Bibliographic record
Abstract
). It supplements their article by providing a stronger argument for the thesis that "intersex" does not violate binary sex in human beings. In their response to Timothy F. Murphy's criticism of "the Vatican's" (rightfully corrected as the Magisterium of the Catholic Church's) position on the sex binary, they argue subsidiarily that "intersex" does not violate the sex binary. However, their argument against Murphy as stated is implausible; however, I provide a much stronger argument for their conclusion that intersex does not violate the sex binary. I intend to perform this supplementation in two stages, assuming the reader's familiarity with "The Vatican opinion on gender theory." First, I provide a broader background than Murphy's to the challenge that "intersex" conditions violate the sex binary, showing both how Murphy's criticism is unoriginal and how "intersex" both has been, and continues to be, misunderstood. Second, I problematize Tuleda's argument, and offer the strongest argument for the conclusion that "intersex" does not violate the sex binary on purely secular/nonreligious grounds (addressing Murphy's complaint). I conclude that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church remains correct that sex is binary. Summary: Julio Tuleda, Enrique Burguete, and Justo Aznar's "The Vatican opinion on gender theory" challenges Timothy Murphy's criticism of sex binarism as endorsed by the Catholic Church. This article strengthens their criticism by focusing on "intersex" conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".