the phobic said:
If you define maleness/femaleness as based on genetics than by definition you are female and were born female. Considering it offensive to refer to people based on their genetics is a bad thing. I assume you had a "male" appearance right? I am for not considering it to be defined based on appearance.
Religion is bad because its not true. So much of what is required dogma these days is not even argued, but just asserted based on that it makes people happy. The argument about truth is not only neglected, anyone engaging in it is persecuted.
EDIT: But also you say you project the image you want to be "treated as". What does that mean to be "treated as" a woman?
The thing is, the genetics aren't as black and white as a lot of people think. There are in-fact rare cases of women with XY chromosomes [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome], as a result of their cells failing to react to androgens in the womb, and rarer cases of men with XX chromosomes [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_men], where the male-determining SRY gene has by chance ended up being grafted onto the wrong chromosome. That's not even touching the more common XXY, XYY and X0 combinations, biological sex is not as clear cut as it might appear at first glance.
Ultimately if someone appears to be a woman and self-identifies as a woman, then that's a lot more important for all practical purposes than a few scraps of DNA in their cells. I mean, if you took a karotype test tomorrow and found out you have the opposite XY/XX as you expected, which has happened to people before, would you suddenly start identifying as the opposite gender to the one you have lived for the whole of your life so far?