Uncommon like all those other elements in the universe?

I provided several examples of chromosome combinations that result in people who produce no gametes. You've said in several comments that no one is born with a body plan that doesnt produce gametes, and that is incorrect. I'm a biology major, and I'm in a developmental biology class right now There are several points in development that can cause a failure to develop a sexual phenotype.

I don't know why you're saying it's a hard line that biologists have drawn, when science is about being able to adjust our understanding of the world when we are presented with new information

Edit: The body plan that you are talking about is a result of several things ranging from transcription factors to hormones working together, not just chromosomes alone. A break at any point can result in a body that isn't "organized" (whatever you think you mean by that I don't know) to produce gametes. I feel like you're trying to play "gotcha!" throughout these comments and have no true understanding of biology. I recommend that you try going back to school

Sex is defined by gamete size, because it's the only common factor across so many different species.

Dawg this isn't even true. What was the publishing date of the last biology book you read? I think you need to update your knowledge. The current scientific and academic consensus is that neither sex nor gender are binary.

Sir is doing biology without brain. Is much cleverer trick.

SRY gene is part of how sex is determined, but not how sex is defined.

..by Donald Trump in his stupid antitrans bill.

Biologists are quite happy with using chromosomes to describe sex. Spoiler alert: there are more than two possibilities. Even with trump's stupid definition there are at least three.

I think saying sex is the same as gamete production is somewhat reductionist and not the usual definition either. And at a minimum that would create a 3rd sex, a body that did not produce gametes.

Except when they're not. At which point your binary classification* system has more than two classifications it can make, making it definitionally not binary.

Nah, you're just taking crap because of your political indoctrination. We can read your post history.

Stupid enough to be hoodwinked into supporting right wingers is often stupid enough to refuse to understand even when people explain.

Would you care to explain yourself? Maybe explain how folks that would never produce either gamete fit into your binary based on gamete production? Or is that too advanced? I hear we are sticking to basic biology after all.

Gender is a social construct. There, I disentangled it from evolutionary biology.

This is an "either I'm stupid or everybody else" moment and I let you decide on your own.

Words don't have inherent meaning but get meaning by the people who use it in the context they do. It's an collective and context sensitive process. I remember how in one linguistics lecture (typology), we differentiated prepositions from postpositions whereas the syntax prof was like "I don't care if the preposition is before or after".

Also: Judith Butler discusses your gamete definition as utterly irrelevant in this context in Who's Afraid Of Gender so it's not that they aren't aware. That's all the hint I give you.