Only if you're dumb enough to assume that all or most of behavior is biologically determined, instead of being a complex mix of biology, culture, and learned individual patterns that produces a spectrum of individual expression. The question isn't "is gendered behavior rooted in biology?" it's "how much / to what degree?" and the honest answer is, we don't really know with confidence.

The assertion in the article is that gender is socially constructed. You don’t seem to be defending that point. You’re making a different argument nobody disagrees with—that humans also express learned cultural and individual behaviors. You could walk into CPAC and say that women would still be women if the social convention was for them to wear pants. Nobody would disagree with you.

Ironically, the social changes in gender expression you’re referring to are actually premised on the opposite of the assertion you’re making. They posit that gender expression is biologically rooted—because otherwise it would be within the purview of society to regulate it as a matter or culture or individual expression.

The mainstream liberal interpretation is that gender is a social construct separate from sexual identity/preference, and you can’t constrain the expression of either to the historical Western norms, because that’s an attack on Constitutionally-protected individual rights. There’s a more extreme leftist interpretation that says both are fixed identities practically from birth, but it ends up with the same conclusion: let people be and do what they want, even if it doesn’t fit into heteronormative expectations about gender or sex.

My entire point is that’s the morally and legally correct framework, because we shouldn’t be using scientific determinism to make decisions about how individuals with free will and rights can express themselves. The article is correct to have the disclaimer, in this light.

What you characterize as the “more extreme leftist interpretation” is actually the more conservative view. You can get most conservatives on board with creating exceptions to social norms for biologically-rooted differences. Acceptance of same-sex marriage increased dramatically after the push in the 1990s and 2000s to educate the public that people are “born that way.” “Scientific determinism” is actually the lynchpin of the broad acceptance of same-sex marriage today.

By contrast, what you call the “mainstream liberal interpretation” is actually the radical position. It rejects society’s right and prerogative to impose norms and regulate voluntary self-expression. What generates concerted opposition from conservatives and moderates is the feeling that liberals are using sexual minorities as a vehicle for loosening restrictions on voluntary behavior.

You’re correct the two positions lead to the “same” outcome—but only initially. Eventually, a conflict arises between liberals, who want sanction for a broader range of voluntary self expression, and gay or trans people, who often simply want to fit in as best as they are able. You’re seeing that conflict of interest play out right now. Bostock, which granted equal civil rights to trans people, was immediately accepted by the majority of conservatives. That caused liberals to pivot to causes like drag shows involving voluntary non-conformance, which generated immediate backlash and opposition. For the reasons you explain, liberals can’t tell the difference—to them, it’s self expression, whether it’s voluntary or biologically rooted. But to everyone else that makes a huge difference.

It's almost LOL wrong to state that conservatives have gladly accepted that trans people are entitled to full and equal treatment under the law. Just one Tucker Carlson clip (https://www.foxnews.com/video/6324164359112) shows how American conservatives are completely frothing at the mouth over the existence of transgender people.

There is a huge wave of anti-trans laws being pushed through by conservative elected officials at the state level right now. They're specifically attacking trans children and school policy, as the soft underbelly that gets conservative parents riled up for a culture war and which is legally more vulnerable.

You don’t have to read tea leaves: https://www.kff.org/other/press-release/poll-large-majoritie... (“In each case, large majorities across partisan lines, including more than 7 in 10 Republicans, think such discrimination against LGBTQ people should be illegal.”). That’s from 2020. Does it make sense that the majority of conservatives are upset about “the existence of transgender people” but somehow support making it illegal to discriminate against them?

The culture war came later, when liberals tried to use trans people to promote their own view—which you aptly characterized above—that people should be allowed to express themselves free from traditional social norms and roles. Liberals rushed to promote things like drag shows, which have nothing to do with trans people, and everything to do with voluntary self expression. As RuPaul (a cis man) put it: “Drag says 'I'm a shapeshifter, I do whatever the hell I want at any given time.’” That liberalism is what has “conservative parents riled up for a culture war,” when they mostly didn’t bat an eye at actual advances in trans rights.

Yeah unfortunately for conservatives, the annals of history are generally a story of culture evolving more rapidly than traditionalists are comfortable with. We happen to live in a country where the core Constitutional answer to that problem can best be summarized as: tough shit, get used to it. You can move to Saudi Arabia if you want to live in a traditionalist autocracy that will protect you from the horrors of drag brunch.