[Supermancho]

As a matter of statistical certainty (as opposed to absolute certainty), dimorphic is correct.

I happen to subscribe to bimodal - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLH-y2nLocw but I understand why the dimorphic viewpoint has utility.

There are exceptional individuals, in every population. Just like there is a non-zero chance that a baseball thrown at a wall will pass through a wall due to a quirk of quantum fluctuation (10^-10^32 chance or whatever), the utility of the differentiation point is a matter of perspective (including intent). Bimodal does not exclude these individuals, but does imply the spectrum has limits (which it does).

Arguing about what two people, of differing perspective, think won't change either's views without associating a utility that has not been considered.

[phs318u]

If you’re legitimately comparing the probability of sexual non-dimorphism in the population to the chance of a thrown baseball passing through a wall, then there’s not much likelihood the of an objective discussion here.

For the record, various studies conclude the ratio of individuals that are neither 46,XX nor 46,XY as being anywhere between 0.02% to 1.3% of the population. Or roughly 10^30 more likely than throwing a baseball through a solid wall (based on your stated likelihood).

[Supermancho]

> If you’re legitimately comparing the probability of sexual non-dimorphism in the population to the chance of a thrown baseball passing through a wall, then there’s not much likelihood the of an objective discussion here.

I specifically mentioned the purpose of the thought experiment as a matter of framing a perspective, rather than setting it as some kind of rough equivalency. This is reinforced by the endorsed video.

You've intentionally missed the point, which is disingenuous. Good luck with whatever.