“Fundamental” is carrying too much weight in your argument
You’re supposing that the binary classifier is the most accurate starting point.
I’m suggesting that you should assume that this is a biased starting point and shouldn’t have any power as a benchmark or reference frame in any dimension
The same way we don’t use ideas like humors anymore because they are based on bad assumptions
A long time ago I wanted to be a medical doctor, but humanity somehow dodged this bullet (luckily, may I say) and I quit medical school just before the third year (the fact that programming computers paid my bills, while medical school did not at the time may have been partially responsible for this).
So, I am no medical doctor, but I was a pretty diligent student, and given the few things I studied about human physiology, I can assure you that biological sex is a pretty much fundamental fact for species that propagate via sexual reproduction, something that I can provide some anedoctal evidence being an homo sapiens, and being one of the parents of a certain number of other homo sapiens.
Maybe it is not as fundamental as the measurement of whether someone have a pulse or not at the present moment, or if their core temperature is around 36C, but it is still really consequential. Indeed, sex is far more consequential than something like race, which basically is mostly irrelevant for medicine.
You see, the problem with your analogy, is that humours was not a theory really based on the systematic observation of reality. Once we could measure more and more things empirically, it was pretty clear that it was a crackpot theory.
And while in a sense, you may be right and someday we could come up with new scientific facts that showed that the whole edifice of sexual reproduction would be superceded by new, better scientific concepts, the fact is that this has not happened, and frankly, it doesn't look even remotely likely to happen.
Until the day we have an alternative scientific theory, with predictions that can be reliably reproduced on experiments, and that explain such foundational biological issues such as human reproduction and secondary sexual characteristics, sex continues to be a very useful category of study.
Indeed, even the medical field of gender reassignment treatment relies heavily on the corpus of knowledge based on the concept of sex in things like hormonal treatment and puberty blockers.
You’re supposing that the binary classifier is the most accurate starting point.
I’m suggesting that you should assume that this is a biased starting point and shouldn’t have any power as a benchmark or reference frame in any dimension
The same way we don’t use ideas like humors anymore because they are based on bad assumptions