the genders are subjective and socially constructed.

sorry images didn't work, try again

Open a book on grammar, point to masculine, feminine, neuter.

Job done.

Ohhhhhhh you mean 2 sexes! And I'm going to assume you mean in humans...

Open a biology book turn to the section on reproduction. Job done.

There are only two sexes. Of course there are additional intersex conditions, but only XX and XY can cause the continuous replication of the species.

There are either 7.5 billion genders or there are zero genders. We all have our unique personalities and preferences, which may be shaped to a greater or lesser degree to societal forces, but none of us are pure stereotypes. Let's abolish those forces that shoehorn people with either convex or concave genitals into stacked boxes, with those in the lower box considered inferior and servile to the superior box inhabitants.

I agree that right wing conservatives and the liberal pro-genderists are two sides of the same coin. When you parse their rhetoric, they are remarkably similar. Recently I looked up some stuff about shieldmaidens in the Viking era. Compare this quote from Saxo Grammaticus 12thC Danish historian, secretary to Archbishop of Lund, to Kathleen Self, third wave genderist feminist (image file below). Both arguing that the phenomenon of "shieldmaidenery" is so far removed from standards of femininity and expected attributes and activities of women, they have become so separated from their sex that they constitute a new gender in their own right. So the existence of badass female warriors, rather than disproving that all females must be demure and feminine, actually upholds that idea, by putting those who don't conform into a new category of gender. Both are as regressive as the other And Kathleen Self continues that shieldmaidens transition back to female when they marry, as if having a male spouse validates their femininity.

“There were once women in Denmark who dressed themselves to look like men and spent almost every minute cultivating soldiers’ skills. …They courted military celebrity so earnestly that you would have guessed they had unsexed themselves. Those especially who had forceful personalities or were tall and elegant embarked on this way of life. As if they were forgetful of their true selves they put toughness before allure, aimed at conflicts instead of kisses, tasted blood, not lips, sought the clash of arms rather than the arm’s embrace, fitted to weapons hands which should have been weaving, desired not the couch but the kill…” (Fisher 1979, p. 212).

www.tor.com/2015/06/08/viking-warrior-women-did-shieldmaidens-like-lagertha-really-exist/

NineFortySixPM
There are 2 main genders; male and female. Gender is a sociological description of how we are expected to act and dress depending on our biological sex.
People who dont fit the expected pattern may be androgynous or gender non conforming.

Society expects us to model certain behaviours in specific situations to increase trust, and decrease stress and aggression. Thats true for all complex, sociable animal species.

And chromosomes do indeed define sex. The sexes are female and male, or ova and sperm producing. There are people with chromosomal abnormalities which make them infertile (ie- producing neither sperm or eggs) and appear sexually indistinct, but they do not fall into a separate sex category, since a person needs either eggs or sperm to sexually reproduce.

I have physical variations that cause me health problems. There are no benefits to those variations. Why shouldn’t I call them a disorder?