The “illiberal left” would look at you strangely for bringing up the topic with such gusto whilst clearly misunderstanding the difference between gender and sex, then likely ignore you.

I expect this would be in the context of someone from the "illiberal left" (a perhaps biased term, but the one used in the article) having already asserted the opppsite to one or more of these statements, and being corrected for it.

In particular, such assertions are often observed in discussions of gender issues.

>biological fact humans have two sexes

The amount of biological sexes aren’t even close to two. There’s XXY… XYY… XXX… Nor is anybody arguing about “sexes” really the argument revolves around gender rather than biological sex.

There is also a line of argument that transgender people are neurologically intersex (woman’s brain in a man’s body or something), with brains and showing differences in trans populations compared to cis populations being used as an evidentiary basis for this argument. As such, treating these intersex people with gendered treatment that is at odds with the biological reality of their minds would cause them much duress. This isn’t by any means a universally accepted line of argument but it’s certainly one I’ve heard.

XXY, etc are genetic abnormalities. They aren't sexes in the same way that cancer or parkinsons aren't recognized as developmental stages.

This comment is the equivalent to saying that people with mental health issues don't matter and don't count because they are abnormalities. Having different chromosomes changes your biochemistry from the traditional XX or XY and just because it isn't what we were normally taught to expect doesn't mean we can just write off the perspectives of those people. That's a load of shit, quite frankly

> This comment is the equivalent to saying that people with mental health issues don't matter and don't count because they are abnormalities.

No it's not. They're just pointing out that these are unusual chromosomal configurations, not new sexes.

So what makes it "not a sex"? Because genitalia is generally different from strictly penis or vagina when those occur. Is there some requirement of being able to reproduce that makes any given combination a sex? Where is this defined in the literature?

It's because the reproductive strategy of humans (and many other animals) involves the mating of two sexes, with each sex providing a distinct type of gamete: eggs from females, and sperm from males. There's no third type of gamete and therefore no third sex.

The chromosomal abnormalities mentioned earlier don't define new sexes, but rather, phenotypic variations within the two sex categories. For example, people with XXY sex chromosomes develop as male, but with smaller-than-usual testicles that either underproduce sperm, or can't produce sperm. They also tend to be taller and have less muscle mass.

Another example: people with XXX sex chromosomes develop as female, generally with normal sexual development, including the capacity to get pregnant. They also are usually taller than average, and have a higher risk of learning disabilities and developmental delays.

This is all described much more extensively in the literature. Any general biology or developmental biology textbook should be good for providing further details.

> The amount of biological sexes aren’t even close to two. There’s XXY… XYY… XXX…

These are not sexes, these are chromosomal configurations.

Sex refers to the structure and purpose of the reproductive system, and ultimately the type of gamete (egg or sperm) this system is intended to produce. There's variation within each of the two sex classes, but there are indeed only two of them - discovery of a third type of gamete in humans would be quite the biological revelation!

> Nor is anybody arguing about “sexes” really the argument revolves around gender rather than biological sex.

The "sex is a spectrum" and "there are more than two sexes in humans" arguments are ones often put forward in debates about gender. Usually to defend the idea of 'sex reassignment surgery' being a process that actually changes someone's sex. Rather than a cosmetic procedure intended to alleviate psychological distress.

So where somebody produced both male and female gametes what sex re they? Both simultaneously? Are infertile people sexless? Seems like according to this framework you would need to include neuter and perhaps intersex. Is a woman who had ovarian cancer no longer female?

I’ve also heard “sex reassignment surgery” being called “gender affirmation surgery” in recent times. I simply don’t hear people making arguments along the lines you’re talking about because “gender” is generally emphasized instead of “sex”.

> So where somebody produced both male and female gametes what sex re they? Both simultaneously?

There are no recorded cases of this actually happening, and if it did in the future I expect an accurate description of their sex would depend on exactly what unusual biological circumstance has caused them to produce both gamete types. Both sexes simultaneously could perhaps apply in this scenario, e.g. if it was an instance of genetic mosaicism.

> Are infertile people sexless?

No, why would they be? They'd still belong to the sex class corresponding to their reproductive anatomy, even if it isn't fully functional or has been removed.

> Seems like according to this framework you would need to include neuter and perhaps intersex.

With most DSDs, the subject's sex is unambiguous. For example, Klinefelter syndrome only applies to males, Turner syndrome to females, etc.

Which conditions do you think wouldn't fit in this framework?

> I simply don’t hear people making arguments along the lines you’re talking about because “gender” is generally emphasized instead of “sex”.

I've observed these arguments being put forward in discussions of transgender issues. Though more recently there seems to be a trend towards arguing that the more nebulous concept of 'gender identity' is the most important factor in determining if someone is a man or a woman (or 'non-binary'). Not that I agree with that either.