To borrow your analogy, gametes range from 0 - 1 and 100 - 101. That’s a binary.

There is also the absence of gametes entirely. Hence, you can’t just rely on gametes to determine sex unless you also think humans can be sex-less.

You’re also presupposing, again, that gametes must be the sole way we determine sex, therefore if they are a binary, sex is a binary. You can have something that is a binary that is also irrelevant or not the sole determiner of what something is as part of another category.

What makes the reset of their body “typically male”?

This is broadly considered by most people for most purposes to be the phenotypic characteristics we most often associate with people considered male. We determined that a group of people commonly had a similar set of phenotypic characteristics, and applied the term “male” to it. This is subjectively determined by society. We could have additionally defined sex based on skin colors, the size or shape of reproductive organs, eye color, etc. We just decided we wanted a category to broadly define people’s phenotypic characteristics, so we looked at the two most distinct, broad groups, and didn’t bother splitting up further. The category does not have a sole, objective determiner, as I’ve demonstrated to you multiple times now. You can have one gamete, both gametes, neither gametes, or only have or stop having a particular gamete at a different point in your life. They do not make for a bulletproof framework underlying sex determination.

It is like asking me to define what a “chair” is. I could say something with a flat surface, back, and 4 legs, but that could accommodate a bench or a bed, for example. it has objectively measurable characteristics, most chairs will be readily identified as a chair and not a bench or a bed by most people, but you will also find some pieces of furniture that are just close enough for people to have differing opinions on. There is no objective measurement. This is annoying to our human brains that love to have a more concrete understanding of things, which is why the outdated idea of the sex binary persists in spite of all evidence of those who don’t land neatly on either side.

Later, as science has progressed, we have found that many people do not solely have this similar set of phenotypic or genotypic characteristics, or have the same phenotypic characteristics with different genotypic ones. Thus, we have expanded our understanding of what sex is to clarify that we know it is not a binary, since we can see that individuals exist without fitting neatly into these groups. This is why the term intersex exists. Science changes when we learn more about the natural world, you are just refusing to acknowledge the advancements we have made in our understanding of human sex over time.

Welcome to the scientific consensus.

I could say the same to you, but you seem intent on rejecting what we’ve learned because it’s not as neat and simple as you want it to be. Sex is messy, sex is a spectrum, nearly all scientists agree on this fact.

I can tell this isn’t a productive conversation, and you seem to be dead set on staying exactly where you are, comfortably holding the same beliefs irrespective of all evidence, so I’m going to mute this thread for myself now. Feel free to respond, but you won’t get another response from me, it’d be a waste of my time.