> These conclusions could largely have been predicted by extrapolating from previous findings in the field, but nevertheless demonstrating them directly is a fundamental advance.

The contribution of this paper is a dataset and a methodology, which the abstract describes:

> Here, we investigate sex-biased gene expression and micro-evolutionary patterns of these genes in populations of subspecies and species of wild mice (genus Mus) that were raised under controlled conditions. […] Comparison with data from humans shows mostly fewer sex-biased genes compared to mice and strongly overlapping SBI distributions between the somatic organs of the sexes. We conclude that adult individuals are composed of a mosaic spectrum of sex characteristics in their somatic tissues that should not be cumulated into a simple binary classification.

which seems a clearer description, more appropriate to layfolk, than the article. The article also claims:

> This also means: mouse models are of very limited use when applied to sex-specific medicine in humans.

which (unless I've missed it) the paper doesn't say. (That doesn't mean it's not true, but press release articles shouldn't draw conclusions not present in their source material!) We're well outside my domain of expertise, but the paper says:

> All of the SBI distributions are more or less overlapping between males and females, including breast tissue, similar to that in mouse.

and we know that most sexual dimorphism in humans is governed by the endocrine system (including in breast tissue), so I suspect there are actually plenty of ways in which mouse models can be usefully applied to sex-specific medicine in humans. What they have done here is described a limitation (or, I suppose, a family of limitations), not concluded that the limitations are "very".

Is it just me who reads these kinds of things and just cringes. Always some nonsense along the lines of "well its not binary so therefore it's a spectrum".

You have obviously measured a biomodal distribution, not a guassian. That is in fact is direct evidence of distinct groups, not evidence of the contrary.

I'd also argue bimodal is not erasive terminology, but that's neither here nore there.

But... We are a primate species, we propagate our species through sexual reproduction. This reproduction involves one of each of the two dominant sexual expressions of our anatomies. These two members of a sexually reproducing pair cannot be self identified, they must be one biologically male and one biologically female participant.

So in a traditional use of the words male and female, these are the conditions that are being referred to.

This is 100% separate and orthogonal to any individual's perception of themselves, and how they would prefer to be perceived and treated by society.

This is not specifically the topic of the article, but the article seems to be issued in support of an argument that a human individual is free to state their biological sex, which is factually not true.

Trying to apply the terms male and female to individual organs is a stretch of the colloquial use of those words, and serves to inflame colloquial debate on a topic that is fully a distraction from fighting for every individual's right to express themselves however they see fit.

Let's please stop being drug into culture war hot button confrontations over issues that are fully established fact, like sexual reproduction of a mammalian species.

This fully established scientific fact in no way jeopardizes any individual's freedom to express themselves and their sexuality in society, and fighting against established fact just serves to undermine the social effort to secure those rights.