Thank you for the explanation.
If i understand correctly, the gender is then basically matter of mind, what a person thinks. This leads me to question, if a man thinks he is a woman, how would he know what it means? How would he define a woman?
Mind maybe, thinking no. Thinking is critical analysis of objective data. "Gender," as it's now being used in psychology or sociology, is a social or sexual orientation, more a feeling or attitude.
People decide for themselves how they define "woman," or what being a woman means.
And how is the condition different from someone telling today that he is the Napoleon and French people should obey him?
This sounds like a delusion; a fixed belief unaffected by contrary facts.
Napoleon was a specific person, who is dead. One believing without evidence that he is that person is making a specific claim contrary to well evidenced fact.
A claim of "being a woman" is not so clear. Assessment would rest on how the claimant was defining
woman. The dispute would rest on definitions, not on established fact.
A transsexual is reporting a personal, feeling-based
orientation, and inasmuch as one's feelings are known only to him, the claim isn't open to dispute. On the other hand, the cause, and the claimant's definitions, are.