So the court has ruled that intersex people don’t exist? This is the complete opposite of “reason and evidence”. This is pure hatred and bigotry. Totally against science and reality.
The court was ruling on how the 2010 Equality Act defines the terms “woman” and “sex”. They ruled that the definition *in the 2010 Equality Act* was one of biological sex. The *Act* applies only to biologically female people. The court was not stating that “woman” and “sex” are categorically defined as biological sex – only that that is how the Act intended them to be used.
That doesn’t mean that we cannot have a new Equality Act that extends the use of “woman” and “sex” to include transgender women.
Kokako raises an important and extremely difficult point… How the heck do we define “biologically female” or “biologically male”? Nature isn’t so neat.
Even the general rule of XY Chromosome = Male and XX = Female isn’t 100% There are (rare) cases of XY’s who develop as female, and XX who develop as male.
Perhaps we shouldn’t assign sex/gender identities until a child is old enough to answer “Is you a boy, or is you a girl, or is you what you am?”
Why not assign sex as we did it for millennia and still do for our Dogs, horses and other mammals? Sex is what you see in the flesh between the legs, all other niceties as identity, sexuality, gender and all that is between the ears. The former you can see, touch, verify, the latter you must believe.
All other is nice for jesuits, talmud students and other hair splitters, but hardly of any day to day use.
I myself would make things even easier: male is “he that pisseth against the wall”. All others are not.
@Shaughn
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it’s not real?”
Sure, you can insist on a “biological” definition of sex – although as per my previous post, nature isn’t so neat as that – but it’s ALL “between the ears”. That’s where “we” exist. In our brains. In our minds. And I am 100% convinced that some people are “female” in their minds even if their biological sex is “male” and vice-versa.
(Fully aware of the irony of using the words of JKR in this context)
A working definition that is 98 times out of 100 applicable is not that bad for daily use, isn’t it arbeyu? And for this ‘nature’ character it’s pretty neat, I think.
And it wouldn’t stand in the way of having a male sex and a female mind. Unless one sticks to the assumption that sex and mind are unseparable and a male sex must come with a male mindset/identity/gender/whatever. If anything, 100 out of 100 people show different.
(Genitals do not happen in your brain, unless the brain is located somewhere near the pelvis. Although some males do seem to think with their dicks.) 🙂
It’s closer to 99.99%. Sex is binary (gametic definition, which tracks nearly perfectly with both genitalia and sex chromosomes), no matter what some politically inclined people would like to have us believe. No one has any trouble with this when it applies to horses or birds, and human exceptionalism has a religious foundation, which I’m pretty sure most people on this site would reject.
Wokies forcing us to believe that “trans women are women” (with XY chromosomes!) is little different from Big Brother forcing us to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. Both are instances of power ignoring truth if favor of exercising humiliation (if one actually does knuckle under to them).
I have a request for Author. The next time you do a strip on this topic could you please give us a bit of advance warning? I would have very much liked to have had some beer and popcorn on hand when I started to read the comments. Your consideration is greatly appreciated.
Does seem to inflame. I wonder if folks who set their hair on fire over these matters, are really hurting their own cause? I mean, if we just quit paying any attention, would there be more trans, or fewer? Let God impose his or her own will.
Sex is biological, and highly bimodal, with a few exceptions. Gender is psycho-social, multi-dimensional, and multimodal. Confusing the two is a category error.
Transwomen and transmen exist, but definitions are fuzzy. Is a hot dog a sandwich? Is a taco? Is a sofa a chair? Is Pluto a planet? For some reason people get passionate about these semantic questions.
My tinfoil-hat theory is that since transgender identity is mainly psychological, and since Americans worship sex, it follows that transgender identity is protected under the First Amendment’s protection of religious faith.
The vast majority of “intersex” people are in fact clearly male or female, albeit with some sort of abnormality. For example, XYY men are routinely counted as intersex, in order to inflate the number of intersex people, yet XYY men are unambiguous males in a phenotypical sense, and in fact are often unaware that they have any sort of abnormality. People who are intersex in the sense that it is genuinely difficult to tell what sex they belong to are extremely rare! In any case, intersex is irrelevant, because there are only two functional sexes, and that’s what matters. There are no “sexes” aside from male and female that have any biological function.
