This example is interesting to me in the sense that it makes crystal-clear the central gender identity argument that being a woman or a man has absolutely nothing to do with that person's biological sex. This also means that the new definitions are forcing that same belief on all of us and that now we have no terms for what earlier used to be called 'women' and 'men.'
When I first (more than ten years ago) became acquainted with the transgender theories and views I assumed, very naively, that no trans man would ever wish to menstruate or get pregnant, what with those being female body abilities, and that no trans woman would wish to retain the male genitals or use sperm to impregnate a woman, what with those being male body aspects or abilities.
In hindsight, this was the "born in the wrong body" argument of being trans. Ironically, it would have been easier to cope with in feminism, because there still would have been space for the female body and the female sex and the analysis of discrimination that is sex-based.
The more recent argument is that nobody is born in the wrong body, and that this, then means that some women have penises, some men have vaginas, and the definition of 'women' and 'men' must, by default, be based on stereotypes about clothes, hair, behaviour, social roles etc.
All the stuff feminists have fought against for decades if not for centuries.
The GI ideology is quite regressive.