Well she did say this, in the post I was replying to: "What are the odds that you - as a heterosexual male - would meet someone, like them, and then be *surprised* to find that they have a perfectly typical male anatomy with perfectly typical male primary and secondary sex characteristics?"
That question is irrelevant to the issue we are currently discussing, unless she switched the definition.
Dude (or dudette, whatever, I don't care)... there is more than one single discussion going on here. Ferinstance...
1) Loren Pechtel's assertion that sexual orientation is based on gender not sex
2) Jarhyn's assertion that sex is a spectrum
3) Jarhyn's assertion that puberty "ought" to be "right" that children get to "choose" whether or not to experience, and in what way
4) An overall discussion of what constitutes female versus male across the board with a subdiscussion of whether or not a person's subjective beliefs about their affinity for a set of socially constructed stereotypes is part of that definition at all
...
Z) Whether or not gender identity should replace or supercede sex in a variety of policies including athletic divisions, spaces in which people get naked, medical services and the right to specify the sex of a person providing intimate care, prison accommodations, and many more.
That last one is the ultimate discussion, the ultimate point of conflict. And it's that last item that has led to all of these other splits and winding roads. Because all of those other discussions are the basis on which we determine what sex is and when it matters.