I don't want to correct a biologist on a subject that they're clearly an expert on, but the discussion on sex seems like it's missing a lot of context. I wonder if they are making the mistake of thinking everyone is referring to the word "sex" in the same way?
The author seems to be talking about sex in terms of gametes - i.e. sperm and eggs. They make the claim that there is an absolute sex difference between male and female sexes in terms of this gamete structure. I am happy to take them on their word on this point.
But this is obviously not the only definition we have for sex. Individuals in a gonochoric species have a sex that in most cases corresponds to the gametes that they can produce, but this is not absolute. In humans, we know that intersex and possibly even hermaphroditic individuals can exist: these people certainly do not conform to a perfectly binary sex distinction. So clearly there is a definition of sex - and a widely used one at that - where the author is incorrect, and human sexes are more complicated than a perfect binary split.
This obviously doesn't invalidate the rest of the article, but it does suggest that some of the issue may lie in communication rather than oppression. For example, the author links to the "gender unicorn" model, but this fairly plainly discusses sex as a medical phenomenon (where it is typically assigned at birth, corresponds to reproductive organs, and where some people will not clearly fall in one category or another). This is presumably not being used by the same people studying evolutionary biology, where sex is an expression of gamete-based reproduction and - at least at a population level - binary. (Or at least, if it is, I imagine it will be within a specific context.)
Looking through some of the evidence linked by the article, this seems to be the case. For example, the article links statements from scientific groups claiming that sex is a continuum, but the statements are very clearly in response to decisions that would affect medical care for humans (where it would be incorrect to assume a strict distinction - if anything, medicine is the study of exceptions to the norm), and do not in principle disagree with that continuum being bimodal in respects to gamete-based reproduction.
Similarly, the author cites another article that they believe restricts discussion on reproduction to species that don't have binary sex. But my reading of the same article is (a) that it is exclusively focused on educating students (rather than wider scientific discussion), and (b) arguing for more examples rather than fewer to help students understand that reproduction can be much more complex than the traditional "sexual/asexual" model that they are often taught before university.
I am not in academia, so ultimately I can't tell the author that what they're experiencing isn't true. But as someone reading their article, I came away with the impression that the author would do well to read through some of the sources they cite with a more open mind, and attempt to understand why some people are concerned about biological gender in humans being restricted to a binary state.
The author seems to be talking about sex in terms of gametes - i.e. sperm and eggs. They make the claim that there is an absolute sex difference between male and female sexes in terms of this gamete structure. I am happy to take them on their word on this point.
But this is obviously not the only definition we have for sex. Individuals in a gonochoric species have a sex that in most cases corresponds to the gametes that they can produce, but this is not absolute. In humans, we know that intersex and possibly even hermaphroditic individuals can exist: these people certainly do not conform to a perfectly binary sex distinction. So clearly there is a definition of sex - and a widely used one at that - where the author is incorrect, and human sexes are more complicated than a perfect binary split.
This obviously doesn't invalidate the rest of the article, but it does suggest that some of the issue may lie in communication rather than oppression. For example, the author links to the "gender unicorn" model, but this fairly plainly discusses sex as a medical phenomenon (where it is typically assigned at birth, corresponds to reproductive organs, and where some people will not clearly fall in one category or another). This is presumably not being used by the same people studying evolutionary biology, where sex is an expression of gamete-based reproduction and - at least at a population level - binary. (Or at least, if it is, I imagine it will be within a specific context.)
Looking through some of the evidence linked by the article, this seems to be the case. For example, the article links statements from scientific groups claiming that sex is a continuum, but the statements are very clearly in response to decisions that would affect medical care for humans (where it would be incorrect to assume a strict distinction - if anything, medicine is the study of exceptions to the norm), and do not in principle disagree with that continuum being bimodal in respects to gamete-based reproduction.
Similarly, the author cites another article that they believe restricts discussion on reproduction to species that don't have binary sex. But my reading of the same article is (a) that it is exclusively focused on educating students (rather than wider scientific discussion), and (b) arguing for more examples rather than fewer to help students understand that reproduction can be much more complex than the traditional "sexual/asexual" model that they are often taught before university.
I am not in academia, so ultimately I can't tell the author that what they're experiencing isn't true. But as someone reading their article, I came away with the impression that the author would do well to read through some of the sources they cite with a more open mind, and attempt to understand why some people are concerned about biological gender in humans being restricted to a binary state.