I know that, which is why the fact I don't accept the essentialism of biological sex (by this I mean the idea that someone's anatomical properties make them masculine of feminine) is integral to the point I was making.
My point is not only the properties of gender roles like long hair, wearing dresses,etc. which are essentialist, but also the anatomical properties which are supposed to define sex. Why does one need a penis to be male? Why does one need a vagina to be female? If identity of male and female is indeed non-essentialist, then it should be possible for someone of any body to have an identity of male or female. Even in terms of se, the category of male and female cannot be reduced to a property of body .
The identity of male and female, even in sex, is only given by the identity itself. One can only be male or female,
whatever their anatomy, by the fact of having the identity itself. There is no set of properties which makes anyone male or female.
So when Pfhorrest asserts a feminine identity, it's not on the basis of having certain properties which must make them feminine. No essential properties are granting feminine identity. There are no such properties!
Rather, the feminine identity is given in terms of itself.
That's to say, Pfhorrest has a property of feminine identity which is present entirely on its own terms. Not a feature granted by having some set of properties which make one feminine, but to exist with a fact of feminine identity itself.
Just as a cis man with a penis exists with a male identity itself and thinks the concept of man is of him, Pfhorrest exists with a feminine identity and thinks of the concept of woman of her/them/he (I do not know Pfhorrest's pronouns. Normally, I would just use "they" when I don't know pronouns, but I'll put a range here just to make a point about the self-definition of identity).