So no...you're not accepting the intrinsic link instilled by biology then...
Not where it doesn't exist, no. The idea that almost every individual matches whatever sex-based stereotypes are fashionable in the time and place they live and does so in every way in every thing is just silly. That's not an "intrinsic link instilled by biology" any more than it's "ordained by God". Appeal to authority fallacy.
Yes things are in a spectrum but even spectra have limits. And outliers are just that, outliers. Abnormalities. For example I could be a tall man, or a short man. Height is a spectrum, I could also be abnormally tall, or abnormally short but I'm still a man. The same applies to gender. You can lie anywhere on the spectrum but you're still on it.
You're arguing the existence of a fundamental and intrinsic seperation into only two settings. That's very different from "spectra have limits". And you're confusing gender with sex again when you confuse height (which is gender) and male (which is sex).
Unless you can tell me where unicorn Princess sits on the gender spectrum?
Which gender spectrum? Everything that's gendered (either instrinsically or socially) is its own gender spectrum. "unicorn Princess" doesn't contain any information about gender. "princess" is a title that refers to sex, not to gender. So without information about unicorns in general, ideas regarding gender in unicorn societies and the individual unicorn you're referring to, I couldn't place that unicorn in any position on any gender spectrum.
Again I'll point out we're not discussing inanimate objects but people where gendered terminology is entirely appropriate and has nothing to do with the might of the British Empire.
Again I'll point out that your argument was that without gender in the context of pronouns for people (as you've emphasised repeatedly) we'd be screwed. History shows otherwise.