My example wasn't a means of stating an "exception". It was primarily serving to get ahead of any of the "oh so that means you think this woman is a man because x" comments that are so often thrown around (I'm pretty sure you've thrown that bad take at me several times). That said, the overall point, as I've said numerous times already, is that there is variation between all individuals in how their biology impacts their maleness/femaleness. Hormone levels vary between individuals. Secondary sex characteristics vary between individuals. "Chromosomes" are a little more complicated than just X or Y and there is variation in genetics between individuals.

This individual variation causes the presentation of "sex" to differ between individuals. Not everybody who is XY experiences their characteristics related to sex the same way. As such, the binary view of biological sex fails to account for this individual variation. That is not because of "exceptions" but because of natural, normal, common variation (and also intersex individuals).

None of the things that I've said can be denied and none should be considered controversial. The only point of contention here is that you like your simple classification system because I guess it is easier for you, while I prefer classification systems that are more accurate. You whinging about how much you like your reductive classification system isn't something I wish to spend my whole day entertaining...

I hope all the people condemning Muslims have no problem condemning their grandparents.

"That said, the overall point, as I've said numerous times already, is that there is variation between all individuals in how their biology impacts their maleness/femaleness."

biological variation has been well understood for decades or maybe even centuries now, you aren't on the cutting edge here dude

but biological variation occurring in a bimodal distribution around the two sexes is not the same thing as saying that sex occurs across a spectrum and is socially constructed

"Hormone levels vary between individuals."

correct but TYPICALLY hormone levels occur at a certain range within males and within females

do you think sports should be segregated on the basis of sex btw? if so why?

" As such, the binary view of biological sex fails to account for this individual variation. "

what???

"That is not because of "exceptions" but because of natural, normal, common variation"

please elaborate on how biology doesn't account for individual variation

"and also intersex individuals" 

again, exceptions like an all black zebra

i suppose that because a handful come out with this condition we should stop identifying zebras using their stripes

"You whinging about how much you like your reductive classification system isn't something I wish to spend my whole day entertaining..."

its reductive because they are exceptions... ok i guess

i'll ask once more 

""if a person assigned male at birth identifies as a woman and then changes their clothing and behavior to emulate women, is that person a man or woman in your opinion?""

personally i'd rather have a reductive system that i can actually practically use than to be paralysed with an all-inclusive system that i can't use because it makes absolutely no sense

No need to imagine when tax money goes to churches we don't want.

I like the casual switch from the assertion that sex is binary to the assertion that sex is bimodal.

Nifty.

Because yeah, "bimodal" is a much better descriptor than "binary" and a typical bimodal graph is a pretty good visual representation of biological sex.

(The first "bimodal" image is even pink and blue. How appropriate)

Thats pretty much what I've been saying this whole time.

So /discussion?

I think kids will only use the word "gay" as an insult if they are provided with a bias which indicates that "gay" is bad, which teaching about homosexuality can kind of head off, but overall, I don't agree with the core premise here. It seems a little reductive to say that teaching kids about homosexuality would provide new tools for harassment and the word "gay" isn't really foreign to children. If somebody wants to harass, they have access to all the tools they need. I believe that teaching about homosexuality and acceptance can somewhat head this off at the pass. Prevent the children from reaching to harass these people about their differences, because who cares, right?

I did my best to find studies about sexual orientation/gender identity education and bullying but I couldn't really find much. However, I did find several resources which spoke about bullying and ways to prevent it:

• Teach them to celebrate differences while emphasising the importance of tolerance, open-mindedness and compassion. If a child knows they should behave kindly towards someone else, regardless of differences, they’re very unlikely to engage in any HBT bullying, or allow it to go on unchallenged at school.
• Accept LBGTQ youth as they are, regardless of how they identify, reveal, or conceal their sexual identity.
• Establish a safe environment at school. Schools can send a message that no one should be treated differently because of who they are or are perceived to be. Add sexual orientation and gender identity protection to school anti-discrimination policies. 
• Conduct social-emotional learning activities in school to foster peer-relationships and help students develop empathy.
• Ask school personnel to have a discussion at an assembly or an after-school activity about gay prejudice.

