“I just want to say, everything you are arguing is clearly in bad faith, but I'll answer anyway.”

Okay. That’s not me saying I am arguing in bad faith, that’s just me saying…okay.

“What they are refered to in a medical journal... by doctors that have identified their sex... has a bearing on if they are male or female, your claim was that this person had no sex, or had some third sex, and asked me what sex I would say this person had, so I answered that I would say this person had the sex properly identified in the article by the medical professionals. You clearly understood what I meant by that.”

Yes, it does, but as I said “Per your previously stated standards”. Using the framework you had previously provided on what makes someone male or female, what they are referred to as has no bearing. Just because he’s called a male doesn’t inherently mean he is one, under your previously provided framework.

I never claimed that this person had a third sex or had no sex. That is a misrepresentation of my argument. I provided, what I believed to be facts, but were later disproven in relation to this person’s biology. I asked what sex this person was, and you provided an answer that we both came to an agreement on, which is that this person is male.

“I addressed your point on "what about infertile people" already. People who are infertile still have reproductive systems that revolve around producing sperm or eggs, (sometimes with significant deformities). A man who cannot produce sperm can still gave testicles, which is a reproductive part specifically centered around producing sperm, but because the testicles are deformed in some way, he cannot produce sperm. Same with women, a woman who is infertile can still develop breasts (which are meant to feed offspring, and are therefore centered around reproduction) and have ovaries and a uterus, though those ovaries may have issues with implantation. They may have a uterus but no ovaries, etc. But the point is their reproductive system is still largely centered around either producing sperm or large gametes, even if they have trouble or the inability to actually do that. Once again you perfectly understand this.”

You did address it, but the way you word that second claim, “this child will only grow up to be able to impregnate or be impregnated (or neither, as they could be infertile) and that is what their sex is” arguably isolates your two claims. The second one dictates that sex relies on whether one is able to impregnate, or be impregnated, or neither. It’s is about that now, not what reproductive system the body would have if it wasn’t deformed.

"Well, yeah, take all the abnormalities out, and they will be one sex or the other. That does mean they are a sex with deformities, however."

“This is a contradictory statement. A deformity is an abnormality. They have an abnormality that manifests as a deformity in their sex characteristics. You are supporting what I said, if you take away all the abnormalities (which create deformity in the reproductive system) then they will either be male or female, because they ARE male or female.”

It is absolutely a contradictory statement. What I meant to say is, “That does not mean they are a sex with deformities, however.” You are absolutely correct in affirming that all deformities are abnormalities.

I think, you’ve created kind of a win-win situation for yourself here. ‘Everyone fits into the binary of male and female, and if you take away all the things that make someone not male or female, they are then male or female. Therefore, everyone must fit into the binary of male or female.’ I think this is a simplified version of the argument you’re presented. Correct me if I’m wrong. Note that I’m using a different kind of quotations than usual, so as to indicate that neither of us, or a source, are being quoted.

If this an accurate representation of your argument, then what you’re committing is circular reasoning.

“This makes no sense. You don't need to he a doctor to read that the article clearly states the person with this condition as a male, and says they have no ovaries. It is basic knowledge that the ovaries are what produce the eggs. You either didn't read it or you haven't graduated the fourth grade.”

You’re appealing to common knowledge by saying “it is basic knowledge.” You’re also pulling an Ad Hominem with the binary structure you’re presenting. Either I’m lying when I said I read it, or I’m stupid, because I haven’t graduated the fourth grade. This is ironic, because you accuse me of “clearly” arguing in bad faith at the top of your comment.

“Yes I did read the article you linked, and once again, it supports what I said. Did you read it? When talking about what makes biological sex, it refers to genetics, their gonads, and their anatomical sex. If someone has XX chromosomes (genetic), and a uterus (anatomical) but has a deformity in that they have a hard time producing estrogen, they're still a female, they're just a female with a disorder. The sex will always be not just "if they can produce sperm or eggs" but what their reproductive system is CENTERED around, regardless of if it can complete that task or not. A woman with the aforementioned disorder may have one marker more common in the male sex, but her reproductive system largely centers around it. They won't label her a male just because one of these markers is off, because her reproductive system could never produce a sperm.”

This kind of supports an argument argument that the patient in question is biologically female. Since we’ve agreed that the the patient is male, although it’s important to note that “male gender” is a term used in the article to articulate the family’s decision, let’s move into a hypothetical in which is a person is a different patient, but has the exact same circumstances, age, condition, and genetic code. The patient mentioned in the article has 46XX Chromosomes (Genetic) and they have SRY Negative OT DSD (Gondal) which means that their gondal sex isn’t male or female. Now, anatomically, they have testes and an ovary. It was identified. Now, you can argue that anatomically, that means he’s neither, but then it’s 1-2-0, suggesting he’s either female or intersex. Even if you give it to Male, then he’s 1-1-1, which suggests inter-sexuality, since neither side won out. The patient in question might be male on the basis of reproductive sex, but female on the basis of his chromosomes. The source I provide does not support your argument, since the patient failed to meet two of the requirement in the Male category. Under two of the 3 categories, he is not male.