Nah, I understand that humans exhibit continuous variability beyond binomial distributions. You could probably model it as a multinominal/categorical distribution for sex but that is pretty simplistic for most aspects of animal biology.
Think of it this way. We were all (probably) taught in middle school that Newtonian Physics were the core physical laws of the universe. Then in high school we were taught that Einstein uncovered "relativity" and that that was truly the laws of the universe. But, then some time in college, if you took a physics class, you learned about quantum physics and string theory, which explains things about particle motion and energy that even relativity can't explain. These are just models of the system that simplify things into understandable units and as our understanding, or ability or understand, or need to understand increases the models get more complicated. So, in human biology, a binary model of sex is where we start learning in middle school, it works ok, because the probabilities of being male or female add up to almost, but not, quite 1. In high school or maybe college you start to learn that binary sex is an insufficient model because there are a number of alternative states, chromosomal states (e.g., XXY, XYY, XXX, etc.), phenotypic states, and hormonal states that deviate from the binary model. This happens in birds too! It's a classic modelers mistake to hold on to a model even though the data show that it is wrong or insufficient to effectively explain observed patterns or variation. However, it is time to update your middle school level model of binary human sexuality with new data and information Junebug.
Think of it this way. We were all (probably) taught in middle school that Newtonian Physics were the core physical laws of the universe. Then in high school we were taught that Einstein uncovered "relativity" and that that was truly the laws of the universe. But, then some time in college, if you took a physics class, you learned about quantum physics and string theory, which explains things about particle motion and energy that even relativity can't explain. These are just models of the system that simplify things into understandable units and as our understanding, or ability or understand, or need to understand increases the models get more complicated. So, in human biology, a binary model of sex is where we start learning in middle school, it works ok, because the probabilities of being male or female add up to almost, but not, quite 1. In high school or maybe college you start to learn that binary sex is an insufficient model because there are a number of alternative states, chromosomal states (e.g., XXY, XYY, XXX, etc.), phenotypic states, and hormonal states that deviate from the binary model. This happens in birds too! It's a classic modelers mistake to hold on to a model even though the data show that it is wrong or insufficient to effectively explain observed patterns or variation. However, it is time to update your middle school level model of binary human sexuality with new data and information Junebug.
Also, here is an intersex northern cardinal.
Lol, I'm comfortable with a rule that is accurate for 99.98% percent of the population. The fact that chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex or phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female in only .02% of the population proves the rule, just like the fact that a small percentage of kids are born with more or less than 10 fingers and toes doesn't mean that is incorrect to say "human beings have 10 fingers and 10 toes." There is a rule, and then there are a small number of exceptions to it. That does not make it a continuum.
Not to mention the fact that allowing transgender women to play women's sports has nothing (necessarily) to do with chromosomal states. We are allowing people with XY to compete against XX, plain and simple.
"Something that disproves a rule, proves a rule."
I'll need to fish out my "DesCartes for Dummies" guide to see where this bit of logic comes from.