> Except that's not what they claim, Yes it is. > at least not in the way you're claiming, In exactly the way I’m claiming. > which seems deny that there ar

> Except that's not what they claim, Yes it is. > at least not in the way you're claiming, In exactly the way I’m claiming. > which seems deny that there are men and women out there with sex genes other XY and XX and that intersex people don't exist. You are reading something in that I didn’t write. I didn’t deny the existence of intersex people or those with chromosomes other than XX and XY. > Because when people claim that "sex is a continuum" it's pointing out that while men and women cluster around having XY and XX chromosomes, the reality is more complicated. It’s true that reality is more complicated than XY and XX. But then I never said it wasn’t. It’s not true that people are “just pointing this out”. They are deploying this read herring as as the Motte part of a motte and Bailey argument. It’s true that there are certain discrete exceptions to a rigid sex binary. This is the easily defensible ‘motte’. It’s plainly not true that there is no such thing as biological sex. You might like to learn about the processes surrounding your conception and birth if you are unsure. It’s also false that declaring that you identify as a different gender does anything to change your biological sex, regardless of your chromosomes. These are the absurd ‘Bailey’ arguments that the red herring is disingenuously used to defend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_reproduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_reproduction