I think social dominance is an unhelpful metric to go by.
It forgets about autism. How can you intentionally or unintentionally be socially dominant/submissive if you don't know what's going on in a conversation? If no one respects you because you're "weird", then you can't be socially anything because no one is taking you seriously enough to notice. And that's not including the fact that autistic people often aren't able to notice their own tone.
People tend not to think about it cross culturally. What socially dominate/submissive means changes across culture, so why would it be a biological force if an omega in one culture is an alpha in another. People also tend to not include how confusing it is for a person who's a part of multiple cultures to hear that and go "Well what the Hell am I?". By this metric, I'm an alpha in some cultures and an omega in others, neither of which I identify as. I also don't identify as a tertiary dynamic for a similar reason. Simply being that in different contexts I would have completely different traits, not traits that are combined.
People can in fact go between these as they need. Why would it be limited to dynamic is omegaverse? It's reminiscent of the idea that women are inherently submissive and men are inherently violent. Simply put that even in a fictional setting that pretends to be divorced from sexism, sexist parallels show up.
