The one thing, the one single thing, the female body is designed to do is produce young. Millions of years of evolution created sexual dimorphism as the most efficient way of reproducing vertebrates.
The rest of it; clothing, mannerisms, bodily decoration, segregation, is down to culture and politics.
While not all women express their biological destiny, all women are biologically designed to do so. That's an objective reality. Everything humans do beyond that is about society.
So I am bewildered that someone, who's body is enacting the biological function of woman, can at the same time, believe they are biologically male.
You might say, "as a woman, I choose to express myself as culturally masculine", and that's a valid position, I suppose. But the whole pregnant man thing is cognitive fantasy.
Even the non-binary idea is strange. It's not as if society is composed of GI Joe on one side and Barbie on the other. The only measure of a binary person would be that they identify completely with whatever society considers 100% feminine, and not only does such an unsaturated ideal exist, nobody, nobody, is such a thing.
I suspect this whole issue is an expression of extraordinary cultural anxiety. We know that under stress humans flock to the familiar, to people like them. When the definition of "people like us" becomes so rigid, people seem forced to choose a side.
Over the last couple of decades, as the world is getting more precarious, we seem to have narrowed the definitions of what it means to be female or male. In the 80s, an era of relative prosperity in the Western world, it was much more acceptable to present with a fluid gender performance.
Now we sexualise little girls, demand even more complex presentations of femininity (eyebrows/nails/waxing/debriefing/designer handbags/fashion etc), while at the same time idealising some forms of masculinity (worship of the armed forces, super heroes and the like).
Is it any wonder that girls who don't feel they can or want to, fit into the hyper sexual femininity demanded of them by society, retreat into a version of masculinity? Or that men, unable to be anything other than vulnerable human beings, take one look at the aggressive expectations of masculinity and decide that they'd be better off in a dress?
The ultra-fearless hero who society exemplifies as the ideal of masculinity does exist. He has a genetic mutation which interferes with the physiological stress feedback loop - so they feel less fear. On the other hand, they tend to die younger from heart disease.
It is no more possible for the rest of us to be that genetic mutation than it is for us to change sex. But choosing the way we express our personalities, personal beliefs and values is entirely within our capacity, and we all do it every day without having to create some fiction of biological transformation.
We have a social problem, not a biological one. Even animals, driven by biological determism, have personalities and culture. I wonder why humans, with so much greater capacity for self-expression, seem so bent on constructing such rigid frameworks to contain us.
Perhaps Marxist analysis would come in useful here, and the question we need to ask is how this construct benefits capitalism? Who benefits?