That’s not a contradiction because a binary with some exceptions is not, therefore, a spectrum. A spectrum is a continuously varying attribute like height. An individual can move along the height spectrum. There is no continuous variable in mammalian sex;

Yes there is, there is a wide array of variation among the “exceptions” as you call them.

there are only two discrete gametes.

They are not always so distinct, and your definition of sex=gametes is completely arbitrary semantics that only serves to marginalize people.

You may as well say humans aren’t bipedal because some individuals have one leg or none. But to describe human locomotion as a spectrum would be laughably misleading. And why corrupt the language in this way? Ideology, of course.

Why not describe human locomotion as a spectrum? That would not be misleading at all. Yes it is an ideology, but so is your position. Ideology is not inherently a bad thing.

The essay is not specifically targeted at scientists.

Of course it is. The very opening line of the article states:

“Biology faces a grave threat from “progressive” politics that are changing the way our work is done, delimiting areas of biology that are taboo and will not be funded by the government or published in scientific journals…”

clearly this is not in reference to random joes, but to career sceintists who decide what is funded or published.

It’s worth a read and it’s not terribly long. Always worth to have ideas challenged.

It is not always worth having ideas challenged. I am happy to have my ideas challenged but I’m not wasting my time with people arguing in bad faith like this article clearly is. The only response to a Gish gallop is not to engage.