As for the idea that sex is “all between the ears” because “we exist in our brains”, I would argue the exact opposite! A person’s sex is entirely about the body, because we only ever interact directly with people’s bodies, not their minds. I don’t care how deeply and sincerely you identify as a bird. Your inner identity changes nothing for me and is therefore of no interest; what matters is whether you have feathers and can fly.
Of course this brings up the issue of what to do when someone engages in such extreme body modification that they become physically indistinguishable from the opposite sex. They haven’t really changed sex, but requiring that they use the “proper” locker room is going to lead to some uncomfortable moments for everyone. I don’t have a good solution for this, but I do think that in at least some circumstances there should be serious penalties for misrepresenting your sex.
Anyone using the term “woke” as an insult should be aware that it comes from the American Civil Rights era, and therefore what kind of person it is dog-whistle language to.
“African Americans need to wake to the injustices, and stay woke”.
PS. If you wish to argue that the negative use of the word “woke” has now lost its original racist meaning, then at least allow that it is inevitably an ad-hominem attack. It’s a sweeping dismissal of what a person is saying “because they are ‘woke'” rather than an argument against what they are saying.
@Shaughn
98/100 (or 99.99/100) is fine – IF you’re the 98%. It can suck to be the 2%. IMO, a society is judged on how it treats the minority.
My point is that “biological” sex is not definitive. Sure, you can look between the legs – but that’s not the whole story. And you can look at the chromosomes – and that’s not the whole story either. Foetal development is incredibly complex and depends on bursts of hormones from the foetus triggering bursts of hormones from the mother triggering developmental pathways. There’s a lot that can go “wrong” (in the non-judgmental sense of the word).
I can dig out some references, but various studies are strongly suggestive that there are neural pathways that define whether a person feels male or female. These are usually – but not always – associated with a person’s “biological” sex – whether you define that by visible genitalia or by chromosomes.
I don’t need to define the “(fe)male mind”. Like everyone on the planet, I have knowledge of exactly one mind – my own. I can only gain knowledge of another’s mind by asking them about it. And if someone tells me that they feel male or female or neither or both , then who the heck am I to argue?
@Abreyu
Aye, aye and aye – you’re making valid points.
I agree with ‘biological sex is not definitive’, but let me add “unless you choose it to be'”. Definitions are not matters of eternal truth that must encompass everything. They serve a purpose and come in handy, or not. And for the legal purposes at hand, the Court decides the biological sex comes in handy. Not that it’s absolute truth forever, or as handy for other purposes. And if necessary one can add appropriate niceties to a definition.
Who the heck you are to argue – that’s easy. You’re the one known here as Abreyu. Perhaps you know your own mind and I sure hope you do as do I mine, but the world is full of those who don’t or at least not as much as they ‘think’ they do. That’s the Dunning-Kruger effect, ‘know thyself’-Socrates would have loved it.
If you don’t define (fe)male, you haven’t clue what you’re talking about (or they, for that matter). You may not know, but you apply your definition.
How do I know? Because I know I do, and I have what’s called a”Theory of mind” about others. So do you. But then, so has my Dog, and by times she happens to fool me, to our joy.
@Shaughn. Likewise. And thank you for remaining polite.
To be sure, in order to function, laws have to have absolute definitions – even if these are somewhat arbitrary or subjective. We have to define what a “woman” is if we are to have e.g. “women-only spaces”. And don’t get me wrong for a second – we need women-only spaces.
Our laws define that a “woman” is a person whose birth certificate says that she was born “female”. What’s on the birth certificate, I guess, is on the say-so of the obstetrician attending the birth. Fair enough. It’s a definition. We needed one.
But some people want the definition of “woman” to be extended to a person whose birth certificate says that she was born “male” but who has transitioned.
And that makes some people very, very angry.
Some people dismiss the idea outright as “woke” to which I say “piss off and come back with an actual argument rather than ad-hominem bullshit”.
Some people dismiss the idea “because there is a simple biological definition of sex” – and I say to that “Are you sure about that?” And, even if there is one, why in principle cannot a person who has transitioned sex never, ever, ever be reclassified as their transitioned sex?
When you see a banner saying “No man can be a lesbian”, what it’s really saying is “No man can become a woman”. And I think that’s debatable.
@Arbeyu
Thank you too for remaining polite, Arbeyu. I think it’s clear we don’t differ that much on the subject. Perhaps in resuting choices, but not fundamentally, I’d say.
