We have to come to terms that we have built an abstraction on nature and it has leaks. Let's move away for a moment from this issue and consider the issue of s

We have to come to terms that we have built an abstraction on nature and it has leaks. Let's move away for a moment from this issue and consider the issue of some animal being of a given species. A highly scientific classification with little political nature (at least if we stay away from our own species). Reality is that species as a concept is an abstraction placed on nature. It works well for most cases. A cat is not a dog. A cat is not a lion. Pretty clear. But even without considering past species, we see instances such as ring species. Are they one species or not? And we see animals that can breed but who almost always have infertile offsprings. In the same way, sex is an abstraction we place on our world. It works in most cases with a few errors. Incorrectly classifying a testosterone immune man as a woman, failing to classify someone born intersexed, failing to differ the XX from the XXX or the XY from the XYY, and sometimes failing to account for cases where the brain might not match the phenotype. Sticking to our abstractions even in these cases is as I'll advised as sticking to programming abstractions when they leak, if not even more so. (Bonus round: are there X and Y chromosomes or are those an abstraction as well?)