Right here, in one single post, you're conflating different meanings of the word sex. It's particularly blatant, because you're conflating a noun and a verb.
Only if you insist that sex is determined solely by the compliment of X and Y chromosomes. Which is fine if you are talking about reproduction—although technically, some species, including a few vertebrae, utilize parthenogenesis for reproduction.
Sex is a reproductive class within an anisogamous species. Parthenogenesis occurs in species that are NOT anisogamous*. So it has nothing to do with this classification.
You really seem to be struggling with this. So let's talk about bees. Bees have three forms within their species, and two sexes. They have queens, which are fertile sexually mature females of the species, and they're shaped differently, they look different, and are distinctly identifiable as queens within any colony. Workers are sterile females that never develop sexual maturity at all; they're shaped differently from queens and are distinctly identifiable based on their structure and form. Drones are fertile sexually mature males of the species, which are also distinctly identifiable from queens and workers based on their structures and their form.
Would you take the position that bees have an indeterminate number of forms, because sex is really complex and biology is really complicated? Do you think that some workers are actually queens, and that some queens are actually drones?
But we are talking humans and sex does not refer only to copulation.
And here you've substituted a verb for a noun. I don't know why you've done this, since the context of the discussion has been about the noun.
Humans most frequently engage in sex with no intention of reproducing and often take great pains to prevent pregnancy or engage in sex acts which cannot result in pregnancy. And we all know that reproduction can happen without copulation.
I honestly don't even know where to fo with this. You're acting as if humans being able to develop technology to alter reproduction somehow invalidates both the history of our evolution and the innate prompts that have resulted from that evolution. Seriously, you're acting like somehow us having invented nutritional supplements invalidates our evolution as an omnivorous species with a reliance on animal-based proteins, and simultaneously eradicates the innate drive to eat meat. Just because we've found a way to work around nature doesn't mean that nature doesn't exist at all.
In humans, the word sex can refer to a variety of sex acts, the external genitalia present, to determine the sex of something or to make more exciting.
Mmmhmm. And which of those are we talking about here?
Are you under the impression that when I say "sex-specific intimate spaces" I'm talking about bordellos?