You said that Agustín Fuentes, in their Scientific American article, wrote that the author "...admits that sex is a biological binary". This is not true. The article points out, rather eloquently, that it is NOT binary: "This reality of sex biology is well summarized by a group of biologists who recently wrote: 'Reliance on strict binary categories of sex fails to accurately capture the diverse and nuanced nature of sex.'” This is to say that mammalian sex is not "strictly binary". If you are interested in diving into the nuance, Steven Novella wrote a great blog on this subject: "Here is Why Human Sex is Not Binary", which you can read here: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/a-discussion-about-biological-sex/. Novella's point is that very little in biology is as simple as strictly black or white, on or off, male or female.
Why does the Ayn Rand Institute—why did Ayn Rand—say “religious thinking” in order to convey the concept “stubborn bad thinking”?
They aren’t the same thing. If you know how to look, you can find some non-religious stubborn bad thinking very close to home.
Thank you for your work.
You said that Agustín Fuentes, in their Scientific American article, wrote that the author "...admits that sex is a biological binary". This is not true. The article points out, rather eloquently, that it is NOT binary: "This reality of sex biology is well summarized by a group of biologists who recently wrote: 'Reliance on strict binary categories of sex fails to accurately capture the diverse and nuanced nature of sex.'” This is to say that mammalian sex is not "strictly binary". If you are interested in diving into the nuance, Steven Novella wrote a great blog on this subject: "Here is Why Human Sex is Not Binary", which you can read here: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/a-discussion-about-biological-sex/. Novella's point is that very little in biology is as simple as strictly black or white, on or off, male or female.