I honestly just don't know what to say about this image, except:

If your identity and expression are different, then you're literally just saying you're something.

Intersex is rare enough that it isn't really something you should be teaching as a norm. as such, biological sex isn't a spectrum. It is a evolutionary binary with exception through mutation (I tried really hard to find a different term for this, but couldn't think of one. If someone an provide something else, I'm willin to change it in my post).

the thing that is interesting to me is that there's no fight to expand categories like "people typically have 10 fingers and 10 toes" or "two legs and two arms" or "no tail" even though this is not always the case

but when it comes to gender and sexuality all of a sudden abnormalities demonstrate that categories don't exist and that everything is socially constructed

It just provides less information. Using two separate scales allows differentiation between someone who expresses as gender neutral and someone who expresses as both masculine and feminine (be it at the same or at different times), for example.

The idea of contrasting gender identity and expression is fairly common whether or not you are speaking about transgendered individuals. I grew up knowing a lot of females who identified as females but dressed and acted more masculine (ie tomboys). It isn't really a very difficult concept.

As for intersex individuals, estimates put them around 1.7(ish)% so it really isn't something that is very rare (though this number does vary based on what is classified as "intersex), but even if it was, it seems kind of silly to just pretend something doesn't exist. Like, it is probably more likely that you will know someone who is intersex than you having to actually apply half of the things that you learn in some high school maths courses.

And this was already discussed briefly, but there are several factors that contribute to biological sex including genitalia, chromosomes and hormones so it is more accurate to describe biological sex as a sort of multi-faceted sliding scale. Basically, numerous factors contribute to biological masculinity/femininity and to reduce the concept down to a simple binary is to obscure the scientific truth in favor of what is easy.

how are offspring produced outside of the sex binary?

"As for intersex individuals, estimates put them around 1.7(ish)%"

where are these numbers coming from? besides that how many people are born with extra toes or fingers or whatever?

"it seems kind of silly to just pretend something doesn't exist."

no one is pretending that something does not exist but a distinction is being made between atypical and typical... typical characteristics being used to categorise

because in case you didn't know categories ARE MADE TO EXCLUDE

"there are several factors that contribute to biological sex including genitalia, chromosomes and hormones"

chromosonal disorders typically cause severe physiological conditions including sterility, why are you pretending as if chromosonal disorders aren't disorders?

just one extra chromosome, for example, causes down syndrone, how could anyone seriously suggest that chromosome arrangement exists on anything remotely resembling spectrum? what am i even reading right now?

and hormones? if i take a woman and i pump her full of testosterone for the rest of her life she will never be able to impregnate another woman

The estimate of around 1.7-2% comes from the following study and while imperfect (all data on this subject is), it is used as a best estimate by organizations such as Intersex Human Rights Australia: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/%28SICI%291520-6300%28200003/04%2912%3A2%3C151%3A%3AAID-AJHB1%3E3.0.CO%3B2-F

I also don't believe that the capability to produce viable offspring is fundamental to biological sex, as under that logic, it would follow that those who are infertile are sex-less which doesn't really make much sense. And while the production of gametes is an important sexual characteristic and should be acknowledged as such, it is not the only sexual characteristic as controlled by biology. Again, it is easy to think of things as a binary, but we have to understand that the binary is not comprehensive when speaking about the manifestation of biological sex (at least, we have to understand that if we want to do justice to reality).

Just to rephrase, biological sex refers to the biological aspects of maleness and femaleness. That much should be obvious. As such, this includes things such as the growing of facial hair, which is a biological function related to maleness. This does not mean that if a woman were to have high testosterone levels and produce facial hair, that she would be a man, but it would mean that she would not occupy the same space as a typical female with average testosterone levels. As such, we should move past the binary in order to acknowledge the variation in how biological sex exhibits itself from person to person. This is not a refutation of biological sex, but instead an acknowledgement that simply saying "sperm" is a reductive way of speaking about all of the complicated and numerous ways in which biology manifests sex.

"I also don't believe that the capability to produce viable offspring is fundamental to biological sex, as under that logic, it would follow that those who are infertile are sex-less which doesn't really make much sense. "

or you could just do what biologist do and acknowledge that exceptions to categories exist

why do you seem to be incapable of understanding that no biologist has ever argued that biological categories are perfect and encapsulate every single permutation?

besides that how many people are born infertile?

"And while the production of gametes is an important sexual characteristic and should be acknowledged as such, it is not the only sexual characteristic as controlled by biology."

well the development of breasts/ wider hips etc etc etc in women

and testes in men which are all except for other minor differences the main source of sexual differences in men and women all occur for one purpose can you guess what that purpose might be?

"it is used as a best estimate by organizations such as Intersex Human Rights Australia"

how have they gathered these numbers?

"Again, it is easy to think of things as a binary, but we have to understand that the binary is not comprehensive when speaking about the manifestation of biological sex (at least, we have to understand that if we want to do justice to reality)."

and you think doing justice to reality means taking chromosonal disroders that typically result in conditions such as down syndrome and regarding them as part of a spectrum

with regards to hormones as i've said you could take a woman and pump her full of testosterone for the rest of her life and she'd never be able to impregnate another woman and obviously a man would never be able to grow ovaries

you can't even tell me how you would differentiate between a man and a women under this idiotic ideology(or at least i'd have to assume so since you couldn't answer my question) and you're trying to tell me about reality

"This does not mean that if a woman were to have high testosterone levels and produce facial hair, that she would be a man"

how many women are capable of growing facial hair in the way that men do? 1 in 10000 or so? so why are you bringing this up?

"As such, we should move past the binary in order to acknowledge the variation in how biological sex exhibits itself from person to person."

this is dishonest, what you are actually referring to is less than 1% of the population and if you were consistent you would also be pushing to do the same with people who have no legs, have more or less than the normal amount of fingers and toes, have tails, more or less than the normal amount of limbs etc etc etc but for some reason this conversation only ever revolves around sex and gender 

I think they are often meant as educational tools for kids. That said, I don't really see any issue with that. Teaching kids early about accepting people who are different and giving them the tools necessary to understand and deal with situations that come up as they and those around them discover their identity I feel is a positive goal. It generally encourages acceptance and I think if this stuff is presented to an individual when they are young, it is often easier to broach the subject than addressing it with someone after they are more set in their worldview, or after a situation has arisen.

I don't think "why do they have to know this" is really a good way to look at this type of thing. I think it is more helpful to ask "What harm/benefit could arise from teaching kids this type of thing" and in my opinion, I believe that it could be quite beneficial in certain scenarios.

and as i've said many times exceptions do not make categories invalid, its a stupid argument

did you not read and understand that when i said that myself? or do you disagree with that assertion?

he must be in real trouble now if you're replying to me directly btw

"I think they are often meant as educational tools for kids. "

kids of what age?

Imagine paying for a service you don't want.