That is fair enough; I am not saying there is anything wrong with going off a blunt statement, but there is when we act as though any statement doesn't have its caveat, its exception. And there's more exceptions than just intersexed (which I did also list). My own partner, who is Cis, would not meet this narrow definition since she has Turner's Syndrome and doesn't produce eggs. We will have to conceive via other methods (In Vitro, Egg donations, Seregacy, etc). Should she not be considered a woman because she isn't in the majority or because she was overlooked? And on that, doesn't the fact the you're using percentages to justify overlooking other people prove how manufactured the premise of gender is; that it's determined by the majority and not something more concrete? Most people agree what Red is, that doesn't take away the fact we were the ones who declared it Red and what those properties are. But we're still able to comprehend shades.

Again, my point wasn't that there's something wrong with going off a singular statement with a little asterix beside it, but there are people who are confusing the abstract with the literal and are weaponising it. Yes, typically a man is male and a woman is female (this is why we have Cis and Trans, to denote when they do or don't align). This isn't just about the words, this is about the erasure of Non-Cis people and identities, and even the erasure of Gender itself (as something one owns themselves).