TeeJae: "missed this paragraph in the article .... isn’t based on whether an individual can actually produce certain gametes at any given moment." Which article? Wright's? The OP? Might help to actually say so right out of the chute. But that's just his opinion, his own rather idiosyncratic and quite unscientific definition, and little more than the letter that he, Emma Hilton, & Heather Heying had published in the letters-to-the-editors section of the UK Times. A fairly decent newspaper, but hardly any sort of peer-reviewed biological journal. As their letter has it: "Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively." https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554 But those 3 conditions -- each of which is supposedly sufficient to qualify individuals as male or female -- basically turns their definitions for each sex into a spectrum of 3. Rather risible for them to be throwing stones at Nature, Scientific American, and others for doing the same thing. For elaborations on that theme, you might be interested in my latest: https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists TeeJae: "Biological sex is not determined by the ability to produce gametes (eggs, sperm)." Actually, in point of fact, the definitions stipulated in actual peer-reviewed biological journals -- not popular newspapers ... -- do in fact specify that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. That Binarists vs. Spectrumists essay quotes the definitions from the Glossary in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction: "Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems. Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems." https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 Diddly-squat there about any past or future functionality. They're all about being able to reproduce right now because of having functional gonads. TeeJae: "...would be considered sexless." So what? The sexes aren't "designed" as participation trophies to pander to women's vanity or to transwomen's envy. They're "designed" by actual biologists -- those worth their salt ... -- to be able to grapple with the brute fact -- emphasized by that Molecular Human Reproduction article -- that anisogamy -- two differently sized gametes -- is ubiquitous across literally millions of species and hundreds of million years. And that that brute fact has more or less driven virtually all of the sexual dimorphism we see today. Which objective do you think is more important?