You're right but also -- bimodal sex is scientific consensus. You can pretty much just Google the phrase " is sex a binary?" And get a direct, one sentence answer. This article can be entirely debunked in like 10 seconds.

It is consensus. There is no " two sides of the argument," there is the wrong side and there is the right side. The evidence against the wrong side is overwhelming. When it comes to an objective question, like " is sex binary?" There will always be an answer. There is room for nuance, and the rebuttle contains this nuance. It would be ridiculous if a conversation about sex did not include the two most common sexes in humans. Point being, this guy is lying, a lot of people are and a lot of people will be. This isn't a question, it's consensus. We have already observed these things about sex.

What this article is doing is arguing against scientific consensus -- not even arguing but just stating it isn't true wildly with no evidence. The other side of this argument is already well-known and furthered has additional Science which cites it. I cannot express to you how little this has been a question in Science since the 1960s. We knew sex was a spectrum before we even had Scientific Ethics.

Fred P. Thieme and William J. Schull of the University of Michigan wrote about sexing a skeleton in 1957: “Sex, unlike most phenotypic features in which man varies, is not continuously variable but is expressed in a clear bimodal distribution.” The same is true for chromosomes, sex organs and testosterone.

You're also very right about the characterization of sex -- but it makes sense if you actually think about it. The gender roles we associate with females aren't endemic of a natural difference between males and females, but instead it is endemic of males' prior enslavement of females.

In other words, it seems pretty obvious why the social standards for women are entirely centered around impressing and " serving" a man. It is pretty obvious why women are expected to be pretty, shaved for example, thin for example, while men are set to look basically however they want.
With this, it becomes very hard to separate that sex because it has been the attribute used to prescribe people as house slaves for so long.

You seem a lot smarter than the author of the article. I am surprised to hear, however, that you still think this article is in good faith.

I just want to ask you, what is the **reason** for writing such an article? Lies aside, the fact that the article is misinformation about transgender people, intersex people, and sex in general aside. What could possibly be the author's motivation for " debunking sex is a spectrum articles."

Why is it so important for us to break down the misconception that sex is a preset configuration that determines everything about a person rather than a unique part of a person with a lot of variation? Why would someone seek to counter that?

There are few reasons that this article should exist if the goal is not to attack certain groups of people.