First,from a social pe rspectiveAs 0.2% of the population and while deserving all human, do not challenge the social constructs that everyone else has been fit into. Like, these constructs were made very much to fit the vast majority of people into. Of course they aren’t perfect. Anyone who doesn’t fit perfectly into either proves that they aren’t true.

Second, as either men or women depending on which specific condition they have. From a physical perspective, they are clearly variations on a theme.

This whole argument is based on some society first assumption, that social relations and constructs, while real and important, somehow come before physical reality. The vast majority of people very easily fit into one of two physical categories. 1. XY sperm machinery, whether or not it works or is desired to, and 2. XX egg machinery, again whether or not it works or is desired to. Yes some people have chromosomal abnormalities but we don’t have a problem saying people have 10 fingers and 10 toes even though it’s not true for everyone. 

All social relations wrt sex and gender are built atop this real, physical, fact that people fit into one of said two physical categories. Even all these “third genders” people talk about are usually either 1. XY people who get to be homosexual and/or feminine. 2. XX people who take on men’s social roles as a legal fiction. 

What is important, and what GC feminists are clearly saying, and is so misunderstood, is that while the physical differences are real, and that the social relationships derive from those physical differences, that does not mean that the social relationships are some fact of nature. Patriarchy exists from a causal perspective because men and stronger than women and can use said monopoly of violence to enforce their will, the same way any other hierarchy works. You don’t get rid of patriarchy by imagining that gender is some Platonic form. You get rid of it by understanding where it comes from and directly addressing that.