Jesus Christ. I understand how male and female sexes are typically characterised, just like as I'd presume you understand how "woman" and "man" is typically characterised. I'm not suggesting otherwise, and at no point in any of the comments above have I suggested otherwise. My point is though, that that characterisation is neither deterministic nor technical. It's a silly arbitrary idea people made up, that coincidentally happens to be comparable to biological phenomenon. You said this yourself:

"there are outliers to the norm. However, outliers do not define the norm"

What does define the norm? Huh? HUH? You clearly didn't, you just angrily ranted about how most people already know what the norm is, and as I said I agree that they do. Saying the female sex is the sex that's considered female is, in case you didn't realise, entirely circular. Saying it's the sex that typically produces ova is only vaguely indicating which of the two sexes you're calling female, and only then by association. It doesn't clarify anything about what sex actually is. It's linguistically no different to saying "women are members of the gender that's typically associated with child birth".

And, I'd really appreciate it if you could clarify why you decided to suddenly bring up misery about childbirth, considering it isn't really relevant to anything either of us had previously mentioned? For the sake of reference, I would have a lot of empathy about anyone who's upset about not being able to have children, male or female. I don't see why knowing before hand that you couldn't get pregnant somehow invalidates being upset about it.