Yes, I am not disagreeing with you. I did not say sex is bimodal, I said what tras get wrong is sex is not bimodal, it's "sexual dimorphism" that is bimodal, and they are confusing the two.

As long as "sexual dimorphism" does not mean "men are always tall, always don't have smooth skin, always have a low saturation of fat, always have larger bones, etc", or "women are always short, always have a wider pelvis, always have a low muscle density, always have a high saturation of fat, always have less body and facial hair, etc", and only means typically there are some characteristics we see in women or men, but that these characteristics are not essences of or innate to men or women and are shared between the two sexes, then that's true and fine.

What I meant is gender essentialists or biological essentialists take "sexual dimorphism" to mean men or women always look like xyz or abc, and that's not true.

So yeah. No disagreement here. :))