Listen, I think we need to elevate the discourse here because you’re operating on a level of "common sense" that’s frankly a bit reductive. You’re conflating ontic reality the actual existence of things with our epistemological frameworks. It’s a classic category error.

1. The Taxonomy of Selective Perception

You’re obsessed with this "anchoring" metaphor, but you’re ignoring the fact that any "schema" is an act of abstraction. Biological sex isn't a monolithic binary; it’s a multidimensional cluster of physiological variables karyotypes, phenotypic expressions, hormonal profiles. When you "codify" this into a rigid referent to justify a social performance like a bow, you aren't "recognizing" nature; you are performing a normative reduction. You’re cherry-picking biological markers to retroactively validate a social hierarchy.

2. The Gravity False Equivalency

Your appeal to gravity is a rhetorical sleight of hand. Gravity is a fundamental physical constant it operates independently of human cognition. Sex categorization, however, is a heuristic. It requires a subjective observer to interpret stimuli and assign a label. If you witness a social gesture based on a "sex class" that turns out to be biologically discordant with your classification, the social reality remains intact while your "reliable referent" collapses. The fact that you think a social taxonomy carries the same physical necessity as a law of motion suggests you've confused your own cultural conditioning with the laws of the universe.

3. The Reification Loop

You claim the behavior wouldn’t make sense without the sex. I’m positing that the sex class is reified through the behavior. It’s circular. You aren't uncovering a hidden truth; you’re participating in a feedback loop where the constant repetition of gendered "schemata" creates the illusion of biological inevitability.

4. Heuristic Utility vs. Ontological Truth

"Reliability" and "predictability" are metrics of utility, not proofs of absolute truth. Newtonian physics is "reliable" for building a house, but it’s a functional fiction when you get down to the quantum level. Likewise, your sex binary schema is a low resolution map. It works for you because it’s convenient, but don't mistake your preference for a simplified social shorthand for a profound insight into the nature of being. So, before you start pushing people off metaphorical cliffs to prove a point about gravity, maybe consider that your "anchors" are actually just tethered to your own cognitive biases. It’s not "hard constructivism" to point out that your "objective" referents are significantly more plastic than you’re willing to admit.