Except that isn't the argument. There isn't a continuum of states. Every collection of items isn't a continuum.
If you said "We only have apples in basket A" and "We only have pears in basket B", inspecting the baskets to see if that is true isn't committing a logical fallacy.
It is definitively the argument. You are claiming the sexes are not distinct because there exists a mix of characteristics between them. Your claim (the "evidence" you give in support of it)
is the continuum fallacy, not your (mis)understanding of what is meant by a.continuum of states or your example you use in objection.
But never mind that for a second. For illustrative purposes, let's piggyback on your example there. What you are actually arguing, unwittingly or willfully, is that if upon inspection you found a Pear in basket A, it must be an Apple because someone told you we only have Apples in basket A. Or, since you found a Pear in basket A amoungst all those Apples, then that basket must really be basket B! That
is your "logic."
Oh, and your argument against me that there isn't a continuum of states is itself logically fallacious, a straw man. I never said every collection of items is a continuum; the existence of such has no bearing whatsoever on your committal of the continuum fallacy to make your argument." anywya. It is also wholly inconsistent with the "reasoning" that got you people here, namely gender (which was/is dishonestly used interchangeably with sex) is a specturm (continuum) according to Gender Theory, which is itself psuedo-scientific and riddled with fallacy .
-edit-
I'm going to put my posts this morning down to sitting here debating whether my lower back pain was a kidney stone coming on. After a couple of hours, I'm no longer in pain.
First, you mis-state the facts of the debate. First, I did not deny that some people define sexes by either the existence of gonads or ovaries. But it is a definition. It's akin to saying "All unmarried men are bachelors." If I remember the terms from almost 60 years ago, that's a synthetic statement. Not much use, but if you want to continue to argue from definitions, knock yourself out.
The foundational position of of that POV is that gender is biologically determined. So, the wider debate is whether or not that's always true. People certainly do tend to follow their birth genitals to find their sexuality. For most people that isn't much of a search. But utility and certainty are in conflict. Nature blurs things. Some people (1 in 4000) get a double dose. 1 of each. When it comes to definitions, Nature doesn't read dictionaries. And that's merely the question of plumbing. Apparently far more people than I imagined like Something Else. And that's from as far back as they remember. One would think that the party with a gender-fluid VP candidate would be more understanding.
No, I've misstated nothing and these are separate issues.
My point is you are not holding yourself to the same standard you expect of others, of Trmp, of whomever. IF you are going to criticize others for logically fallacious arguments, then yours must be air-tight. They are not. They never are.
I was clear from the get-go that that was the only thing I was willing to discuss with you, not the intricacies of whose politicians are bigger liars or of how nature blurs things or whatever else. Science defines biological male vs female clearly and unequivocally, and it is from that basis and that basis alone certain things, like these Olympic fights,
must be adjudicated. Everything else is just social and cultural norms that the vast majority of people don't have any issue with, believe it or not. The vast majroity of american conservatives I meet are actually "live and let live."
You are blurring the lines between those two, not nature or the
political other's opinion.