I guess for me here the issue stems from the fact we're so heavily reliant on visual cues - secondary sex characteristics - to bridge and link language (M/F categories) and perceived reproductive capacity, and I do think this reliance is useful. So in this case, where we see someone with an M/F mix made explicit, our affective anatomical mappings just become vague and don't really serve the tasks for which we normally use these processes of deduction e.g. from 'is it safe to approach this person' to 'can i flirt with this person knowing they'll be of the sex to which I am attracted' or, finally, 'has this person been socialised as M or F on the basis of their biology - (expectation of) periods or no periods?' The word 'man' will still steer us towards entirely different discursive networks than the word 'woman' does, which leads to its inappropriate pairing with e.g. the treatment of periods as an often problematic experience (there is no man in Uganda who will have had to skip school because they didn't have a tampon and I really don't think it's appropriate to allow a situation which allows us to more easily imagine that Ugandan teen boys and girls have more or less the same schooling experience in this respect, not least also because then we relinquish access to the resources held by feminist class analysis, which nevertheless remain highly pertinent).
Language is extremely potent and limiting here - we are guided so much more than we think by the historically and societally shaped definitions of words. Consider differing reactions to the very simple phrases 'male victim' and 'female victim'.
(Just to make clear, I'm not talking about consumer choices (e.g. clothing) as visual cues in this context - a man not on HRT wearing a dress will be correctly decoded as a man, so that's absolutely not the issue.)
Against the backdrop of this reflexively reinforcing triad of language, visual cues and our conception of the non-visible body, the above just facilitates an increasingly more deeply ingrained conceptual shift where we imagine that female- and male-bodied people have pretty much the same experiences in this world and where it's alleged that individual variance, rather than our belonging to a sex class, most informs our functioning and how others relate to us.
This person will not be seen as female-bodied by viewers. They'll be imagined as male-bodied on the subconscious, non-intellectual level, due to the fact that the thought process will go: 'male face + 'man/him/her' = male body', and that's problematic - male bodies don't menstruate.