No, they need reproductive cells to decide whether they’re big or small - they need to watch you masturbate (for formerly male NBs) to completion

The wage gap as you're thinking of it doesn't exist. Women aren't paid 30% less than men, all else being equal. The wage gap number comes from comparing the median total earnings of men working full time to the median total earnings of women working full time. That's it. It doesn't compare apples to apples, and any time you adjust to be closer to comparing apples to apples the gap shrinks. Just switching from total earnings to hourly wage eliminates a big chunk of it as most jobs are paid time and a half for overtime and a majority of overtime is worked by men. Differences in things like industry, position, tenure, career interruptions, etc all also play into it. To the point that young, childless, urban, college educated women actually earn more than young, childless, urban, college educated men.

What I understand about the “intention of the text” is that:

That's probably the intention, but because it was written by somebody with zero academic biological experience that is also trying to cosplay as a professional writing a rigorous definition, it fails to do so.

XY: male. XX: female.

Would you like to hear a crazy secret? We biologists don't use the words "gender" and "sex" separately because we feel like it, there is a major difference between the too. Want to hear something even crazier? We don't use "XY = male!" as our definition either.

People who’s body or mind don’t match with their genes

Huh... where else do you think their traits come from? Their soul? Their zodiac sign? Your phenotype is nothing but your genes + regulated expression from the environment.

then be a male or a female with one or a combination of hormonal, developmental, or psychological issues

Are blond people just a male or female with a developmental issue in their hair's pigmentation? Or for this specific category of human diversity you're okay with calling them what they are rather than trying to define what wild type genomic expression is the "correct"? I mean, a person with XY chromosomes but a mutated SRY gene would develop entirely as a female, your worldview seems to imply that's "hormonal and developmental issues!" but then I'd love to hear your views on race - or in fact, I would much rather not hear them, if they follow the same logic as your initial proposition.

While we are here, how about the XY individuals with a working SRY gene that physically develop as male, but have certain neural activation patterns only found in women and that swear they were born in the wrong body from a very young age? Why exactly are we going to discard the biological evidence to their subjective perception, just because it makes you uncomfortable? Because if that's the case, maybe your subjectivity makes me uncomfortable... should we start listing and denying aspects of your physiology too?

Sex isn't directly determined by chromosomes, it is determined by someone taking a look at the sex organs. This works for most people, but embryonic development is like most things complicated and there are a lot of factors that make it more difficult than "male" and "female". Examples are people with more than 2 chromosomes or that have absorbed a sibling in the womb. Difference of sex development is estimated to affect 1/100 people.

So when the doc takes a look just before 6 weeks, she must declare "the embryo has ovaries and no testes - female" at every single person. At literal conception: "Idk know, man, it is just 1 cell".