The capture of once-reputable science journals by gender ideology is something to behold. This latest example comes from Agustin Fuentes in Scientific American – Here’s Why Human Sex Is Not Binary.
A sample of the level of argument:
Producing ova or sperm does not tell us everything (or even most things) biologically or socially, about an individual’s childcare capacity, homemaking tendencies, sexual attractions, interest in literature, engineering and math capabilities or tendencies towards gossip, violence, compassion, sense of identity, or love of, and competence for, sports. Gametes and gamete production physiology, by themselves, are only a part of the entirety of human lives.
So those who argue that sex is binary, according to Fuentes, are saying that all men must be the same, and all women must be the same in a different way. It's beyond stupid.
A polite response:
Your argument here seems to simply be that sex – which is easily definable in the classic sperm/ova sense for ~all placental mammals – is "not binary" because a person's sex does not totally predict every aspect of his or her personality.
But, no one claims this is the case.
— Wilfred X. Reilly, Californian (@wil_da_beast630) May 1, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Less polite:
This new piece in @sciam by @Anthrofuentes arguing that "Human Sex Is Not Binary" is so poorly argued I'm embarrassed on his behalf. I don't even know if it even qualifies as "pseudoscience" because it's just so supremely confused. Response incoming.https://t.co/3YZ9aWAhAQ
— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) May 1, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Here's an earlier piece from Colin Wright in City Journal: Are There More Than Two Sexes? No.
Jerry Coyne has an extensive post debunking this nonsense. It's well worth a look.
Reading about the history of Lysenkoism, it seems extraordinary, looking back, that so many supposedly intelligent people rejected science in the name of ideology. Well, here we go again.
Mick Hartley 
Leave a comment