Where does that paper conflate sex and gender, exactly? You’re not just making shit up, are you?

And you’re wrong yet again. Here’s another well-respected biologist confirming that author:

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2025/04/03/colin-wright-gives-a-history-of-the-gametic-definition-of-biological-sex/

The historical and scientific record is clear: from the 19th century to the present day, biologists, medical professionals, philosophers of science, and evolutionary theorists have used gamete type as the defining criterion for sex. This document compiles citations from that record, providing a reference point for students, scientists, educators, and anyone interested in understanding what “male” and “female” mean in biological terms.

These citations span more than a century of scientific literature, showing that the gamete-based definition of sex is not a recent invention or a reactionary response, but a longstanding, fundamental biological principle. While sex roles and secondary sex characteristics can vary, the definition of the sexes does not: male and female are reproductive categories rooted in the type of gamete an individual has the function to produce.

So much for those chowderheads who say that, using the gametic definition, neither a pre-puberty human, a postmenopausal woman, or a sterile person can be male or female. If you see this argument, you know you’re dealing with someone who’s intellectually dishonest.

Here’s plenty more people with the credentials of your choice signing a statement affirming the same:

https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/

(Because it needs to be said for some particularly dim-witted individuals, the fact that’s it’s hosted on wordpress is immaterial. It’s about who signed the statement)

Fuck’s sake. It is incontestable that this is the scientific consensus. Argue that you want to change it by providing a better framework if you want. Stop lying.

And not that it matters, but I’m a better leftist than you are. Don’t be a shitlib. Do better.