Argument

“ The data-driven bottom line is that “man/woman” and “masculine/feminine” are neither biological terms nor rooted exclusively in biology. The lack of an explicit binary is especially evident in humans given the complex neurobiologies, life histories, and morphological dynamics in our species. There are many successful, biologically diverse ways to be human, and millions of people embody this diversity. Growing up human means growing up in a world of varying gender expectations, body types, reproductive options, family structures, and sexual orientations.

So, instead of listening to people who are misogynistic, sexist, or homo/transphobic; incels; or politicians who base their ideologies on a biological sex binary and myths about its evolution, we can and should be open to a serious understanding of biology and its better options for human flourishing. The simple male/female binary does not effectively express the normal range of being human. Understanding this and incorporating it into our education, lives, and laws offers better possibilities, greater equity, and more joy for human society.” 

I suppose I’ve noted a series of adhominems. But are there any other issues with this? 

Ah, the modern debate on gender and biology, a delightful minefield sprinkled with fallacy traps and bias tripwires. Let's tiptoe across, shall we?

Firstly, there's a generalization fallacy lurking here. The statement suggests there is some hive-mind consensus that 'man/woman' and 'masculine/feminine' aren't rooted exclusively in biology. That's a significant and far from universally accepted claim to make without backing data.

Secondly, the use of loaded language seems to scream "Look, I brought a cheerleading squad!" And while no one really needs another reason to dislike incels or bigots, conflating them with those who might have a different perspective on biology doesn't do wonders for open dialogue. That's a stealthy ad hominem but with jazz hands and pom poms.

Skipping past the frowning straw men who clearly didn't get an invite to the diversity party, we land on the neat conclusion that understanding biology promises human flourishing. Which, while an applaudable suggestion, leans heavily into begging the question - assuming the conclusion within the premises. The "better possibilities, greater equity, and more joy for human society" part sounds like a motivational poster designed by science teachers.

As at the end of any argument, we're left with two choices: step lightly over the fallacy ruins, nod wisely and pretend we understood it all, or risk triggering a tripwire and dive into the joyous fray of discussion. Your move, player.

“Are there any other issues with this?” Yes. Clarity. Far too many words susceptible to too many different meanings to have a proper analysis.