You misunderstand. I do not take issue with anything that’s written in the scientific paper. What I take issue with is how the paper is marketed to the general public. When you read the article you will see that it does not claim to “proof” that these models cannot reason. It merely points out some strengths and weaknesses of the models.

I mean… “proving” is also just marketing speak. There is no clear definition of reasoning, so there’s also no way to prove or disprove that something/someone reasons.

Of course, but such strict definitions only come about because smart people come up with examples like OP when you don’t add the full definition.

Counterexample: North and Southpole on Earth.

Again, mtf or any transgender issue can be solved with birth certificates. It doesn’t require genetic testing. Genetic testing is targeted at humans that according to all our traditional laws and practices are treated as female, yet may potentially be banned from female sports.

What are you talking about? This is not about transgender at all. For those you could require a birth certificate. This is targeting women that are born as girls but, due to genetic anomalies, do not appear as such on genetic tests. Many (most?) would never discover the genetic anomaly during their lifetime.