Then I don’t understand your argument. I thought you were saying that since any definition needs to be grounded in the gamete type which is binary, then any definition would necessarily also be binary.
The closest analogy I can think of where this is applicable is that qubits could be compared to an embryo that could be said to not yet have a sex, with a measurement of a qubit being roughly the same as an embryo developing to the point of being sexed. Which sure, it’s an interesting analogy, but doesn’t dispute the sex binary.
It’s not an analogy. It’s a counterexample. One that is irrelevant because I appear to have misunderstood your argument, but you’re not clarifying, so I have nothing new to add here.
I’m legitimately trying to understand where you’re coming from here. When you say “definition based on something binary is not necessarily binary” that’s all fine and well but doesn’t imply anything about the binary.
If X is a binary, and Y is something that results in X after a process, pointing out that Y isn’t binary has no bearing on the fact that X is binary.
Then I don’t understand your argument. I thought you were saying that since any definition needs to be grounded in the gamete type which is binary, then any definition would necessarily also be binary.
What are you actually proposing? That an entire person exists in a superposition until they produce gametes?
I’m saying that a definition based on something binary is not necessarily binary.
The closest analogy I can think of where this is applicable is that qubits could be compared to an embryo that could be said to not yet have a sex, with a measurement of a qubit being roughly the same as an embryo developing to the point of being sexed. Which sure, it’s an interesting analogy, but doesn’t dispute the sex binary.
It’s not an analogy. It’s a counterexample. One that is irrelevant because I appear to have misunderstood your argument, but you’re not clarifying, so I have nothing new to add here.
I’m legitimately trying to understand where you’re coming from here. When you say “definition based on something binary is not necessarily binary” that’s all fine and well but doesn’t imply anything about the binary.
If X is a binary, and Y is something that results in X after a process, pointing out that Y isn’t binary has no bearing on the fact that X is binary.