A trait I share with dictionary editors is a preference for linguistic descriptivism, so for me it's not a real problem that the common definition of "sex" and the scientific use are different.
Unfortunately, reality doesn't care at all about the categories humans create, so there's always some exception like the following two no matter how you try to cut reality at the joints with word definitions.
Even in humans, we see all kinds of interesting things going on. No reason to think this would be limited to downstairs and not in our brains, assuming there even are any differences between male and female brains (which is unclear to me, given vitamins and cortisol and how much sleep we get all impact our brains): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome#Fertili...
Beyond us, but in the same general category, biologists collectively chose to define "sex" in sexually reproducing creatures such that the one with the smaller gamete is male.
To illustrate how arbitrary this is: seahorses. The sex which gets pregnant has the smaller gamete, i.e. males get pregnant.
> A wall of text that agrees with the fact: human males cannot be pregnant
You need a lot more practice reading if you think this was a wall of text.
> Intersex defects prove the point that human males cannot become pregnant.
If your preferred (culture-warring yourself into thinking you know more than all the doctors whose job is to work on this) definition of "male" is simply "can't get pregnant", aside from all the thigs wrong with that, it also means you'd have to accept that if and when a womb gets transplanted into someone who was born without one, they changed gender. This is a thing being researched.
Worse for you: it is trans men (i.e. identified female at birth, transitioned to men) who have the capacity pregnant, though only in certain conditions that I'm not qualified to enumerate. If they have a hysterectomy as part of their bottom
surgery, no pregnancy, so do you accept they're men afterwards?
Me, I prefer to go by simple (clothed, even) exterior phenotype, it doesn't require invasive scans or being a creep.
>You need a lot more practice reading if you think this was a wall of text.
You need a lot more practice writing if you think this wasn't a wall of text.
>If this definition of "male" is simply "can't get pregnant"
Males definitionally cannot. Humans are gonochoric mammals: only females can become pregnant.
>aside from all the thigs wrong with that, it also means you'd have to accept that if and when a womb gets transplanted into someone who was born without one, they changed gender.
Nothing was wrong with my statement of biological fact. Only human females can become pregnant. There's no changing from male to female. Uteruses are human female reproductive organs. Ovaries are human female gonads.
>Worse for you: it is trans men who have the capacity pregnant, though only in certain conditions that I'm not qualified to enumerate.
Trans-men are human females.
>If they have a hysterectomy as part of their bottom surgery, no pregnancy, so do you accept they're men afterwards?
They are still human females, just surgically altered human females.
>Me, I prefer to go by simple (clothed, even) exterior phenotype, it doesn't require invasive scans or being a creep.
Me, I prefer to go by simple (factual, even) biology, it doesn't require invasive delusions or being a creep.
Reality is more complex than the uninformed can imagine.
A true hermaphrodite rabbit served several females and sired more than 250 young of both sexes. In the next breeding season the rabbit, which was housed in isolation, became pregnant and delivered seven healthy young of both sexes. It was kept in isolation and when autopsied was again pregnant and demonstrated two functional ovaries and two infertile testes. A chromosome preparation revealed a diploid number of autosomes and two sex chromosomes of uncertain configuration.
