Behavioral example, Greg creates sperm and likes to have sex with other men; The biggest contention occurs here: a Psychologist would probably describe this person as a homosexual, a biologist that's also an animal behaviorist would probably describe an animal doing this behavior, say a squirrel for example, as a male squirrel or a male homosexual squirrel or a homosexual squirrel (depending on how much the biologist wanted to emphasize it's behavior or gender), whereas biologically the human or [animal] produces sperm so it is male.
Last example, Jqhn identifies as an attack helicopter but has sex with pandas: biologically, jqhn happens to produce eggs so zhibrit would be female.
The main conflict with Bill Nye and others is that he tends to stray from the Biological definition of MALE / FEMALE and instead goes with Cultural / Political / Psychological definition(s) of said terms; a second large conflict similarly involves using sex, with the bonus addition of XX/XY errors being thrown into the mix (refer to the previous example in the first paragraph for a fun example).
Personally, I think it might be best to start using spermatogenic (sperm-producing) and oviferous (egg-producing) when describing gender in a biological sense as opposed to male and female as modern definitions often have clashing definitions that lead to great confusion. E.g. Jqhn's gender is oviferous in the biological and medical sense of the word while it is "identifies as an attack helicopter but has sex with pandas" in zhibrit's personal context.