> ...and I am not merely referring to Klinefelter syndrome. There are a myriad nuances. And I wasn't exclusively referring to it either. My point there's a le

> ...and I am not merely referring to Klinefelter syndrome. There are a myriad nuances. And I wasn't exclusively referring to it either. My point there's a legitimate idea there that isn't undermined by slight fuzziness or technical imprecision in layman definitions. This isn't a perfect analogy, but Wikipedia has red as light with a wavelength of 625–750nm [1]. A lot of these discussions are a lot like trying to undermine the concept of red itself by noting that 624nm light exists. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum#Spectral_colors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum#Spectral_colo...