I'm not cutting my arguments from whole cloth, you know? They're based on solid facts, and sound philosophical, logical, taxonomic, and linguistic principles from any number of credible sources. I'm standing on the shoulders of giants - so to speak - even if some of them can't see quite as far as I do, largely for that very reason.
Even Griffiths doesn't seem quite ready, yet, to go with "sexless", but he's at least danced around that conclusion in his Aeon article:
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
And his preprint article further underlines that, in his quite reasonable and eminently sensible view, having a sex is a transitory state of affairs:
The sexes "male" and "female" are just labels for transitory reproductive abilities. They are not any sort of "immutable" identity - which too many insist on trying to turn them into. Not just the transloonie nutcases, but pretty much everyone else. That's the crux of the problem, that's the justification for emphasizing the standard biological definitions of Parker and Lehtonen, of Google/OD, and of Wikipedia (in their more sensible moments).