Science defines it just fine. But defines it as bimodal.

On the contrary, the definition you’ve been using all along is perfect. It just doesn’t mean what you think it means. Sex is an emergent pattern in biology, to which individual instances conform to a greater or lesser degree. There are exceptions and edge cases that defy binary categorization.

We are closer then that I thought. But Sex is not emergent. It is a fundamental aspect of life for reproduction. And problems in clarification do not mean there are not classes. That is not logical.

^^ You wanted me to show you where you’re guilty of reification? Everything about life is emergent. Life itself is emergent: we’re just amino acids that got really complicated. Classification derives from reality, not the other way around. “Sex” is just a pattern we observe: no more, no less.

And everything is made of electrons as quarks.

Just so.

This is an argument of reductio ad absurdum if you did not get it.

Yeah, but that’s only a problem for you, not for me.

That gray area doesn’t bother me. That’s just how almost everything in nature works. But it really, really bothers you. It bothers you so much that you have to consign anyone who lives their actual real-world lives in that gray area as monstrous and delusional. We call that a “you” problem.

Who lives in this grey area you say exists?