Critical Analysis

Only two sexes? A casual review of Pornhub videos proves otherwise.

My scholarly article that no one will read. Lul. No one is going to peer review your trash because even looking at it gives it some measure of legitimacy in your eyes. You get nothing. Good day sir.

You know -maybe- if he hadn't picked a deliberately provoking title to bandwagon a social issue, maybe, people would take it serious.

But, you know, had to go with clickbait

Edit:

Mind you, that ignores the flagrant "science isn't woke" diatribe worked into it that is notacceptable in a supposedly scholarly work

Politically motivated as it may be, the original paper and response to critique, to me, read as straightforward and level-headed. From the original paper:

The societal and ethical stakes are also significant. Accurate biology is distinct from questions of dignity, rights, and how we treat one another. Policy disputes should not be adjudicated by redefining—or defining away—the reproductive realities that make sex a useful scientific concept in the first place. When categories are blurred for nonscientific reasons, we invite downstream harms: muddled clinical protocols, compromised epidemiology, eroding and/or conflicting legal protections, and diminished public trust in science.

From the critique:

In a time of vigorous discussion about gender diversity, invoking a single biological “truth” can shut down necessary conversations about intersex rights, health research, and inclusive policies.

This quote makes me think directly about the previous quote from the original paper: "diminished public trust in science." The response seems to be saying, quite straightforwardly, that we should not make sex a binary because of the potential social and policy implications. But to me, this seems like the tail wagging the dog, and if a respected scientist made such a claim, it would certainly diminish my trust in their propensity to tell me concrete facts about the nature of reality.

OOP says as much in their follow up:

In sum, Mahr’s critique is mainly about the sociology of categories and the policy implications of scientific debates. Those are fair topics to discuss, but they do not change the biological basis for how the sexes are defined.

To me - I think this is why things like trans rights have been the left's undefended belly in public discourse for years now. The left lets the policy outcome it wants - equitable treatment of sexual minorities - override any discussion about the facts about the world. And this feels disingenuous and untrustworthy to people who would otherwise be very interested in more left leaning economic policies

He would be really upset to hear about the amount of fungi sexes