You either produce sperm, or ova - or neither (which if caused genetically is an abnormal variant).
“Producing the wrong gamete for one’s perceived gender doesn’t construct an additional sex, nor alter the definition of sex such that there are female sperm / male ova producers - this holds even if that perception has genetic as well as psycho-environmental causes” - in my opinion.
But .. we’re philosophical / political at this point .. which is the problem.
Or both, at least in theory, though true hermaphroditism with both ovulation and spermatogenesis, while theoretically possible and observed on other mammals has not, AFAIK, been conclusively shown in humans.
But, sure, you can redefine “sex” to be restricted to any one of a number of axes of sexual variation that exist in human and result in either a simple quaternary, trinary (or, if you try a little harder than you have, binary) distinction, but what is the point?
it's god of the gaps thinking, people are addicted to drawing clean lines around discrete categories as a vestige of modernism. taxonomy brain. we don't have good ways to say "there are two major clustering points, which most people are roughly close enough to one or the other to call them that, but there's enough overlap and so many dimensions that it makes drawing clean boundaries impossible"
I suspect as gene sequencing gets commoditized and personalized medicine actually becomes practical, we'll find a lot more cases where it makes sense to analyze people on the basis of their individual traits rather than what broad groups we can class them under
Doesn't really matter, for this purpose.
> I’d argue that humans are indeed binary sexed, and immutably so.
Unless you defining terms such that the variations are not merely disorders but actually nonhuman, you are clearly wrong; human alignments of sex characteristics are non-binary though bimodal.