I've always operated under the assumption that sex is binary (pretty
sure it still is), and gender is a linguistic category. *shrug*
Nah, sex is a spectrum and a linguistic category, too.
Sure, individual gametes are pretty binary, and most individuals are fairly binary.
But then there are intersex and other issues. Is an infertile person
"neither"? What if they have both ovarian and testicular tissue? What if one
or the other (or both) of those were removed at some point? What about after menopause?
And how do you classify a penis? What if the person is xy, has a vagina and internal testes? What if they don't produce functional gametes? What
if it's impossible for those gametes to get out without medical magic?
As far as linguistics go, when people talk about the "sex" of a child,
they're not generally talking about testing of gametes or gonads -- they're talking about presence or absence of a penis. And even when it's somewhere in the middle, they wind up rounding one direction or the other (or, in some terrible cases, creating a trans child because they assumed that gender/brain sex didn't exist and thus you may as well raise a male child with a destroyed penis as a girl.)
That said, I guess I kinda revel in complexity and enjoying the fact that simple explanations are things that work almost all of the time, and are
almost completely wrong when you get to the squishy parts.
It's like Newtonian physics. Pretty darn useful, but man does it give really wrong answers in the really big/really fast/really small bits. But people tend not to make reductive arguments about relativistic physics because of how
right they think Newtonian physics are.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Storm BBS (21:2/108)