"I find arguments based on 'not one or de udder budda liddle bidda both' to be every bit as irritating as 'who gets to decide.'"

I don't think the issue is whether they're irritating, the issue is whether they're true. And of course, "not one or the other" is true in most cases (who gets to decide is a different problem).

Male/female is one of the very few genuine binaries I can think of (I'm pretty sure we agree that quibbling over the 0.02% of people with ambiguous intersex conditions is asinine). Black and white is far from a meaningful binary. And while male and female is a binary, man and woman (or let's say masculine and feminine) is far less clear-cut in this day and age (which I personally think is a good thing).

And I know we disagree, but liberal/conservative isn't nearly as clear-cut as you seem to think it is either. Not least because there's a great deal of diversity of opinion among conservatives.

I mean, just consider the left. It spans from communists to post modernists to the centre left. I suspect close to 100% of the "attention-craving fad movement" would call themselves liberals (and most conservatives definitely would). Yet you disagree with them extraordinarily strongly.

So yes, the complexity of humans can certainly be irritating. It requires far more energy than thinking of them as "them and the rest of us". But I'm going to keep pointing out how limiting a way to look at the world the latter is.