tahira

Those are all variations within a sex. You're confusing sex with the phenotype and genotype.

Anyone can change their gender because it's all made up. Nobody can change the type of gametes they do or would produce.

So I would agree with that 58%, because there's no option for "Yes, and intersex is irrelevant". It's honestly a terrible poll, most likely not written by a biologist. I wouldn't be surprised if that 13% put down "Prefer not to say" as a sort of "This is a bad poll" response.

I'll let the quoted scientist in the source of the poll respond.

“Leading science journals have been adopting this relativist view, thereby opposing fundamental biological facts,” he said.

“While we fully endorse efforts to create a more inclusive environment for gender-diverse people, this does not require denying biological sex.

“On the contrary, the rejection of biological sex seems to be based on a lack of knowledge about evolution and it champions species chauvinism, inasmuch as it imposes human identity notions on millions of other species.”

Live a happy, fulfilling life? I'm not sure what you mean.

Plenty of PhD’s in evolutionary biology would agree with me, even in the article

Are you misreading the article? When it says "However, as pointed out by others", that is pointing out that you're 100% incorrect. I'm not sure why you cited something that proves you wrong. Nowhere is a single PhD cited that agrees with you.

This is a matter of opinion, not an objective fact.

It is an objective fact. I'll link you to Wikipedia because it's easy, but feel free to cite anything that contradicts it: "The type of gamete an organism produces determines its sex"

Talk to an expert with a PHD about this

You literally avoided reading the article, where a PhD in evolutionary biology explains exactly why you're wrong.

they often produce both or neither…

Thank you for being aware of the sex binary. In incredibly rare cases (as in you can count them on the fingers of one hand), there may have been cases where humans produced both gametes, likely due to chimerism. But just as you say, it's both gametes, because sex is binary. They're producing both of the two binary options.

Producing neither gamete is a silly point to bring up. Your sex is the size of the gametes you do or would produce. It's also not a new sex to produce neither of the two gametes.

Give one example.

Besides the given example in the article and directly given to you already where an academic is trying to push for a bad definition of sex (in Scientific American, not just some random podunk journal), here's one example:

Note: in humans, there are egg-producers that do not identify as female and sperm-producers that do not identify as male.

That's a silly statement that has nothing to do with biology and was clearly shoved in there for appeasement of gender fanatics. Biology doesn't give a shit how you identify.

more accurate descriptor of the situation

It's less accurate. You responded to me with "whoa what about intersex people", because you were working off of a bad and unclear definition. If you had read the article, you would have known this. Reminder that the article is titled "Denying the Human Sex Binary Turns Biology into Nonsense", written by a PhD in evolutionary biology. He's addressing your exact points.

Intersex people aren't a monolith. What size gametes each intersex person produces determines their sex. This is the biological definition and is not a spectrum. It is binary and immutable. Gender activists are trying to shove gender into inappropriate places.

If it doesn't matter, then it should be no big deal to drop all of the gender woo when speaking of sex, right?

From the opening sentence of the article:

In a new piece for Scientific American, Princeton anthropologist Dr. Agustín Fuentes argues that the binary of male and female is too simplistic to describe the complexity of human sex

Academia has become gripped by a new religious dogma that must not be questioned. They're trying to redefine the basic scientific terminology of sex in order to appease an unscientific political movement.