Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re sending me a lot of red flags, so I’m hesitant to engage, but I feel the need to point out that defending the rights of the individual is not motivated by some desire to defer to authority on how one should orient themselves sexually. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The quote has no truth. It’s a fantasy used as anti-intellectual propaganda. Anyone can say a clever platitude.
I haven't said anything about the motivations behind it. It's probably just a feeling that you're doing something good. But that's basically what I'm talking about, the biological sex is obscured with words like "orientation" or "identity", despite that the premise of this entire theory at least used to be that sex, gender and orientation are separate things. You can't change your biological sex, it's immutable. If y…
I assume you mean nobody can presently create fully functional organs for someone that wasn't born with them. I don't know who disputes this.
But when you make such a declaration, it sounds (to some) like you are denying biological reality yourself; claiming that there is no such thing as intersex, that chromosomes are always in alignment with physical characteristics, and so on. There are complex processes necessary for the emergence of typical characteristics, and just because it's strongly bimodal doesn't mean that's 100%. Anyone educated knows it isn't, completely apart from politics.
If one agrees that such things are well-known for a long time and not controversial, and that there appear to be gender related differences in the brain, then it's not reasonable to declare that "an X brain in a Y body" is impossible or delusional. You can't know, and it's particularly antisocial to go around telling people stuff about themselves when you can't possibly have rational grounds for it.