So an evolutionary biologist should be trusted more on gender issues than a gender studies scholar? Sure? Are you camp "hard science are inherently better than soft science even if it's about soft science"?

I mean, sure, you can apply the evolutionary definition to humans. It's not wrong, it's just useless and irrelevant. But the article doesn't stay there. It jumps to sports and prisons and what so ever. What on earth has any of this to do with gametes? I'm not saying it's Wrong. I say it's misleading and your article is a good example for that. Your favorite random evolutionary biologist starts with a clear cut definition and applies it to a messy context. Sure, gametes are a binary but sports is a non-sequitur from there.

And I said that you can decide whether or not you're stupid but "words have different meanings in different contexts" and the context in question isn't evolutionary biology. If it's about who can have kids with whom, sure, let the gamete definition shine. If it's about social topics, let social scientists do their job and stop spreading misinformation about social topics and social implications. Do better.