Re ‘woke’, the modern use of it is in my not-so-humble opinion, a matter of hostile take over from original Afro-Americans use, a form of cultural appropriation. That itself is very unwoke. By now woke stands for a diffuse bunch of notions and ideals, by no means as defined as its origine. Calling someone woke may be ad hominem, but not more so than calling someone fascist (the usual reciproke woke ‘tu quoque’ fallacy) or democrat, republican, socialist, jew, protestant,catholic. Aside from that it’s also a metaphore for all the opponent stands for that is wrong. All container concepts, so to say.
Last, your last remark is debatable indeed. ‘No man can be a lesbian’ (i.e. a woman sexually attracted to women) is true. It emphasizes not that a man cannot become a woman, but that to be a lesbian the man must become a woman. 🙂
Whatever its origins (the meanings of words do change!), the term “woke” is now commonly used as a name for an aggressive and quasi-religious left-wing social movement that very much does not wish to be named.
@Shaughn
I think we differ in our interpretation of the intention behind the “No man can be a lesbian” poster.
It is literally true: Only a woman can be a lesbian (the two statements are equivalent). It is so literally true that it doesn’t need said at all – so much so that there must be a reason for the protestor saying it.
The intention behind the poster can only be to imply that “No man can become a woman (and thence a lesbian)”.
“Sex” is a legal definition – currently effectively “whatever the doctor decided you were when signing the birth certificate”. Legal definitions can change.
Same-sex marriage is an example of this. Previously, the legal definition of marriage was restricted to being between a man and a woman. Protestors against same-sex marriage claimed that this was the only possible definition of it (often for religious reasons). They said that marriage as an institute would not survive a change to the definition; that same-sex marriage would deprecate the specialness of hetero-sex marriages. They said that gay couples should be given an equivalent-but-definitely-not-the-same legal status called a “Civil Partnership”. Hey, the bus is going to the same place, so what does it matter if you have to sit at the back?
That’s where we are now with trans rights.
And then the legal definition of marriage changed. And the world didn’t come to an end.
PS – I should have pointed out that the protestors weren’t seeking to change the legal status of trans people – they were seeking to block an attempt by the Scottish government to give a trans person that same rights as those of their transitioned sex. The poster has to be understood in that context.
The term “woke” is now commonly used indiscriminately to refer to any advocacy for the welfare of others.
Yeah, there is in it a reference to extreme positions, but the label just allows the extreme fringes to hide in the crowd, as everyone with a shred of conscience becomes “woke.”
@Arbeyu
“I think we differ in our interpretation of […]” – agree! And within that context I agree on your point of view also.
Enough of this, I thank you for a pleasant and informative exchange of thoughts and wish you happy Easter Days in heathen, heretic or reliqious sense, as you wish! 😀
What about the people who wish to be identified as He on a Friday. She on a Saturday They on a Sunday and a purple Aardvaak from Monday to Thursday? Just askin….
Jesus & Mo (the characters) are absurd, blinkered, and oddly very sweet. J&M (the cartoon) is brilliant: sharp, delicious, irresistible. Salman Rushdie
Jesus and Mo cartoons are wonderfully funny and true. Richard Dawkins
Jesus and Mo make the world a better place, bless their little hearts. Ophelia Benson
In a world defined by outrage and offence and liberal spinelessness, Jesus and Mo is a treasure, whose value we should never fail to recognize. Read them. Laugh. And think. Kenan Malik
The brilliant, celebrated, freaking hilarious atheist comic strip ... Greta Christina
...rays of sanity in a befuddled world. Keri Hulme
The liveliest depictions of Muhammad currently available... Malise Ruthven
J & Mo is the funniest and most consistently thought-provoking cartoon strip on the Net. In a saner world, it would run in a major newspaper. Nelson Jones, Heresy Corner
Consistently amusing, frequently thought-provoking and often heart-warming. New Humanist
Jesus & Mo is one of the most wonderful things on the internet.. JT Eberhard
Wittily captures much of the absurdity of religious apologetics. Mano Singham
I love jesusandmo.net cartoons - witty and sharp! Katha Pollitt
Often hilarious, frequently wry, these cartoons do what all the best cartoons do: they tell the truth through humour. Terry Sanderson, NSS President
...a wonderfully acid British cartoonist... Nick Cohen
I love the scrappy mockery of Jesus and Mo. Freedom of speech
includes the freedom to mock any person, any thing, any activity, and
any belief -- and J&M stands up for this unflinchingly Richard Stallman
...empowering, important and deeply progressive, not to mention hilarious... Council of Ex-Muslims
March 16, 2022
So the court has ruled that intersex people don’t exist? This is the complete opposite of “reason and evidence”. This is pure hatred and bigotry. Totally against science and reality.
