LGBTQ+

Really? Again? I already disproved that take of yours in another thread, and you're still on about that bullshit even though your own source disproves your claim literally in its first sentence?

The citation you're contradicting is from an actual real-life, respected biologist who wrote peer-reviewed scientific articles. Who are you? Where are you getting these facts from, since they're nowhere to be found in your source? Are you really that deep in the Dunning-Kruger valley? or are you trying to hide some sort of message in ignorance too solid to be genuine?

Please, being mistaken isn't a crime but at least try to learn

Edit because I can't reply to a comment that was moderated out: Saying "again" when you're spouting the same nonsense again is not a tactic, it's just frustration. What is a tactic is cherry picking the parts of an article to present only one side of a debate, in order to refute another argument than the one put to you.

I didn't speak about the offensiveness or not of the term DSD here. I can at most think I would be or not, but I'm not qualified to know whether I would be offended. What I am talking about is reading, which I am qualified to do. There are three definitions of biological sex mentioned in the very first sentence of the article, none of which refer to gamete size which is a fourth one. I could also add the part where not all the DSD listed can be said to be male or female, and the ones who can actually use the chromosomal definition.

But I guess consistency is only for true believers, actual truth seekers like you neglect all that and keep repeating bad approximations as if they were facts because it feels good when the world is simple.