> Why Sex Is Mostly Binary but Gender Is a Spectrum I’m not going to quote problematic points expressed in the introduction, but I want to provide additional context for “mostly binary”, which is somewhat misleading. Biological sex characteristics are also a spectrum, but with most people falling close to one of two points on that spectrum. It’s fairly commonly known that a small but significant portion of the population is intersex, having prominent characteristics from “both” sexes. While this is often explained as anomalous, it’s only by degree. I hope saying this is enough to encourage anyone reading my comment to not take my word for it, but to read this biologist’s Twitter thread[1] explaining in much greater detail than I could do justice, or rolled up by Thread Reader[2] for convenience as it’s lengthy. I know this isn’t a popular format here, but even being familiar with the concept I found the thread very illuminating when I read it around the time it was posted and it’s a common reverence I use when this topic comes up. [1]: twitter.com/sciencevet2/status/10352460…... [2]: threadreaderapp.com/thread/103524603050…

I agree they aren't the same thing, but I would say that both sex and gender are impacted by biology so I'm not sure that's a useful dividing line. It's true that male and female are two stable sexual categories, but the details of how you identify sex (and how each sex responds to treatments) ends up being very bimodal[1]. So the social categories of male sex and female sex overlay complicated, individual biological systems. [1] twitter.com/ScienceVet2/status/10352460…

or even any serious scholar (in any field) arguing that there is no biological basis for sex? Sadly this is a thing: twitter.com/RebeccaRHelm/status/1207834… twitter.com/ScienceVet2/status/10352460… It's a motte-and-bailey argument going from "a small percentage of people don't neatly fall into either the male or female category" to "the concept of biological sex is meaningless and the only relevant factor is a person's self-identification".

>It's a motte-and-bailey argument going from "a small percentage of people don't neatly fall into either the male or female category" to "the concept of biological sex is meaningless and the only relevant factor is a person's self-identification". Except that's not what the links you posted say. In fact, the very first sentence of the second link says: "First, sex defined: We're talking physical sex here, not gender."[0] What's more, the same poster says further down: "It is worth noting that I never talk about transgender in this thread. Intersex is not the same as transgender. You can be one without the other, or be both." So that thread doesn't say anything close to what you think it says. Unless I misunderstood either the twitter thread or you. Which is always possible. Would you mind expanding on your point? It might lead to an interesting discussion. [0] twitter.com/ScienceVet2/status/10352460…