And you're essentially demonstrating my point. Your long, complicated, meaningless comment here - which boils down to sex being impossible to define - is now widely accepted (and is the basis of a Supreme Court case), while someone like Scott Adams who would claim that chromosomes or sex organs (at birth) are indeed sufficient in defining one's sex, is perceived to be "off the rails". It's absurd.
I said exactly what I wanted to say, in as simple terms as I am capable. The fact that some people insist on reality being simpler than it is does not make it true.
