Comment by nobody9999

>It's a motte-and-bailey argument going from "a small percentage of people don't neatly fall into either the male or female category" to "the concept of biological sex is meaningless and the only relevant factor is a person's self-identification".

Except that's not what the links you posted say. In fact, the very first sentence of the second link says: "First, sex defined: We're talking physical sex here, not gender."[0]

What's more, the same poster says further down: "It is worth noting that I never talk about transgender in this thread. Intersex is not the same as transgender. You can be one without the other, or be both."

So that thread doesn't say anything close to what you think it says. Unless I misunderstood either the twitter thread or you. Which is always possible.

Would you mind expanding on your point? It might lead to an interesting discussion.

[0] https://twitter.com/ScienceVet2/status/1035246030500061184