gametes

Stem cells-derived gametes (of both types, regardless of the sex of the donor) are also around the corner.

Messing with DNA damage detection and repair machinery is probably not something you want to do in gametes.

There's no conflict, physical form and chromosomes are variations within a sex, which is entirely defined by gametes.

It has no direct bearing on my comment, which was about (heritable) methylation of the gametes.

An alternative of weeding out the unlucky gametes was tried by Hitler but proved unpopular.

As others have noted, this is DNA in the nuclei of nerve cells, not gametes.

Chromosomes are part of how sex is determined, but gametes are how sex is defined.

The question of classifying human births is larger - not all humans born have gametes.

Sex is entirely defined by gametes, and is binary in anisogamous species such as humans.

But there's a reason the dictionary definition is different and not just based on gametes.

The answer to all of this is to remember that sex is about reproduction, so it must fundamentally be based on gametes.

You should ask the people you run with why no human is born with a body not organized around the production of gametes.

If by 'rewarding "unlucky" gametes' you mean helping out the less bright and similar, we do it because it's nice and most people prefer it that way.

I believe what you mean to say is "We have been able to observe no correlation between methylation of the nerve cells and methylation of the gametes".

Philosophical question (don't take offense, please): Why should we be rewarding "unlucky" gametes?

Not in Australia, via a decision that ascended through all levels of the national court system, nor is sex, as you've chosen to define it ("entirely defined by gametes") binary.