This is an bizarrely tangential and incredibly weak response.

- You’re using the “bipedal” argument literally explained to be abject nonsense in the article

- You're arguing that no change of gamete production type means no change of sex, which is the fatuous synecdoche once again; the article itself says when people "change sex" they do so "without belief that “transitioning” leads to a change in the type of gamete produced"

- Your definition example is a textbook produced for a class in Minnesota, not a peer-reviewed piece of work and not an example of a widely-used definition; but even there it's just shorthand for explaining anisogamy - that section even links to a Nature article called "Sex Redefined" that has the strapline "The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that."

- You veer off into talking about gender - and suggest the use of the word "transgender" is indicative of something; but plenty of people use the word "transsexual", so I think we can conclude precisely nothing from the terminology used

- Note that "gender" and "sex" are used interchangeably in most everyday situations, including in legal language; one can take the view that sex is simply the gendering of bodies

- I have no idea what you think works to "deny utterly basic science" - that passage is literally a sketch of how anti-trans groups argue, incoherently but in the aim of introducing patriarchal repression

- Refusing to read the responses you asked for is just feeble. Acessing Frye's paper is just a matter of clicking the download button