https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect

The AI effect is a phenomenon in which advances in artificial intelligence lead to a redefinition of what is considered intelligence, such that capabilities achieved by AI systems are no longer regarded as examples of "real" intelligence.

The concept has been used to describe both a cognitive tendency and a sociotechnical pattern, in which successful AI techniques are reclassified as routine computation or absorbed into other domains.

Historian Pamela McCorduck described this as a recurring feature of AI research, noting in her 2004 book Machines Who Think that once a problem is solved, it is no longer considered evidence of intelligence. Researcher Rodney Brooks similarly observed in 2002 that once systems are understood, they are often regarded as "just computation".

Where does that paper conflate sex and gender, exactly? You're not just making shit up, are you?

And you're wrong yet again. Here's another well-respected biologist confirming that author:

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2025/04/03/colin-wright-gives-a-history-of-the-gametic-definition-of-biological-sex/

The historical and scientific record is clear: from the 19th century to the present day, biologists, medical professionals, philosophers of science, and evolutionary theorists have used gamete type as the defining criterion for sex. This document compiles citations from that record, providing a reference point for students, scientists, educators, and anyone interested in understanding what “male” and “female” mean in biological terms.

These citations span more than a century of scientific literature, showing that the gamete-based definition of sex is not a recent invention or a reactionary response, but a longstanding, fundamental biological principle. While sex roles and secondary sex characteristics can vary, the definition of the sexes does not: male and female are reproductive categories rooted in the type of gamete an individual has the function to produce.

So much for those chowderheads who say that, using the gametic definition, neither a pre-puberty human, a postmenopausal woman, or a sterile person can be male or female. If you see this argument, you know you’re dealing with someone who’s intellectually dishonest.

Here's plenty more people with the credentials of your choice signing a statement affirming the same:

https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/

(Because it needs to be said for some particularly dim-witted individuals, the fact that's it's hosted on wordpress is immaterial. It's about who signed the statement)

Fuck's sake. It is incontestable that this is the scientific consensus. Argue that you want to change it by providing a better framework if you want. Stop lying.

And not that it matters, but I'm a better leftist than you are. Don't be a shitlib. Do better.

He uses the justification to talk about sex. The paper is limited to talking about sex. If that's transphobic, then reality is transphobic.

You really, truly don't understand what you're talking about.

What is common between a male human and a male bumblebee?

Think about it hard.

I'll wait.

And no, the overwhelming consensus in biology is that sex is binary. That is truth. You're spreading misinformation

The thesis relies on explicitly differentiating sex from gender, because it defends the overwhelming consensus in biology that sex is binary. It doesn't address gender at all other than to briefly note that some people confuse them.

To borrow your analogy, gametes range from 0 - 1 and 100 - 101. That's a binary.

If every other part of their body is typically male

What makes the rest of their body "typically male"? What does "male" mean? How can you define it in a way that make sense for humans, chickens, bees, and plants?

When you're done thinking very hard, you'll realize the answer.

Gametes.

Welcome to the scientific consensus. We'll be here when you're ready to accept the truth. And yes, someone that produces ova is female (or hermaphroditic in other species), regardless of secondary sex characteristics.

As detailed in many other comments, not being able to produce gametes does not mean one is sexless. Everyone is born with sexed structures in their bodies. No human is capable of producing fully functional gametes of both types. Even in the extreme case of ovotestes, they will have a semi-/non- functional gonad of one type, and nonfunctional bits of tissue of the other type.

Trying to introduce this argument displays your ignorance. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Other animals do have hermaphrodites and other reproductive systems, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androdioecy.Humans don't. Those other species are a good example of what humans aren't.

Oh, and good thing those charts included sources which you ignored. Here, I'll zoom in on them for you.

The paper is peer-reviewed, from a Evolutionary Biology PhD, submitted to a journal specializing in the topic. He starts off talking about sex, mentions gender briefly for context, and then sticks to sex for the rest of the paper. The mention is "In recent years, however, this previously uncontroversial fact has been challenged in popular discourse, [...] seemingly driven by cultural and political debates surrounding the concept of “gender identity” and transgender rights." The paper is entirely about sex, and says "some people misunderstand sex because of gender". That's not conflating sex and gender, that's specifically calling out other people that have confused them.

had very little to do with biology on the whole.

🤦

You should fix your ignorance. It's painful