Has the court defined what it means by “biological female”? DNA, hormonal expression, visible genitalia, …?
I’m wondering how many of the judges have any knowledge of biology beyond XX and XY?
@TheCatLady
The Court didn’t rule anything about intersex people. They are mentioned nor defined. See for yourself: https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
@shaughn
They said sex was binary. It isn’t.
Pernickety point…
The court was ruling on how the 2010 Equality Act defines the terms “woman” and “sex”. They ruled that the definition *in the 2010 Equality Act* was one of biological sex. The *Act* applies only to biologically female people. The court was not stating that “woman” and “sex” are categorically defined as biological sex – only that that is how the Act intended them to be used.
That doesn’t mean that we cannot have a new Equality Act that extends the use of “woman” and “sex” to include transgender women.
@kokako
The court follows the birth certificate, as does EA2010, to define biological sex.
(page 9 of the ruling).
Are you referring to that minor fraction of intersex newborns?
@Alverant that was.
Kokako raises an important and extremely difficult point… How the heck do we define “biologically female” or “biologically male”? Nature isn’t so neat.
Even the general rule of XY Chromosome = Male and XX = Female isn’t 100% There are (rare) cases of XY’s who develop as female, and XX who develop as male.
Perhaps we shouldn’t assign sex/gender identities until a child is old enough to answer “Is you a boy, or is you a girl, or is you what you am?”
Why not assign sex as we did it for millennia and still do for our Dogs, horses and other mammals? Sex is what you see in the flesh between the legs, all other niceties as identity, sexuality, gender and all that is between the ears. The former you can see, touch, verify, the latter you must believe.
All other is nice for jesuits, talmud students and other hair splitters, but hardly of any day to day use.
I myself would make things even easier: male is “he that pisseth against the wall”. All others are not.
You need a certifying authority.
@Shaughn
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it’s not real?”
Sure, you can insist on a “biological” definition of sex – although as per my previous post, nature isn’t so neat as that – but it’s ALL “between the ears”. That’s where “we” exist. In our brains. In our minds. And I am 100% convinced that some people are “female” in their minds even if their biological sex is “male” and vice-versa.
(Fully aware of the irony of using the words of JKR in this context)
A working definition that is 98 times out of 100 applicable is not that bad for daily use, isn’t it arbeyu? And for this ‘nature’ character it’s pretty neat, I think.
And it wouldn’t stand in the way of having a male sex and a female mind. Unless one sticks to the assumption that sex and mind are unseparable and a male sex must come with a male mindset/identity/gender/whatever. If anything, 100 out of 100 people show different.
(Genitals do not happen in your brain, unless the brain is located somewhere near the pelvis. Although some males do seem to think with their dicks.) 🙂
(That was me, again)
Arbeyu, if you find it extremely difficult to define ‘biological (fe)male”, try defining ‘(fe)male mind’…
as dawkins said “there are only two sexes, and some exceptions” very smort
@Anonymous:
It’s closer to 99.99%. Sex is binary (gametic definition, which tracks nearly perfectly with both genitalia and sex chromosomes), no matter what some politically inclined people would like to have us believe. No one has any trouble with this when it applies to horses or birds, and human exceptionalism has a religious foundation, which I’m pretty sure most people on this site would reject.
Wokies forcing us to believe that “trans women are women” (with XY chromosomes!) is little different from Big Brother forcing us to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. Both are instances of power ignoring truth if favor of exercising humiliation (if one actually does knuckle under to them).
I have a request for Author. The next time you do a strip on this topic could you please give us a bit of advance warning? I would have very much liked to have had some beer and popcorn on hand when I started to read the comments. Your consideration is greatly appreciated.
Does seem to inflame. I wonder if folks who set their hair on fire over these matters, are really hurting their own cause? I mean, if we just quit paying any attention, would there be more trans, or fewer? Let God impose his or her own will.
Donn Cave: I concur. As my Russian grandfather used to say in a very thick accent: “What does any of this bullshit have to do with me”?
