Posted by sinister burt on September 15, 2022, 8:03 am, in reply to "Re: Et tu quoque..."
The second link was an afterthought and a reference to the post a few down where John Munro said SueC did a Tu Quoque (and a cowardly way of posting the article on Sex/gender but trying to avoid confrontation on this issue (I was just feeling momentarily naughty when I posted it if there was an edit button I'd probably have removed it)
The second article was focussing on distinguishing between the concept of sex as a binary and as bimodality, saying it should be thought of as the latter, as argued in there (the diagram at the top illustrates) - it doesn't change the fact the it's 'typically' one or the other, but it accepts the nuanced view of the complexity suggested (in SBM's reading at least) by 'the science' on this topic (sex). The later bit on gender rests on less science/data, but is still worth considering I thought. I wish I hadn't posted it now as it doesn't help it seems.