> 404.

It seems they were trying to link to this article, but mangled the link: https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is...

It's a thoughtful piece that discusses sex in a much broader and more fundamental biological context than just our human species.

It would be worth reading the whole thing rather than just the quoted section.

> Claims that sex is strictly binary, rather than bimodal, can only be made while looking the emperor in the eye and saying his clothes are gorgeous.

I think you may be confusing sex with sex-linked traits.

For example: testosterone levels. If you sample a randomly selected population of humans and plot this variable, it will show a bimodal distribution.

But this is because the sample contains two discrete populations that have an average difference between them in that variable: males with higher testosterone and females with lower testosterone.

So you will invent a property called sex that is not always based on facts and observations, but sometimes based on your own opinion just for the sake of making it always binary even when the facts aren't?