Actually, for your first point, I see no real need for intervention to stop it beyond maybe some prenatal prevention. I think that is more due to chemical exposure in the womb due to the use of certain drugs. I suspect DES, and that was banned in 1970, with probably some use extending past that. I also wonder if drugs like finasteride could cause some mishaps such as intersex. So that could be why there may have been an uptick in CAIS cases. I don't know what taking Tamoxifen while pregnant could cause. And I don't know what increased cortisol levels during pregnancy could cause (whether from stress or cortico-adrenal steroids). Those represent 4 possible effects on sex hormones. Increasing estrogen (synthetic estrogen), decreasing estrogen (Tamoxifen), increasing androgens (steroids) or blocking androgens (Finasteride/Dutasteride).

Speaking of biochemistry, I wondered for a long time how estrogen can increase during pregnancy with no ill effects, but taking estrogens could result in miscarriage or harm to the fetus. Well, there are many estrogen-class hormones. So what is available to take as a drug includes horse-derived estrogen (such as in Premarin -- and is stronger than estradiol), estradiol (strongest human estrogen), estrone (estrogen created in the human bloodstream that can convert to estradiol or estriol), and rarely estriol (one of the weaker human estrogens). During pregnancy, the placenta creates large amounts of estriol. That would prevent hot flashes and may cause some breast changes to help prepare for lactation, but would likely not affect a fetus.

Something that shocked me to learn is that the ovaries don't actually produce estrogen as we may have learned in primary school. It seems that what they produce are the precursors such as DHEA and the aromatase enzyme. So estrogen is actually assembled in the blood. That approach prevents the "first pass problem" which I might as well explain.

I've also wondered why those taking oral estrogen supplements might be more likely to have strokes, pulmonary embolism, heart attacks, or liver problems, while women in their childbearing years face these conditions less. Now, there are estrogen receptors in the liver on the portal side (yes, male and female) that increase the stickiness of the blood. So women not taking estrogen and maybe those using estrogen patches or injections would be bypassing those receptors. That begs the question as to why most mammals have them. Non-human female mammals eat the placenta after giving birth. There are several reasons for this. They are likely physically drained and hungry after giving birth, so this helps protein levels. Plus, some mammals such as dogs will eat anything in the vicinity of their young that gives off an odor. That way, they're less likely to attract predators that may eat their young. That's also partly why dogs eat feces. (Some may also have eating disorders such as pica, they acquired a taste for it, or it could be because their sense of smell is so strong with very good discrimination/filtering that they can detect whatever that whoever had eaten previously.) Now, the health benefit of eating afterbirth would be that it could help stop hemorrhaging. Other mammals may not always have access to a doctor, paramedic, or midwife, so survival could be a challenge. So nature provided a way to get temporary relief of excessive bleeding from childbirth. They eat the placenta and the liver produces more clotting factors. That mechanism is not intended to be used regularly. It's more for emergency use. So those who take oral estrogen would need to avoid smoking, preferably avoid alcohol (while it could reduce clots, it could also harm the liver), and monitor their blood pressure. Low-dose aspirin is an option, but that carries its own risks.

Plus (back on topic), genetically speaking, transsexuals would be "suicide cases." Anyone who has their gonads removed will not be adding to the gene pool. Many transgender and gender-fluid folks keep their gonads. So they could pass on their genes.

I also see that much smaller crowd as less subversive. What would you rather a child see? What looks like a man and what looks like a woman kissing? Or what looks like two men or two women kissing? Or even what looks like a crossdressed man and another man kissing? (I imagine that is the order that things would extend down the "public level of disgust pyramid" if such a chart existed.) "Classic transsexuals" tend to want to conform to the gender binary and are not creating new genders.

The issue I see here is appropriation. Do people who change their racial identity seek permission from the community that they move into?

An issue she brings up is that many don't know the difference between gender identity and sex. So if that is true, and it may be distasteful to say, a person could be a male woman or a female man.

Agreed, since men lack a clitoris.

But not only is the penis analogous to a clitoris, but the urethra grows onto the bottom side of the penis.