Amazingly, the brief centers its argument around irreductive conceptual classifications being higher in "naturalness" than reductive ones.

Now, of course, irreductive notions of "sex" can be more pragmatically and perspectivally *useful* to humans, BUT USEFULNESS IS NOT NATURALNESS!!

The actual structures of underlying nature are infamously not aligned with human intuitions, cognition, or usefulness in everyday life. Indeed one of the ways we can tell quantum mechanics is REAL, is how alien it gets.

By contrast, "sex" is, of course, not real.

Sex is a cluster concept, a crudely aggregate "rule of thumb" that humans constructed to smush together countless dynamics for a variety of reasons.

Pragmatics and political perspectives are baked in. And such are the OPPOSITE of naturalness.

Note the contradiction: the brief admits that "sex" defies a validly reductionist definition, but then appeals to an intuition pump example wherein the sharp distinction between gold and iron pyrite IS validly reductionist.

Gold is a natural category, "sex" is not!

The brief is even explicit about the intersection of this absurd notion of "naturalness" with the innate crudeness of state violence.

It literally argues that because laws make arbitrary cleavings on things like age (denying rights to certain young individuals), the same should be done with sex.

@rechelon For sport as a participatory activity, the obvious thing would be to divide people into groups of roughly equal abilities, without bothering to classify by sex or age. Sports already have separate leagues after all.

Sport as a spectacle is a different thing, now turned into a big business based on mass spectatorship. The women's events are segregated and give women a chance to win the big prestige and prize money. This could die for all I care, so I don't really advise how to fix it.