Conservatives

Thank you for being aware of the sex binary. In incredibly rare cases (as in you can count them on the fingers of one hand), there may have been cases where humans produced both gametes, likely due to chimerism. But just as you say, it’s both gametes, because sex is binary. They’re producing both of the two binary options.

Yes, or none, which makes it not as simple as a binary. You've already admitted even if you disagree about it being a spectrum, that it isn't a binary. I disagree that the only way to determine the sex of an individual is gamete size, but even if you run with that definition, you end up with exceptions.

Besides the given example in the article and directly given to you already where an academic is trying to push for a bad definition of sex (in Scientific American, not just some random podunk journal), here’s one example[1]:

That link doesn't even resemble what I asked for, and that example in the article is people expressing legitimate desire to improve the definitions and move the field forward, this is not somebody injecting things for no reason, like you claim. Is discussing the topic not allowed in your eyes? Is literally any discussion or debate on the topic inappropriate?

Producing neither gamete is a silly point to bring up. Your sex is the size of the gametes you do or would produce. It’s also not a new sex to produce neither of the two gametes.

There are many cases where it is impossible to know which you would produce. This means it's not as simple as a binary, in these cases, the gamete option is not a viable way to determine sex.

It’s less accurate. You responded to me with “whoa what about intersex people”, because you were working off of a bad and unclear definition. If you had read the article, you would have known this. Reminder that the article is titled “Denying the Human Sex Binary Turns Biology into Nonsense”, written by a PhD in evolutionary biology. He’s addressing your exact points.

He failed to address them, none of my points make any of what i'm saying any harder to understand, nor do they cause any actual crisis. The article basically consists of "I don't like it when people do this, and it's easier for me to understand even though this doesn't cover edge cases too well" it's just an opinion piece, not a factual statement.

biology has plenty of these issues, where the answer seems obvious until you engage with enough literature and ask enough questions, for example, try defining a species for me!