Lots of good reading there, if some rather depressing fare. Moot as to the roots of the general problem you refer to, although many have argued that most of us aren't really listening to each other, are too narrow-minded, scientifically illiterate, and dogmatic to do so. Something of a systemic problem that may well be the death of us all.
Something of a case in point, if not where the rubber meets the road, is summarized by your "the scientific definition of sex has gone down the toilet". But the problem there is that most people haven't got a flaming clue about that "scientific definition" in the first place and are subscribing to if not peddling what is no more than folk biology. For example, you link to the Spiked Online article that takes a well-deserved shot or two at "Scientific" American. However, Spiked proves their scientific illiteracy and pigheadedness by stating that, "... [Scientific American] asserts that sex is ‘assigned’ at birth when it is not – it is observed and recorded". The ONLY thing that is observed at birth is genitalia which is NOT what it takes to qualify as male or female.
More particularly -- by the standard biological definitions promulgated in reputable biological journals, dictionaries, and encyclopedias -- to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither -- i.e., newborn babies and the prepubescent -- are sexless. As some corroboration for that view, see this recent article in Wiley Online Library and this passage in particular:
WOL: "Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage. For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, yet."
From zygote, to embryo, to fetus, to the onset of puberty, none of us are or were "reproductively competent" -- we are not or were not yet male or female; we are or were sexless.
ALL that the words "male" and "female" denote, at least by those standard biological definitions, is quite transitory reproductive abilities. Too many people have turned the sexes into "immutable identities" based on some "mythic essences". And too many get quite "offended" when one tries to point out those facts. Not to give you (too much of) a hard time, but I wonder how willing you are to listen to that argument ...
Lots of good reading there, if some rather depressing fare. Moot as to the roots of the general problem you refer to, although many have argued that most of us aren't really listening to each other, are too narrow-minded, scientifically illiterate, and dogmatic to do so. Something of a systemic problem that may well be the death of us all.
Something of a case in point, if not where the rubber meets the road, is summarized by your "the scientific definition of sex has gone down the toilet". But the problem there is that most people haven't got a flaming clue about that "scientific definition" in the first place and are subscribing to if not peddling what is no more than folk biology. For example, you link to the Spiked Online article that takes a well-deserved shot or two at "Scientific" American. However, Spiked proves their scientific illiteracy and pigheadedness by stating that, "... [Scientific American] asserts that sex is ‘assigned’ at birth when it is not – it is observed and recorded". The ONLY thing that is observed at birth is genitalia which is NOT what it takes to qualify as male or female.
More particularly -- by the standard biological definitions promulgated in reputable biological journals, dictionaries, and encyclopedias -- to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither -- i.e., newborn babies and the prepubescent -- are sexless. As some corroboration for that view, see this recent article in Wiley Online Library and this passage in particular:
WOL: "Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage. For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, yet."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bies.202200173
From zygote, to embryo, to fetus, to the onset of puberty, none of us are or were "reproductively competent" -- we are not or were not yet male or female; we are or were sexless.
ALL that the words "male" and "female" denote, at least by those standard biological definitions, is quite transitory reproductive abilities. Too many people have turned the sexes into "immutable identities" based on some "mythic essences". And too many get quite "offended" when one tries to point out those facts. Not to give you (too much of) a hard time, but I wonder how willing you are to listen to that argument ...
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/i-still-dont-understand-the-point/comment/42433491
https://sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/my-first-space-how-did-it-go/comment/39281981