The sex binary is not a catch all, you're the one ignoring that literal fucking geneticists say on the subject. You must know better than them though, with your zero qualifications.
Your only examples are literal deformities, so I'm not too certain on that.
They're not even classified as deformities by the appropriate medical fields that they're relevant to. Glad to know you don't actually care about being accurate.
Arguing semantics doesn't push a debate forward. Whatever you want to call intersex people, they are plagued by a physical disorder that is not directly related to this topic. They are not part an example of an alternate sex. They do not prove any idea that genitals are not indicative of sex. It's like trying to say there is a spectrum of the number of human fingers because we can technically be born with zero to ten or more.
It's not semantics, it's literally the consensus of the relevant medical fields that it's not a deformity.
It's entirely semantics. You're acting as if the definition of that word means anything about anything in this discussion. You know what I mean. I know what I mean. It's literally a deformity per the dictionary definition, but people in the academic field likely use other words as they need to rigidly define things. That doesn't change the argument one iota. Bring up wording when it directly affects the core of the argument, not when it makes a good deflection topic.
You're the one ignoring the scientific definition in favor of applying a dictionary definition. You're the one being pedantic. But tell me, why does it matter that you are able to reiterate that it's a deformity (which medically, it isn't one)? It only serves to add to your "well we can't actually acknowledge intersex people" argument which again, is running contrary to what the relevant medical fields have to say on the matter. ---