Sex is biological, and highly bimodal, with a few exceptions. Gender is psycho-social, multi-dimensional, and multimodal. Confusing the two is a category error.
Transwomen and transmen exist, but definitions are fuzzy. Is a hot dog a sandwich? Is a taco? Is a sofa a chair? Is Pluto a planet? For some reason people get passionate about these semantic questions.
My tinfoil-hat theory is that since transgender identity is mainly psychological, and since Americans worship sex, it follows that transgender identity is protected under the First Amendment’s protection of religious faith.
The vast majority of “intersex” people are in fact clearly male or female, albeit with some sort of abnormality. For example, XYY men are routinely counted as intersex, in order to inflate the number of intersex people, yet XYY men are unambiguous males in a phenotypical sense, and in fact are often unaware that they have any sort of abnormality. People who are intersex in the sense that it is genuinely difficult to tell what sex they belong to are extremely rare! In any case, intersex is irrelevant, because there are only two functional sexes, and that’s what matters. There are no “sexes” aside from male and female that have any biological function.
As for the idea that sex is “all between the ears” because “we exist in our brains”, I would argue the exact opposite! A person’s sex is entirely about the body, because we only ever interact directly with people’s bodies, not their minds. I don’t care how deeply and sincerely you identify as a bird. Your inner identity changes nothing for me and is therefore of no interest; what matters is whether you have feathers and can fly.
Of course this brings up the issue of what to do when someone engages in such extreme body modification that they become physically indistinguishable from the opposite sex. They haven’t really changed sex, but requiring that they use the “proper” locker room is going to lead to some uncomfortable moments for everyone. I don’t have a good solution for this, but I do think that in at least some circumstances there should be serious penalties for misrepresenting your sex.
Anyone using the term “woke” as an insult should be aware that it comes from the American Civil Rights era, and therefore what kind of person it is dog-whistle language to.
“African Americans need to wake to the injustices, and stay woke”.
Clarification: “what kind of person [its negative use] is dog-whistle language to”.
PS. If you wish to argue that the negative use of the word “woke” has now lost its original racist meaning, then at least allow that it is inevitably an ad-hominem attack. It’s a sweeping dismissal of what a person is saying “because they are ‘woke'” rather than an argument against what they are saying.
@Shaughn
98/100 (or 99.99/100) is fine – IF you’re the 98%. It can suck to be the 2%. IMO, a society is judged on how it treats the minority.
My point is that “biological” sex is not definitive. Sure, you can look between the legs – but that’s not the whole story. And you can look at the chromosomes – and that’s not the whole story either. Foetal development is incredibly complex and depends on bursts of hormones from the foetus triggering bursts of hormones from the mother triggering developmental pathways. There’s a lot that can go “wrong” (in the non-judgmental sense of the word).
I can dig out some references, but various studies are strongly suggestive that there are neural pathways that define whether a person feels male or female. These are usually – but not always – associated with a person’s “biological” sex – whether you define that by visible genitalia or by chromosomes.
I don’t need to define the “(fe)male mind”. Like everyone on the planet, I have knowledge of exactly one mind – my own. I can only gain knowledge of another’s mind by asking them about it. And if someone tells me that they feel male or female or neither or both , then who the heck am I to argue?
With all due respect, Shaughn, you can’t see or touch mine. Unless you buy me drink first, obvs.
@Abreyu
Aye, aye and aye – you’re making valid points.
I agree with ‘biological sex is not definitive’, but let me add “unless you choose it to be'”. Definitions are not matters of eternal truth that must encompass everything. They serve a purpose and come in handy, or not. And for the legal purposes at hand, the Court decides the biological sex comes in handy. Not that it’s absolute truth forever, or as handy for other purposes. And if necessary one can add appropriate niceties to a definition.
Who the heck you are to argue – that’s easy. You’re the one known here as Abreyu. Perhaps you know your own mind and I sure hope you do as do I mine, but the world is full of those who don’t or at least not as much as they ‘think’ they do. That’s the Dunning-Kruger effect, ‘know thyself’-Socrates would have loved it.
If you don’t define (fe)male, you haven’t clue what you’re talking about (or they, for that matter). You may not know, but you apply your definition.
How do I know? Because I know I do, and I have what’s called a”Theory of mind” about others. So do you. But then, so has my Dog, and by times she happens to fool me, to our joy.
