Helen

Not an assumption.
A healthy male will produce sperm, because producing sperm is part of being a healthy male adult.

Which is why I didn't claim that it was a "guarantee".

You are confusing the definition of sex with the method of discerning an infant's sex.
Don't do that.

Nope

Because the appearance of external genitalia at birth is an exceptionally accurate proxy for knowing what their internal reproductive anatomy is. It's unambiguous in 99.98% of births.

Sometimes that's true but often, it's not. Bc "intersex" is a highly misleading name for a variety of conditions, some of which come with serious ill effects if not treated properly.
Most are sex specific & proper treatment depends on proper diagnosis - for which the person's sex is critical.

Read. What. I. Said.
I can say with 100% confidence that a BOY, *if he grows up healthy*, will produce sperm and will NOT produce eggs.
Because. He. Is. A. BOY.

Right. This has been diverting but is clearly futile.
Reality is not on your side. If no-one can convince you of that by argument, maybe life will teach it to you by experience.
Bye.

A 5 year old boy doesn't produce sperm bc he's a child, not yet sexually mature (that's what child MEANS). But, we can say confidently that, if all is well, he WILL produce sperm, not eggs, because he's a boy, not a girl.
Please keep your transgressive projections to yourself.

This is just word salad.
As a sexually reproducing species, humans come in 2 types - male and female - each of which produces one of the 2 gametes required to create new humans.
It's not a laundry list of traits that you must have enough of to count as either female or male or else you fall short.

Sex linked traits exist on a continuum (to an extent).
Sex does not.
Sex is not sex characteristics.
Your understanding is incorrect so every conclusion based on it is also wrong.

Categories are concepts we devise to understand and talk about the world.
"Water" is a concept that describes a material reality about the world. The material reality would still exist if we stopped using the word.
It's the same with sex.
We named it because we can see it & bc it matters.

Sex is not defined by the gametes an individual produces but by the gametes their type of body would, will or would have produced.
I haven't stopped being female bc I'm menopausal. I can only be menopausal BECAUSE I'm female.

Prove what?
That male and female refer to physical phenomena?
Seriously?

It categorically is

Yes. Man-made concepts with which we describe the material world around us.
The word "sex" is a manmade word to describe something real about the world. With a different word or even no word, the phenomenon it describes is still there.

Who says its metaphysical?

Why would belonging to a category necessarily mean "not something physical"?
The body, including its reproductive anatomy, is physical. Obviously so.

Your entire concept of what sex is is wrong. This is why you're failing to grasp what I'm saying.
Sex is defined wrt gametes.
2 gametes (egg & sperm) = 2 sexes. Exactly and only.

No. The act is more correctly called sexual intercourse.
Sex, sometimes known as "biological sex" to differentiate, is the reproductive category to which the individual belongs - male or female.
Whoever told you otherwise was wrong or lying.

It's not an assumption.
Ambiguity is always expressed wrt the 2 sexes.
No-one ever states what is a 3rd (or more) gamete.

Nonsense.
Sex is reproduction. Traits are a function of that.
Individual traits, e.g, height, exist on a continuum - tall women, short men exist - but a graph of all humans by height has 2 peaks bc average heights are different in men & women.

That post is entirely true.

All 4bn human women are female.
That's how you know the number is 4bn and not 8bn.
You know which half of the species you're referring to.

That's not how categories work. Female is defined as "the sex that produces large gametes."
That's what all females have in common.
And no, anomalous development of reproductive anatomy does not equal additional sexes.
There are exactly and only 2.

I sense that this conversation is futile. Good night.

That's simply not true. Development of an embryo in utero is a complex process that almost always follows a predictable course, with male & female development diverging irrevocably.
It's not a laundry list of traits that have to be added up. It doesn't work like that.

Female and male are reproductive strategies.
An individual is male or female depending on which developmental path they followed from conception. This is so even if the development was anomalous
That some ppl are hard to classify as M or F does not disprove the sex binary. It reinforces it.

There are not more than 2 sexes. There are just 2: male & female
A man with low testosterone is male. Circulating testosterone level is not a reliable indicator of sporting performance so there is no issue with categorisation.

It really really doesn't