> So what sex should we describe them as? Females, they produce large gametes as part of their reproduction strategy. You have twice argued for secondary char

> So what sex should we describe them as? Females, they produce large gametes as part of their reproduction strategy. You have twice argued for secondary characteristics to determine sex when reproduction strategy more than adequately describes the reproduction process, and we can then rely on our understanding of secondary sex characteristics (which can include behaviours) and their distribution (bimodal in humans) to apply them to things like whether mum or dad raise the children and oh, my, how interesting that is. > The words they use are sex-related traits and genes associated with sex, in order to describe how traits and genes can then go and provide a variability in sex They do not produce a variability in sex but in traits and behaviours associated with sex. Reproduction strategy, basically, gamete size, determines sex. That's that. > I would not use the word masculine to describe a fish or a bird And? > Sex identification of animals is diffused enough that its only a rough approximation to what kind of gonads that they have I will repeat, reproduction strategy is the determiner, for 95%+ (probably 98%+) of animals - that means gamete size. Gonads are a very good determiner, but they are still a trait and that means that in a small number of cases (around 0.018%[1]) they are ambiguous. That does not, in any way, contradict their actual sex as determined by gamete production, the fruits of emerged *reproduction strategy*. I suggest you stop looking for a way to get around reality, whether that be by sophistry or ignorance. [1] https://www.leonardsax.com/how-common-is-intersex-a-response-to-anne-fausto-sterling/ https://www.leonardsax.com/how-common-is-intersex-a-response...