So the link isn’t transphobic. Each chart has links to sources. Please learn.

Sorry, you’re confused. Nobody is ignored or misgrouped. Everyone has a sex. Some people don’t produce gametes. Their bodies still contain sexed structures.

Looks and smells aren’t how sex is defined. You’re confusing gender and sex. Please stop.

Why is it transphobic? Why is it an oversimplification?

There is no demanding. Intersex is a confusing term. It has confused you. Please learn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development

https://theparadoxinstitute.org/articles/sex-development-charts

You’re confusing the scope of sex. The sex binary is fact. Sex is different from gender, is different from sexuality.

The truth is that there is an observed binary in this case. N = 2. Gametic definition provides utility. That’s why it’s the only definition used in biology.

Do you want to learn? Would recommend.

Why do you think the truth is transphobic?

I’m relaying what the overwhelming consensus is in the field of biology.

Those aren’t exceptions. Castrated males, menopausal females, children, and anyone with complete infertility all have a clear sex.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

Please read this link, as previously suggested

https://theparadoxinstitute.org/articles/sex-development-charts

Some more reading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development

Those are variations within the sex binary. Not an exception. You’re confusing sex with phenotype and genotype.

Please apply a proper skeptical review of your idea. I’ve saved you the effort of searching. Here is more:

https://www.gwup.org/skeptiker-artikel/sonstiges/one-reality-two-sexes-and-many-endless-debates/

There are only two sexes because there are only two types of gametes [in anisogamous species]. There’s no intermediate one. Therefore, there can only be two sexes that an individual can have.

Nothing in the biology of the sexes makes sense except in the light of gametes.

What exceptions exist?

It’s the other way around. Categorical simplicity is observed in nature. Gametic sex is the only coherent definition.

Everyone has a sex. Some people don’t produce gametes. Their bodies still contain sexed structures.

Sex is actually that simple. It’s entirely defined by gamete production. Any edge case you can think of can be resolved to one of two sexes. Note the sexes listed for each DSD here:

https://theparadoxinstitute.org/articles/sex-development-charts

You’re right that sex testing is not as simple

A better analogy for the author’s clarification would be “Red and blue, each with a continuum of variation in hue”. There’s still no purple, just different shades of red and different shades of blue. I don’t really have more to add beyond pointing out that this is the author of the paper directly clarifying that point.

You’re free to invent whatever categories you find useful of course. But biologists will continue to recognize human sex as binary, because that is a useful description of the reality they encounter.

People’s bodies are still organized around the production of either sperm or ova, even if they’re unable to reproduce due to a developmental issue. You can call that a third category if it’s useful to you, but that doesn’t form a third sex as understood by biologists.

Intersex is a confusing term, and doesn’t dispute the binary. People are still male or female, with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development

From the author of that paper:

https://xcancel.com/ClaireAinsworth/status/888365994577735680

In your piece ‘Sex Redefined’ are you making the claim there are more than 2 sexes?

No, not at all. Two sexes, with a continuum of variation in anatomy/physiology.

Do you have a particular edge case in mind? One that’s commonly brought up is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome, but that doesn’t fall outside the sex binary. Having a bit of nonfunctional tissue doesn’t affect one’s sex.

Colors aren’t a great analogy either, because in anisogamous species, gametes are strictly binary. There’s sperm and ova, with 0 overlap and 0 other options. “Purple gametes” just don’t exist.

This also isn’t my opinion, this is the accepted definition in the field of biology.

This is often a point of confusion, but human sex is binary. There’s edge cases that require clarification as to how they fit into the binary, but don’t disprove it.

Human sexuality overall is complex and that’s why we differentiate gender from sex. The sex binary and gender spectrum complement each other though, and don’t clash.

If you’re interested in learning more, here’s some background reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonochorism

We fall into that category, where we have two body plans, each organized around producing either sperm or ova. Other species have more body plans, such as recognizably distinct males, females, and hermaphrodites:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trioecy

Those species are a good contrast. Humans don’t have that variation, and so sex is binary in humans.

There’s literature that explains this specifically in detail, though most of it doesn’t really explicitly talk about it, much like math papers don’t generally explain that integers can be added together.

I think we agree. Maybe I was misreading the above comment, but I was just clarifying that “transform” in that sense for chickens is not actually changing sex, and so is a different situation than clownfish.

I’m not aware of that being an actual change in sex. The hen can develop male characteristics, but won’t produce functional sperm.

Male seahorse get pregnant, but that doesn’t make them trans, they’re unambiguously male. This is a great example of why sex is defined by gamete size. If it weren’t, we couldn’t talk about males and females in any useful way across the animal kingdom.

Clownfish would be a better example as they’re sequential hermaphrodites, but that doesn’t have any bearing on the human sex binary.