Overall, it does seem that anti-bullying initiatives overwhelming support teaching students about acceptance in the way that I am suggesting.

Sources:

https://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/bullying-and-gay-youth

https://www.stopbullying.gov/at-risk/groups/lgbt/index.html

https://parentinfo.org/article/tackling-lgbt-bullying-at-school

"Are non-polydactyl people marginalized, oppressed, religiously hated, etc....?  Social and legislative categorization tends to exist based on need.  "

what does this have to do at all with biological classification? biological classifications do not vary based on whether someone feels discriminated against or not

beyond that you cannot legislate perception, you cannot force someone to perceive of another person in a way that clearly does not make any sense and if you really think you can then good luck with that

"Let's use your number. "

i'd rather not since it was his argument to begin with and i think its a fairly irrelevant detail and as i've said to me what differentiates the sexes is sex organs or the ability to produce offspring at a particular point through the life cycle

this obviously does not encompass all people since some are born infertile or with sex organs that are not functional, but categories at some level of abstraction all suffer from the flaw of having exceptions

if the argument is that we shouldn't categorise things because exceptions exist(not that you could stop people from doing it subconsciously anyway) well you could make that argument and i'd just disagree with you and we could move on but to pretend that exceptions mean that a category is invalid is nonsensical

" It is believed that up to 15% of all women will have hirsutism at some point in their lives.  That figures up to 525 million people. But whether it's 400,000 or 525,000,000, they matter."

has a biologist ever made the argument that facial hair is a disqualifier for being a woman?

"And of course your entire line of reasoning is invalid because many men themselves cannot grow a beard at all."

its good then that this wasn't my argument to begin with

"Because as I noted before, those people are not marginalized, oppressed, religiously hated, etc..."

which has no bearing on biological classification at all

"As for people with no legs (or other disabilities), we've actually done a ton to help them between medicaid and the Americans with Disabilities Act plus much more."

again completely irrelevant

"I like the casual switch from the assertion that sex is binary to the assertion that sex is bimodal."

because for practical purposes sexes have been defined as the pairs capable of producing offspring, so it was considered a binary in practical terms 

but again this does not mean that there are no exceptions, have i ever at any point said that there are no exceptions?

"Because yeah, "bimodal" is a much better descriptor than "binary" and a typical bimodal graph is a pretty good visual representation of biological sex."

the distribution between the two peaks in that is far too large, something like what is shown below is far more accurate

"Thats pretty much what I've been saying this whole time."

weren't you arguing that sex is socially constructed and that we do not account for individual variation?

Likely not, so its good that that wasn't the argument being made. The argument that was being made was that facial hair is a typically male biological sex characteristic, however individual variation in biology causes different individuals to exhibit variation in this biological sex characteristic, thus demonstrating that not all XX individuals experience biological sex the same way just because they have XX chromosomes and a vagina.

I would forgive you for this blatant decontextualization if it weren't for the fact that this point had already been explained to you approximately a dozen times already today and if you didn't have a history of decontextualizing statement in order to cook up some hot and fresh bad takes.

But alas...

Nope.

" The argument that was being made was that facial hair is a typically male biological sex characteristic"

i've known a handful of women who experience growth on their face

but its pretty dishonest to pretend though that, they grow hair at the kind of density that men do, typically its just a few stray hairs or did you think these women grow full beards or mustaches like men do? i'm sure you could probably find one or two but generally its a sparse grow of hair

"however individual variation in biology causes different individuals to exhibit variation in this biological sex characteristic, thus demonstrating that not all XX individuals experience biological sex the same way just because they have XX chromosomes and a vagina."

which is an argument that has never been made by biologists, you do understand of course that variation is a massive topic under biology right?

"I would forgive you for this blatant decontextualization if it weren't for the fact that this point had already been explained to you approximately a dozen times already today"

but its a stupid argument, you keep harping on this one thing as if you believe that biologists have been unaware of conditions like this and the overall variation across people for centuries

they understood these things better than you and still arrived at the conclusion that humans can be categorised into two sexes for a reason(because as i've said their main standard for categorisation has been mostly influenced by reproduction because reproduction is the defining characteristic of whether a population will survive or not)

do you really think you are the first person to discover hirsutism and variation?