https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867424001223
The history of sex research demonstrates an ongoing coexistence of multiple, conflicting meanings of sex. This history raises questions for scientists about the deployment of a research variable that lacks precision. Cross-disciplinary collaboration between scientists and science and technology studies (STS) scholars offers a way to find solutions to this problem.
What a terrible, terrible paper.
And yet it was cited seriously on Lemmy over in https://lemmy.today/post/57474308. Here's a takedown of it:
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/03/17/the-journal-cell-endorses-the-view-that-sex-isnt-binary/
Here are the main problems with Velocci’s paper:
- It conflates sex differentiation, sex determination, and the definition of sex
- It argues, wrongly, that no progress has been made in understanding the nature and definition of biological sex
- Its argument is ideological rather than scientific, yet is given the trappings of science
- It argues that the binary nature of sex, which the author rejects, somehow erases transgender and nonbinary people
- And, as usual, its supposed examples that make sex nonbinary, like the long clitoris of the hyena, are wrong. But where are the clownfish? Send in the clownfish!