I understand where this author is coming from, and I agree that sex should not be considered a "social construct". I think it's good to note two things: First, there seems to be other definitions of the word "sex" which is weaponized by extremists on all political sides, and those definitions of sex certainly are social constructs.
Second, this author is hell-bent on asserting (with minimal evidence/argument) that there are only two sexes ... even while acknowledging that 0.05% of the population is intersex. I'd say it's wholly inappropriate to ignore intersex individuals, and probably also incorrect to not provide eunuchs/etc with their own sex classification.
Biologically, intersex individuals would be the vector by which humans might some day evolve to a species with non-"bimodal" sex. Ignoring them would come at a risk of missing potential early population changes over the next 100,000 or 1 million years.
I think 2-3 years ago this post would be quickly flagged into oblivion, without any discussion (or with some unnecessary flaming). I think, or rather hope, that we become more mature and can have a civilized discussion about this issue.
Second, this author is hell-bent on asserting (with minimal evidence/argument) that there are only two sexes ... even while acknowledging that 0.05% of the population is intersex. I'd say it's wholly inappropriate to ignore intersex individuals, and probably also incorrect to not provide eunuchs/etc with their own sex classification.
Biologically, intersex individuals would be the vector by which humans might some day evolve to a species with non-"bimodal" sex. Ignoring them would come at a risk of missing potential early population changes over the next 100,000 or 1 million years.