"I'm sorry you find it difficult to say the obvious and clear answer."
There is no 'obvious and clear answer', except to maybe your '10 year old self'.
"You are likely, as technology improves, to find the next few decades quite distressing if you are having difficulty with an incredibly simple thought experiment like this one."
I don't believe I will find the next few decades distressing, however, it seems that you will continue to find the next few decades distressing because you seem to honestly believe that some body parts are plug and play and that AI will miraculously enable this.
I mean, I have been watching nearly every sci fi fantasy series and movie out there and read many of the books. And I can safely say that I will not find the next few decades distressing in the way you state. I mean, I have been waiting for a hoverboard for decades!
"Your hostility to a simple and earnest request to work through this example explains why you find the idea of early intervention blockade so deeply sacrilegious - it tests the definitions of 'male' and 'female' and forces us to consider people as more than a singular, all-encompassing and static point of origin."
And again with the hyperbole and the catastrophising.
No. I am not hostile. I HAVE worked through your 'simple and earnest request' and have been blunt in telling you that it is just as flawed and false as your 'Dudley - Berwick' analogy and you “ a constellation of statistically linked attributes - including genotype - that together match a pattern we identify as sex.” definition. Both of which you thought were useful and accurate.
"it tests the definitions of 'male' and 'female' and forces us to consider people as more than a singular, all-encompassing and static point of origin."
Just because you want it to be so, doesn't make it so.
Your suggestions don't force anything because they are not relevant and there are quite a few excellent posts on this thread as to why that is. But I will continue to say to you that 'your' definition of a female person requires to you use falsity to support your definition. Your definitions are not coherent and they fail at the first analysis.
Just because you want those definitions to be true, doesn't mean they are or will ever be.
"I think I understand you a little better now. Various comments over the years have hinted at this, but I think this confirms it. You seem to be assuming that I'm reading off a script; that I'm just repeating a 'brief' that I got elsewhere, told to me by clinicians who have drunk the Gender Ideology activism kool-aid."
And if you have finally understood this, can you then work out the next step? I wonder.
"We need to consider these kinds of thought experiments, even if you find them tedious and don't like the conclusions they inspire, because like it or not, we are going to have to break out of this 'on rails' mindset of sex as a singular, all-consuming definition tethered solely to a single chromosomal point of origin. Development does not work that way."
No. We don't need to consider these kind of thought experiments. Because they are irrelevant to the material reality - people cannot change sex, sex without a person disclosing their sex is engaging in non-consensual sex, and female people need single sex spaces away from all males above the age of 8 regardless of that male person's extreme body modifications.
"I understand that it's hard and you don't like some of the answers. I get it. I don't like some of the answers either. We have to engage with them, though, as a society."
Yeah? Nah! No thanks. You don't 'get it' and it is not because 'I don't like some of the answers either'. "We have to engage with them, though, as a society." Not in the way you demand though.
TL/DR
That whole quote above was a wheedling 'cope' statement. I think the cope part is just projection by now.