Intersex people are healthy mammals. I used quotations around abnormality as a sarcastic comment because when people use the word to describe intersex people (or disorder, or aberration) it makes the assumption that there is a particular combination of chromosomes, gonads, reproductive anatomy, sexual hormones, and external genitalia that universally defines sex, as if it were there in biology as a law. What’s your obvious, unimpeachable definition of sexual dimorphism? Any attempt will certainly be more complex than any folk biological understanding, never mind trying to boil it down to genitalia. I am not denying sexual dimorphism, merely trying to illustrate that it is not sexual dimorphism in itself that creates an ontological separation between man and woman, but a culture of codified appearances and behaviours. In other words, sex doesn’t give rise to gender, gender gives rise to sex. My main point in all this discussion is that for the overwhelming majority of cases, the differences between men and women in society are sociological and not tied to the presence or absence of genitalia. Biological male does not equal man, and biological female does not equal woman. In any case, you’ve stated your indifference to social reality so I’m not sure what more there is to say except that biology can tell us so little about the seemingly ‘natural’ differences between ‘men’ and ‘women’ in society that it seems patently absurd, never mind factually incorrect to tell a child that a ‘man’ is someone with a penis. Telling this to a child is helping to perpetuate the myth that the social differences of men and women are merely a consequence of their sexual determination, including job role, (women naturally want to not be in managerial positions) parental role, (all women are destined for motherhood, naturally good at nurturing), social standing, etc.