The article literally shows in its second paragraph that "XY" entails male is not valid; it describes an extremely common occurrence of cells losing their Y chr

The article literally shows in its second paragraph that "XY" entails male is not valid; it describes an extremely common occurrence of cells losing their Y chromosome. Outside of that example, for overall humans, when Y is present, and SRY isn't, advocates for chromosomal definitions fall flat. When SRY is present but not expressed, same thing. When SRY is expressed but receptors are insensitive to androgens, chromosomal definitions fall flat again. Aknowledging that there is a difference between "man" and the XY genotype, and being clear about the definitions the article will employ is not some concession to wokeness. It is a scientist being interested in their tools, their theories, and the limits of them, and an article in Nature is a perfectly appropriate place for this; just as much as we can and do to expect articles in nature to differentiate MSM and "gay man".