> XX instead of XY. The fact that 1 in a million people is neither a man or a women has no bearing on this fact.

Using the typical assignment of “sex” (really, a kind of gender ascribed based on a subset of sex traits at birth):

1 in 25,000 men is XX (approximately universally infertile, though chimerism might affect this, I guess)

1 in 15,000 women is XY (potentially fertile with HRT, and in at least one documented case, due to chimerism, without.)

So now we need to perform tests? What happens when the person is a chimera?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/46,XX/46,XY

We call them a chimera?

Sex essentialists exploding the gender binary is…a new one.

For those who have trouble translating the insane new lexicon, "sex essentialist" means "one who believes in biology and objective reality".

No, it means “one who believes that some simple subset of biological sex traits should be the immutable basis of socially–and particularly legally–ascribed gender categories, rather than, for instance, ascribed gender conforming to gender identity”.

Can you define what you mean by the word “gender”? What is a gender? What is not a gender?

Like a “race”, a “gender” is a social grouping of either identity or ascribed membership that is distinguished by being viewed as being exclusive with (though, in some models, admitting mixtures as their own unique possibilities), others in the same named group.

By that definition, isn’t “emo” — or literally any other social category — a gender?

Do you believe that segregated services — sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, etc — were intended to be segregated by gender, as opposed to sex?

> By that definition, isn’t “emo” — or literally any other social category — a gender

No, “emo” is a social category that is not exclusive with genders, its in a different bucket.

But, yes, the distinction of social categories into groups like “gender”, “race”, etc., is, like the categories themselves, fundamentally an arbitrary social construct.

> Do you believe that segregated services — sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, etc — were intended to be segregated by gender, as opposed to sex?

Binary “sex” is just ascribed gender on the basis of a subset of sex traits. To the extent there is a valid basis for segregating services, it varies from service to service. Similarly, the motivations vary from service to service (and, generally differ from the legitimate justifications, if any.)

As a strict definition that's fine in a context.

However:

> The fact that 1 in a million people is neither a man or a women

the number you are looking for here (ie only ..

    conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female

) is 180 in a million, or some 4,625 or so in a country such as Australia - which does have some real bearing on things such as national passports and why Australia has a three value gender field there ( M | F | X ).

Less strictly, the prevalence of "nondimorphic sexual development" might be as high as 1.7% or 17,000 in a million.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex