The David/Brenda thing is far from the only case. I routinely hear examples of stories such as boys (usually not physically damaged or abnormal) being given dolls such as Barbies to play with and then using them as if they were toy guns or cars, because that's what they wanted play with but they weren't given any because of their parents' idealistic attempts to raise them not to be violent or macho or whatever... or kids who have access to both kinds of toys clearly choosing the stereotypical kind of their own volition... and so on. Pick on the "kids doing what they want to do" stuff all you want, but it's a bigger field of issues than just the case of David/Brenda.

* * *

There's still something I'm not getting about "the other side"'s case. It's already established that differences in the structure of the brain between males and females begin appearing in utero in response to the same early burst of sex hormones that determines whether the genitalia will develop into the female form or the male form, and that those design differences persist throughout life. If there's no biological/genetic difference in what male and female brains do, then what are the sex hormones doing to the brain so early in development, and why are they doing it if the different structural details yield no difference in results? Given a single starting point, differentiating something's design into two forms implies that the purpose is to yield two different types of functional result, so I don't understand looking at a case of design differentiation and saying that the two resulting designs are still meant to have precisely the same function. How does that logic work?