I thought I'd just start a different thread than continue on the 'Disambiguating the concept of gender' thread as its sort of silently noted and not really focused on there. I also have never really gotten a clear answer as to what specific biological features and their relative importance impact any policy, legal language, or even person-person reactions.

Usually the justification doesn't try to make reference to biology but rather statistical relevance such as certain asymmetries as regards criminal intent/offenders. From there use the previous widest biologically easy defining classification scheme to then split the groups with regards to legal treatment or policy. It's just utilitarianism split along some biological dividing lines as regards policy.

I could be wrong on this, but I presume most legal documentation when it can be is in fact neutral on biological classification. Any difference in its application, as is well known by racial disparities in crimination or different treatment of men/woman offenders, can be seen as entirely a result of local/global biases. It's not in the legal language itself.

There is a clear delineation between biological essentialism, determinism, and normativity. The former is merely noting that is an inherent biological classification scheme to define certain groups which can factor into explanations of group conflicts or differences via this. As this article attempting to 'rehabilitate biological essentialism states',

An essentialist definition is just a definition that offers a single necessary and sufficient condition for being some thing.

Which she notes as regards her own definition of sex whether having to do with chromosomes and gametes. Determinism is more in line with almost with the saying of 'letting nature take its course' and whatever results could be seen as determined out of mixtures of genetic and environmental relationships. So far nothing new has been really stated and nothing that actual requires any direct political revulsion. That is until we then ask if these essential classification schemes and determined biological consequences should impact our normative values.

We have the society and successfulness to even ask such questions in relative peace because certain members of our species, in this nation, have taken on particular roles which then serve to propagate it. This also includes continuing its health and connectiveness as well as its strength in terms of economic value. Those 'preferable' features are most definitely in many cases by products of biological needs and requirements. Ergo, if we desired to continue propagating and continuing our nation or society's core values we require a subset of that population at some certain level to hold to such desires as well as entertain them.

You can say all you want that you desire to allow individuals to entertain whatever fantasy or political position they so please. To say goodbye to the social roles of the past and entertain new trends in advancement of neutrality, equality, or freedom of choice. However, if you value more the continuation of a culture or nation for ones offspring or the offspring of those around them this seems more similar to slowly poisoning oneself for ones moral virtues.

You could say you 'hope' the populace will make the right choice but when disparities arise when this hasn't taken swing just yet you should begin to investigate actual proactive solutions.

You could also blame economic systems and bad policy making but unless its shown to be easier to overhaul the entire government along with its economic connective tissue perhaps merely going to what actually works would be better suited.

What else is on the table?

I want to emphasize that virtue signally about how much you care even about how you personally deal with people or desire for everyone to get along is pointless in the greater scheme of things. Until we are putting greater foundations behind those words it's just worthless posturing. Please don't do that, it wastes our time.