It gets more awkward for Richardson. In this 2025 review, Richardson says the gametic view of the sexes is sophistry, and those who promote it are motivated partly by bigotry.

Buuuuut in her own 2013 book, Sex Itself, Richardson seems to promote the gametic view. See attached.

https://twitter.com/hoovlet/status/1953168766319104465

I get that people change their minds. Still, either 2013-Richardson is wrong, or 2025-Richardson is wrong. And at least 2013-Richardson gives evidence that sex has something to do with gamete production. 2025-Richardson offers only mind-reading of her opponents, and no arguments.

Florence Ashley blocked me a long time ago, but is now posting replies to me and @byrne_a from behind that block.

Some thoughts on those replies: This was an ironic sequence of tweets. First "boiling down" our paper to a quotation we never said, and then complaining about making up theories and attributing them to one's opponents. Florence! You're doing that thing right now! Better to respond to *actual quotations*.

The Argument from Alien Women

1. We describe some non-humans as women, e.g. Galadriel, Ahsoka, and Shodan.

2. If so, then women are not adult HUMAN females.

3. So, women are not adult human females.

But premise 2 is false.

To see why, think about STONE LIONS...🧵

Think about a parallel argument concerning stone lions.

We do indeed describe some stone statues as "lions."

Yet it doesn't follow that lions are not biological organisms.

And it doesn't follow that the word "lion" is ambiguous.

Chairs again. With words that developed organically, it's often very difficult to say exactly what that word means, using only other words. True analyses are hard to come by.

Sometimes it's worth trying: 'justice', 'knowledge', 'rational'.

Other times not so much: 'chair'.🧵 Why expect otherwise? Conceptual analysis is like trying to recreate the function of a complex tool, using only other tools. It's rare you can do that. Some functionality's often left out.

Like a cordless screwdriver versus a normal screwdriver plus a wrench. Not quite the same.

Princeton Prof argues that human sex is not binary.

The reason?: "while animal gametes can be described as binary (of two distinct kinds), the physiological systems, behaviors and individuals that produce them are not."

But that doesn't follow...👇🧵

scientificamerican.com/article/heres-… That's like arguing that binary code isn't binary, because the systems, programs, and computers that produce it are not binary. It simply doesn't follow.

The code is binary, even if those _surrounding_ things aren't. And sex may be binary, even if things _surrounding_ it aren't

Here's a thread you can link to if anyone claims that nobody says sex is a social construct. 👇 Here's a prominent philosopher defending the view:

https://twitter.com/TomasBogardus/status/1615034089899438081?s=20

PZ Myers objects to my recent argument on his blog.

He denies my premise (3). To show (3) is false, he'd need an example of a thing that predates societies, and yet _that very thing_ is socially constructed.

Myers fails to do this.🧵

freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/202… Myers says that OUR IDEAS about the sexes are social constructs. That may be. But OUR IDEAS about the sexes are not the sexes, as our ideas about the stars are not the stars.

Our ideas about the sexes do NOT predate societies. So, this can't be a counterexample to my premise 3.