I would not count on the journal Nature to claim fact in a redefining of 'gender'; many new theories come out of it, but it certainly is not a tome of across the board accepted theory. Look, when the baby comes out of the womb, a doctor assigns whether it is male or female not by some 'innate internal sense of self'- that is subjective, relative self selection.  No, the doctor sees if the baby has a penis, and testifies via external observation for a legal certificate that a male has been born.  If the doctor sees the baby has a vagina, the doctor obviously testifies via external observation- for a legal certificate- that the person is a female. As for the comments on employment and sports, my comments weren't about verification of genitals but rather pointing out that critically discerning between male and female is a major feature  of affirmative action, the basis of female specific opportunities and point of contention per legal sport segregation (i.e. title nine). Ditch it all then