Find me an intersex person that can both bear a child and impregnate a woman. From my understanding, it's still falls under either this or the other, not a literal third sex. And even if, that's a tiny fraction of what already is a tiny fraction of intersex people. It does not disprove the general notion and it does not justify changing the entire culture around it and basically terrorizing people who are stating these basic facts. You could be born with six fingers and that doesn't invalidate the fact that human species have 5 fingers at each hand.
And yeah, I talked to people who were saying that biological sex doesn't exist and gender is all there is to it.
> Find me an intersex person that can both bear a child and impregnate a woman.
If male == can sire children and female == can bear children, then infertile people don't have a sex which is nonsense.
> It does not disprove the general notion
Yes, it does. Counterexamples do that.
> You could be born with six fingers and that doesn't invalidate the fact that human species have 5 fingers at each hand.
Yes, it would. Humans only usually have 5 fingers on each hand. But it isn't important to emphasize that there are 6-fingered humans because no one denies that 6-fingered humans are humans to start with.
> If male == can sire children and female == can bear children, then infertile people don't have a sex which is nonsense.
Your conclusion is nonsense, the premise is not. A broken computer is still in essence a computer, even if it can't actually do any computing as a result.
> Yes, it would. Humans only usually have 5 fingers on each hand. But it isn't important to emphasize that there are 6-fingered humans because no one denies that 6-fingered humans are humans to start with.
It's some kind of genetic disorder, an anomaly. With your standard you can't describe anything, as almost nothing is true 100% of the time.
> Your conclusion is nonsense, the premise is not.
My conclusion is derived from the premise. Since it's nonsense so is the premise.
> A broken computer is still in essence a computer, even if it can't actually do any computing as a result.
An infertile woman is broken then?
> It's some kind of genetic disorder, an anomaly. With your standard you can't describe anything, as almost nothing is true 100% of the time.
Of course you can. 100% of non-broken computers can be used for computing -- the "non-broken" part is usually implied when talking about them. Same for lots of other categories. If the members of a category don't have any shared traits -- i.e. something that is true for all of them -- then what is it even useful for?
I don't know if I would necessarily use this particular word as it's mostly associated with lifeless objects, but in a sense - yes. Similarly to how having a disability or being an amputee is, for the lack of a better term, being "broken", as your body fails to function is some manner. Life is more nuanced and it's not all about that of course, but you get the idea.
> Of course you can. 100% of non-broken computers can be used for computing -- the "non-broken" part is usually implied when talking about them.
So a broken computer is no longer a computer? I'm too stupid to delve into a philosophical debate about what truly makes a thing a thing, but I just don't accept that.
Even still, there is always a chance that the computer will randomly malfunction and do something unexpected at any time. Unlikely, but possible. So you can never say for sure that an operation of 2 + 2 will result in 4.
> If the members of a category don't have any shared traits -- i.e. something that is true for all of them -- then what is it even useful for?
If it's accurate enough then it's useful for making predictions. You know, science and stuff.
I wonder, how would you describe what a 'human' is?
> Even still, there is always a chance that the computer will randomly malfunction and do something unexpected at any time. Unlikely, but possible. So you can never say for sure that an operation of 2 + 2 will result in 4.
Your point?
> If it's accurate enough then it's useful for making predictions. You know, science and stuff.
If there is a counterexample to a scientific hypothesis, it's considered falsified. Not "useful for making predictions", but simply wrong.
> no one denies that 6-fingered humans are humans to start with
I see what your issue is. I haven't noticed this previously, but I think you're just attacking a straw man at this point. Rarely you can say something with 100% certainty and science takes account for that. It's fine to make generalizations. If we didn't do that and only sought absolute truths, we wouldn't get too far and it'd invalidate entire fields of science.
You cannot prove a hypothesis with 100% certainty, that is true. But you can falsify it – with even a single counterexample – and then you are certain it is false. Anything else is pseudoscience.
And it's particularly not okay to make generalizations about people. That's how you get sexism, sexism and other bigotry.
And yeah, I talked to people who were saying that biological sex doesn't exist and gender is all there is to it.