Fixed versus Moving: Does the starting point even matter?

I'm looking at the current transits today and the data is pretty clear. The Sun is firmly in Leo, and we’re dealing with that Pisces Moon energy shifting the mood. It’s a standard Western tropical setup, and it works for my planning. But I keep running into this disconnect with the fixed-star school of thought.

They insist that the zodiac should be locked to the physical constellations. My logical brain struggles with that. If we change the reference point, aren't we just moving the goalposts on what these transits actually represent? I don't see why we’d abandon a seasonal, equinox-based system that aligns perfectly with the solar year. It seems like adding unnecessary layers to a functional model. I use SkyToday to keep my alerts sharp, but I’ve always wondered if the traditionalists think they're seeing something I’m not. How do you square the idea of a 'fixed' zodiac with the obvious reality of precession? Is there actually a measurable difference in accuracy, or is it just about keeping a specific tradition alive for the sake of it? I’m interested to hear how you weigh the math against the history.