Not even remotely. Cultures around the world have had social roles that exist separate from the roles of mothers and fathers, but they are most frequently quite a bit more similar to the idea of celibate priests than any conception of gender that would allow men to be women or vice versa. Like half of those are just non-reproductive vocations.
Even in the pure biological sense, there is lots of gray area to exist between simply male and female, but that's not what "gender identities" means. No example of "third genders" is going to support the conclusion that men can actually be women or vice versa.
They are absolutely not just "non-reproductive vocations". They were social roles, very frequently considered explicitly
"masculine", "feminine", neither, or both-- but without being bound to the physical sex. Someone could be physically male in every way, but would not be socially considered male, long before the term 'gender' was ever used in this sense in English. This is inarguable fact.
This is sheer insistence that other cultures must have adhered to your pre-existing notion. You're going to have to get your head around the historic fact that in many cultures, male and female were used in reference to characteristics/traits/social roles, divorced from physical sex
, for centuries.
You actively defend the chemical castration of minors. You call it reversible.
Ah, you're just falsely equating hormone blockers with "chemical castration", that explains it.
I mean, its grossly insulting to anyone who has experienced either of those vastly different procedures, but it explains it.