The point of invoking intersex people here is to demonstrate that the exercise of strict definitions is unhelpful when it comes to identity. It's like Diogenes's chicken: if demonstrable counterexamples exist for the definitions you have made, then it's unreasonable to pretend that those definitions are axiomatic.

You are still defending an imaginary point. Sure, "woman" is useful as an agregate term--nobody disagrees with you there--but it's just as fallible as Aristotle's definition of humanity. It's useful to organize people into "man" and "woman" boxes sometimes, but when those binary taxa are verifiably approximations, you cannot in good faith argue as though they are not.