So what? I didn't say anyone was harmed. Are we supposed to just automatically accept all claims as true unless they've been shown to be harmful? Does "My pet Spot is a cat; therefore all animals named Spot are cats." become a valid argument if the guy who points out "But my dog is named Spot too." isn't showing anyone would actually be harmed by his dog being a cat?
The problem here, and it keeps getting pointed out, is that "cat" is an invented category here. The boundaries of cat are arbitrary, even if the circumstances to allow the arbitration to shift are mountainous.
The problem is the fact that we are using "woman" and "man" and the categories aren't actually closed here, so when you say "they are a woman" what you are really doing is using figurative language.
What you are actually doing is replacing simile with a metaphor, ie "that person is LIKE the platonic woman, moreso than they are LIKE the platonic man", never mind that these platonics are created from... You guessed it, an arbitrary population selection.
It's a failure to preserve figurative language, and failing likewise to understand that you are inserting imagination where only mechanism belongs.
The problem is that given how obsessive and absolutist and essentialist people are, especially over gender and sex, people will tend to take offense if you point out something they wish to see as binary all-or-nothing is actually shades of gray; they will shit in your mouth and call you a liar despite the fact that the categories they know they see are as illusory as race.