Well I guessed that you were trying to make a point about how our language is highly biased towards heavy elements even though they are a tiny proportion of the universe, and that means it also makes sense to bias our language towards intersex people even though they are a tiny proportion of the population.

But it can't be that because that is an obviously stupid point. So what was your point?

Remind me of your point, if you would:

> I think this is a massive over-correction (banning words is dumb) but they're not completely wrong.

Is it that "they're not completely wrong" to ban terms referring to events significantly more common than the occurrence of gold in the earths crust?

To quote another:

> it can't be that because that is an obviously stupid point. So what was your point?

----

For general interest:

* frequency of "true" (undecidable) intersex (1 in 5,500 births): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0022449020955213...

* Mean global crustal ppm of gold: 0.004 (four thousandth of one in a million) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth...

* Report on Gold deposits in a high yeild region: Gold Deposits of the Pilbara Craton https://www.ga.gov.au/pdf/RR0065.pdf (74 page AGSO report, 'rich' veins have 0.4 ppm gold)