Not quite sure what your point is. You think I'm trying to deny that sex is binary?
Yes, I quite agree with your points about "makes no sense", "stereotypical behaviours", and "understand the difference" between the sexes".
But that's the whole point and principle behind sexual dimorphism. One can't possibly say which traits are more common or typical of one sex than the other if one hasn't FIRST said what it takes to qualify as male and female:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…
That's also largely the import of Kurilova's, "men and women have behavioral, emotional, and psychological differences on average as well". But those "sexually dimorphic" differences are generally not unique to either sex.
For examples, both heights and "agreeableness" are such "sexually dimorphic" traits: men tend to be, on average, some four inches taller that women. And women tend to be, on average, some 10 percent more agreeable than men. But there are some women who are taller than the average man -- one might say such women have a "masculine height". Similarly, some men are more agreeable than the average woman -- one might say such men have a "feminine agreeableness score".
But the further point there is that heights and agreeableness scores are not at all any part of the definitions for male and female -- as sexes. ALL that it takes to qualify as male and female, at least by standard biological definitions, is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless:
web.archive.org/web/201…
web.archive.org/web/201…