And thus serves as evidence that the dispute to trans women’s womanhood or femaleness is one of human-made definitions, not of the facts. People like you are insisting science is on your side, but this is plainly a philosophical dispute.
There is no case being made, for more than two sexes existing, or for abandoning the idea male and female are distinct, binary entities.
Just because the intermediate outcomes are uncommon doesn’t mean you get to dismiss that they exist. You can map the attributes on a graph. It will be bimodal, yes, but not binary. Don’t try to wave the banner of science and then start engaging in denialist bullshit. Pick one.
If you gave a ram, female hormones, we would not call it a ewe, just because some of its secondary sex characteristics had changed.
Okay, but how are you determining whether a given goat is a ram or a ewe? Because if it involves looking at their genitalia, you’ve now defeated your metaphor as it applies to people. You sex people all the time based on only their secondary sex characteristics.
Would we accept an argument slightly vague boundaries meant a definition free-for-all in other biological concepts, like species?
LOL! And here’s where you reveal yourself to be an utter hack. You aren’t aware of how long the “definition of species” debate has been going? I’ve got bad news for you: Yes, we accept that other biological concepts mean the defined boundaries can be negotiated.
This is a routine process in science. You played your hand and revealed that you haven’t the foggiest fucking clue as to what you’re talking about.
