Hi! I'm a little confused what the confusion is. Yes, talking about binary terms and using them as an abstraction and a summary is perfectly convenient, and can be useful, but that doesn't change the data. It's just a summary of a very complex system. The terms "female" and "male" have multiple definitions because of that. Here's an example from the dictionary:
Female:
(1) Of or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young.
(2) Characteristic of or appropriate to this sex in humans and other animals.
(3) Of or denoting the gamete that is larger and less motile than the other corresponding gamete. Used of anisogamous organisms.
(4) Designating an organ, such as a pistil or ovary, that functions in producing seeds after fertilization.
(5) Bearing pistils but not stamens; pistillate.
There's a few others, but that's why both males and females have both "male" and "female" sex hormones. They're different levels of abstraction. Yes, talking about these abstractions is very convenient for reproduction, that's why we created them, but they're inherently abstract. Just like talking about a voltage as 0V or "OFF" or "FALSE" when it's actually 0.12323V is perfectly convenient and useful.
I actually talk to several biologists on a regular basis, and this is all pretty standard, because mostly what we're doing is just talking about how science works and data.
Being dependent on multiple variables, having that many possible dimensions, makes the data a spectrum. We can summarize that data in arbitrary ways, including drawing an arbitrary line and sorting them into categories, but that doesn't fundamentally change the data. No one is confused when we talk about male and female hormones within an individual. If a person who presents as phenotypically female and considers herself a woman comes into a doctor's office and it's discovered she has XY chromosomes, no one is that surprised: we know about the SRY gene, we know about lack of testosterone receptors etc etc, we understand this is normal. Or if someone presenting as a woman comes in with a beard, no one is surprised. Hirsutism in PCOS is fairly common. We know men and women have both male and female hormones. Again, we know how all of this works, so no one is surprised. Talking about abstract concepts for reproduction is a useful model, but it is just a summary and an abstraction, and it does not change the diversity of human sexual development. Words and abstractions do not change actual biology. We change words and abstractions based on increased knowledge of biology. We can talk about abstractions until we're blue in the face, but ultimately it's only a useful way of trying to describe the actual data. Does that make sense?