I'm afraid to say that you're almost getting it, but still finding justification to default to Gender Critical assertions.

The very first sentence is spot on, but then the rest of the paragraph you basically contradict yourself. The whole point is that DNA is not a determinant, it's merely a "aim for this" instruction. You then talk about being "biolgoically" male, but then exclude neurology which is unavoidably part of biology. Your argument to this point is basically "yeah well, the DNA was trying for male, and mostly got it, so male". I'm afraid that's not how biology works; that's an excrutiatingtly human assertion based on trying to make biology conform to a conclusion.

Next you talk about sex vs gender, but make the tradition mistake of bringing gender identity into that discussion. Gender identity is nothing to do with gender roles, stereotypes or expression. It is purely the innate, neurology knowledge of your sex, even if that knowledge would appear to be in error.

You then pivot to "transwomen are male" - but here you make a number of unfair premises, and assert them to be flawless in order to deem an interpretation correct: namely, that physiological characteristics are more important to than sentient knowledge.

I did an article further to this one called "What exactly is sex?" that you may wish to read for further clarification on my next point: sex is a classification system based on sex characteristics. For example, I am female because I have changed the majority of my sex characteristics to conform to the female sex classification.

But that would lead to a problematic question: If I am female now, why was I not female before? As what point in a transition do I become female? Why does GCS suddenly make me female when most people don't even get to see it? I suspect your response to this is to play ignorance and claim "you're not female though", which is where your logic ultimately collapses.

I think you misread the point on the Olympics. Laurel Hubbard was the first Olympian to compete as a trans woman in the 18 years since trans women have been allowed to do so. There have been other athletes that have transitioned since competing, but they don't really factor into this specific argument (they have also not competed athletically since transitioning).

You say "I am generally on your side", but I feel you are not. It seems like you're trying to assert a "trans women are men really, but don't tell them that" attitude.

Your last paragraph in particular confirms this to me. It basically reads "shhh... nobody wants to hear you asserting your rights. just be quiet like a good little oppressed minority."

I'm happy to say that my "sort of trans-activism" aligns with the majority opinions in the trans community. Perhaps you need to reflect on your position.