They are not always so distinct, and your definition of sex=gametes is completely arbitrary semantics that only serves to marginalize people.

It’s not my definition of course. And the binary nature of mammalian sex “marginalises” no one. Does the binocular vision of mammals marginalise the blind? Mammals have two kidneys but people born with renal agenesis have one or none, and yet no one is arguing that the mammalian renal system “is a spectrum”. Why use such obfuscatory language?

Why not describe human locomotion as a spectrum?

Because that would be factually incorrect at every level. Humans are bipedal. Canis lupis is quadropedal. If you describe both as having “spectral locomotive” properties, you have no language to distinguish between them. It is a ludicrous exercise in semantics that adds nothing to the explanatory power of science and only diminishes it.

The essay is not specifically targeted at scientists.

Of course it is “Biology faces a grave threat from “progressive” politics that are changing the way our work is done, delimiting areas of biology that are taboo and will not be funded by the government or published in scientific journals…”

clearly this is not in reference to random joes, but to career sceintists who decide what is funded or published.

You may be shocked to learn that “non-scientists” also read scientific journals and may also care about proper allocation of research funding. I am not a professional (or amateur even) tennis player yet the governance of the sport is of interest to me and many other “non-tennis” players.

It is not always worth having ideas challenged.

Oh no, it is always worth it. JS Mill makes the case for the vital necessity of dissent in ‘on liberty’ which is far too long to paste here but should he added to anyone’s reading list.

i’m not wasting my time with people arguing in bad faith like this article clearly is.

Then why engage? Why profess your desire to remain ignorant of the text? It adds nothing. Simply hold your peace and move on.