You are missing the point. The person you responded to provided one of many possible examples of a person having a particular set of chromosomes, which you say determines their "sex," yet they have the reproductive organs of "the other sex." This shows that the entire concept of sexual binary is outdated and, due to it being weaponized in a quasi eugenicist way to pre determine social class roles, needs to be left in the dust bin of history. If genetics needs to be brought up in public discourse, the standard should be to speak very specificly on a case by case basis and stop attempting to group millions of people under reductive labels. Since we've decided to be extra confusing by naming these reductive sexual binary roles the same exact names as the reductive gender binary roles that they are equated to, the only way to resolve this it to just stop using these gender roles in the medical field and to instead speak specifically of the genetic conditions (XX, XY, XXY, XYY, XY + androgyn sensitivity, etc.)