The app for independent voices
> "Biologists do distinguish between the sexes ... based on gametes ..."
Hallelujah! Progress! 😉🙂
> "However, I suggest a different standard be use in the Olympics and other sporting competitions. ... Using chromosomes (and in rare cases ultrasounds) for sex determination ..."
I'm really not against chromosomes and ultrasound for sports. And I've more or less said so, in my first comment above: "... it seems the best criteria for women's sports should be the presence of ovaries, whether they're functional or not".
But that is STILL not the defining criteria for "female" -- which is what you apparently want to make them into. It seems that you're still trying to repudiate and bastardize the standard biological definitions for the sexes that you more or less agreed to.
For example, you say that you "consider them [Swyer's syndrome people] to be 'female' even though they produce no gametes", but, by the standard biological definitions, they are simply sexless. The problem is that too many people seem think that the sexes are participation trophies, and that everyone has to have one from conception to death -- which is antiscientific claptrap. A rather egregious case of that from Zach Elliott who has guest-posted on Colin Wright's Substack:
Zach Elliott: "Discrimination is not eliminated, and true acceptance is not shown, by embracing the scientifically incorrect and morally problematic claims that people who differ from the norm are both or neither sexes."
He's not "worried" about "scientific accuracy"; he's worried that many of the intersex are going to be "deprived" of their membership cards in the categories "male" and "female". But since when do "morally problematic claims" get to trump brute facts? Galileo, Darwin, and his "bulldog" T.H. Huxley are rolling over in their graves. We might just as well start "teaching the controversy", teaching that the Earth is the center of the universe and at the center of the universe because the contraries "offend" some of the religious.
A rather too common outlook -- one which you seem to be exhibiting yourself.
But you may wish to take a gander at my recent comments on Dawkins' Substack -- which he's responded to at least once so far, even if somewhat dishonestly -- where I go into a bit more depth on those points: