No, they didn't, you are wrong.
See Jo Maughams own GLP blogpost confirming this:

There are 3 ponds - mixed, men only, and women only. This is the sign on the "women only" entrance.

You're not replying in good faith, Marcus - here's the exchange to which you replied:
Namely, a couple are trying to conceive NATURALLY, & as humans are anisogamous, they'll therefore require a small & large gamete to fuse.

You mention a third "different" gamete (but meaning a 2nd egg) via IVF?!

No, they haven't. Here is the ruling summary - a transwoman is not a woman as their sex at birth was male.
So under this interpretation, a tw is not a woman, agree?

Again, the author:

(Their point seems to be, if you use the bio definition then yes sex is binary, but if you change the definition to what I *want* it to mean, then it's not)

Right, so you're just ignorant as to how scientific language discusses categories. It was just stupidity.

(It's asking me to subscribe which I'm not doing, but my understanding of that article is that the title is misleading, and the author has said it's *not* an argument against sex as M & F)

No, I didn't actually - I asked for egs of ppl born with a penis who developed down the pathway to produce ovaries.
Here is the exchange, including your response of people with PMDS.

Do people with PMDS produce ovaries, or did you purposefully misrepresent a person's condition to try prove a point?

We are no different as a species than horses or gorillas when it comes to sex.
I have read that article, and also the response the author had to issue when certain people kept misinterpreting it to mean more than 2 sexes.
So, humans, just like any other mammal, are either Male or Female

That is gender reassignment, not gender identity. A distinct difference.

But still, not quite. There are exceptions carved into EA2010 that confirm sex OVER gender reassignment in some areas, using "woman" = female in the eg.

Confirmation EA has women defined by sex, not gender identity, yes?

The article refers to Male and Female as "the two sexes".

"at the start of life", a human can be either male or female - no third sex is possible. Why do you think that is? Why does the article not mention sexes other than male or female at this juncture?

I claimed I did not use quotation marks FOR THE REASON YOU CITED. Not that I didn't use them at all.

I initially thought your lack of comprehension was down to ignorance or idiocy.

Then, when you wilfully lied, I thought you were desperate.

Now I see...you're just a troll.

No.

I have answered in the manner requested, and in good faith.

Your turn to answer a Q.

Why did you lie in this post?

The speech marks are used as they represent my understanding of the posts as dialogue. Theyre a written statement, if you will.
The whole post (below) indicates these are a summation of two positions. They are *not* direct quotations of PBs, happy to make that clear.

Now, please address your lie.

I said that was the position, not a direct quote.

But before anything else we now need to establish whether you are acting dishonestly.

The below post contains a blatant untruth regarding the screenshot being a "full post". Was that a lie, or an error?

Carl, that is an outright lie. That is NOT the full post cited, but a cropped version. Below is the FULL Post (highlighting mine).

Stop engaging disinformation and admit you were incorrect about your screenshot being "full post cited" or you've conceded you're not interested in an honest discussion

Where was claim 1) made in a way thats substantively different to 2)?

The below, of course, effectively says "there are two gametes and no evidence of a third", which is not substantively different to saying "two and only two"

So are you referring to a different msg? If so, please share.

Again, you can only arrive at point 1) in your screenshot if you *ignore* the sentence that immediately follows. You are arguing a point no-one has made because youve misunderstood/not fully read.

If you read the entire message, including the sentence Ive highlight, you will read it as 2), not 1).

Carl, why are you wilfully not reading/ignoring crucial parts of people's responses?

Polar Bear states the two gametes then asks for evidence of any more, if they exist. You seem to have cropped out that last sentence. Clumsy.

Why would anyone infer from this that the speaker means *at least* two?