This strategy to claim sex is non-binary is just a word game -- they are saying the word "sex" should mean some a non-binary phenomenon instead of a binary phenomenon (gametes), which they acknowledge is real. The underlying facts aren't in dispute, just what the word "sex" refers to, like what the meaning of "planet" should be. They need to convince us that this new paradigm is a better way to talk. Considering that sexual reproduction is the thing we're talking about, there's just no way.
It seems to me, as a complete outsider to the academic and "learned society" world infested with the postmodernist "sex is a spectrum" crowd, that their methodology is an application of a four-year old's framework for telling the difference between boys and girls. Boys wear pants and have shorter hair, and girls wear dresses and have long hair. Boys like nasty, dirty things like frogs, and girls are repulsed by them, which gives boys endless opportunities to have fun grossing out their sisters.
The serious question is for sociologists. 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘯 𝘌𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 did such mouth breathing nonsense get traction among the people who, of all people, should know better? It's happened before, I know. Hysterectomies being accepted as a remedy for "female hysteria" and lobotomies, for assorted mental conditions must be the most tragic examples. But then, Semmelweiss faced opposition to his insistence on physicians' washing their hands; Koch's Postulates were slow to be widely accepted. Sokal was criticized for his delightful parody. Boghossian, Lindsay, and Pluckrose suffered for the "Grievance Studies" series, not the editors and peer reviewers who were responsible for the publications.
I'll warrant that most of these "sex-spectrum" proponents don't have a problem making a binary choice when it comes to who they want to date.
This strategy to claim sex is non-binary is just a word game -- they are saying the word "sex" should mean some a non-binary phenomenon instead of a binary phenomenon (gametes), which they acknowledge is real. The underlying facts aren't in dispute, just what the word "sex" refers to, like what the meaning of "planet" should be. They need to convince us that this new paradigm is a better way to talk. Considering that sexual reproduction is the thing we're talking about, there's just no way.
"... the binary they claim to challenge is the same one they rely on to interpret their data."
Simplicity. Perfection. TRUTH.
And In the end I had to laugh!
It seems to me, as a complete outsider to the academic and "learned society" world infested with the postmodernist "sex is a spectrum" crowd, that their methodology is an application of a four-year old's framework for telling the difference between boys and girls. Boys wear pants and have shorter hair, and girls wear dresses and have long hair. Boys like nasty, dirty things like frogs, and girls are repulsed by them, which gives boys endless opportunities to have fun grossing out their sisters.
The serious question is for sociologists. 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘯 𝘌𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 did such mouth breathing nonsense get traction among the people who, of all people, should know better? It's happened before, I know. Hysterectomies being accepted as a remedy for "female hysteria" and lobotomies, for assorted mental conditions must be the most tragic examples. But then, Semmelweiss faced opposition to his insistence on physicians' washing their hands; Koch's Postulates were slow to be widely accepted. Sokal was criticized for his delightful parody. Boghossian, Lindsay, and Pluckrose suffered for the "Grievance Studies" series, not the editors and peer reviewers who were responsible for the publications.
What definition of sex is being used to try and disprove the binary template?🤔😳
The one I have seen most often is based on differences of secondary sexual characteristics.
??? Hmmmm…Can you expound on THAT specific definition?