@Shaughn. Likewise. And thank you for remaining polite.
To be sure, in order to function, laws have to have absolute definitions – even if these are somewhat arbitrary or subjective. We have to define what a “woman” is if we are to have e.g. “women-only spaces”. And don’t get me wrong for a second – we need women-only spaces.
Our laws define that a “woman” is a person whose birth certificate says that she was born “female”. What’s on the birth certificate, I guess, is on the say-so of the obstetrician attending the birth. Fair enough. It’s a definition. We needed one.
But some people want the definition of “woman” to be extended to a person whose birth certificate says that she was born “male” but who has transitioned.
And that makes some people very, very angry.
Some people dismiss the idea outright as “woke” to which I say “piss off and come back with an actual argument rather than ad-hominem bullshit”.
Some people dismiss the idea “because there is a simple biological definition of sex” – and I say to that “Are you sure about that?” And, even if there is one, why in principle cannot a person who has transitioned sex never, ever, ever be reclassified as their transitioned sex?
When you see a banner saying “No man can be a lesbian”, what it’s really saying is “No man can become a woman”. And I think that’s debatable.
@Arbeyu
Thank you too for remaining polite, Arbeyu. I think it’s clear we don’t differ that much on the subject. Perhaps in resuting choices, but not fundamentally, I’d say.
Re ‘woke’, the modern use of it is in my not-so-humble opinion, a matter of hostile take over from original Afro-Americans use, a form of cultural appropriation. That itself is very unwoke. By now woke stands for a diffuse bunch of notions and ideals, by no means as defined as its origine. Calling someone woke may be ad hominem, but not more so than calling someone fascist (the usual reciproke woke ‘tu quoque’ fallacy) or democrat, republican, socialist, jew, protestant,catholic. Aside from that it’s also a metaphore for all the opponent stands for that is wrong. All container concepts, so to say.
Last, your last remark is debatable indeed. ‘No man can be a lesbian’ (i.e. a woman sexually attracted to women) is true. It emphasizes not that a man cannot become a woman, but that to be a lesbian the man must become a woman. 🙂
Whatever its origins (the meanings of words do change!), the term “woke” is now commonly used as a name for an aggressive and quasi-religious left-wing social movement that very much does not wish to be named.
@Shaughn
I think we differ in our interpretation of the intention behind the “No man can be a lesbian” poster.
It is literally true: Only a woman can be a lesbian (the two statements are equivalent). It is so literally true that it doesn’t need said at all – so much so that there must be a reason for the protestor saying it.
The intention behind the poster can only be to imply that “No man can become a woman (and thence a lesbian)”.
“Sex” is a legal definition – currently effectively “whatever the doctor decided you were when signing the birth certificate”. Legal definitions can change.
Same-sex marriage is an example of this. Previously, the legal definition of marriage was restricted to being between a man and a woman. Protestors against same-sex marriage claimed that this was the only possible definition of it (often for religious reasons). They said that marriage as an institute would not survive a change to the definition; that same-sex marriage would deprecate the specialness of hetero-sex marriages. They said that gay couples should be given an equivalent-but-definitely-not-the-same legal status called a “Civil Partnership”. Hey, the bus is going to the same place, so what does it matter if you have to sit at the back?
That’s where we are now with trans rights.
And then the legal definition of marriage changed. And the world didn’t come to an end.
PS – I should have pointed out that the protestors weren’t seeking to change the legal status of trans people – they were seeking to block an attempt by the Scottish government to give a trans person that same rights as those of their transitioned sex. The poster has to be understood in that context.
The term “woke” is now commonly used indiscriminately to refer to any advocacy for the welfare of others.
Yeah, there is in it a reference to extreme positions, but the label just allows the extreme fringes to hide in the crowd, as everyone with a shred of conscience becomes “woke.”
@Arbeyu
“I think we differ in our interpretation of […]” – agree! And within that context I agree on your point of view also.
Enough of this, I thank you for a pleasant and informative exchange of thoughts and wish you happy Easter Days in heathen, heretic or reliqious sense, as you wish! 😀
What about the people who wish to be identified as He on a Friday. She on a Saturday They on a Sunday and a purple Aardvaak from Monday to Thursday? Just askin….
Statistically I have more than the average No of arms and eyes and ears….thus mathematically you take the mode…so sex is modally binary is it not?