I don't really care about how a person feels on the inside. Such questions are pointless for society. That is something that a person should only share with themselves, family, and close friends. However you should obey the social mores of where you are. So if you are a male you should act as such socially if society sees you as such(even if you don't "feel like a man" whatever that means) Same for women we have physical bodies and that's how we interact with society, I believe in a soul and am not a mateialist. But I don't know if a soul has a "gender" so it does not matter sure maybe men's and women's souls are the same and there is no disntiction. But our physical bodies are and our society lives in the material so deal with it.
I find it deeply ironic how many of the same people who believe in the concept of the soul nowadays are so eager to say that your identity is dictated by your physical body. The idea that humans are how they appear on the outside rather than how they feel on the inside does indeed seem like a materialist argument; it asserts that humans have intrinsic properties by virtue of our matter, regardless of things like internal mental states. I just find it kind of funny, and a bit incongruent, how so many people who insist humans have immaterial souls that could potentially form the basis of an identity separate from the body suddenly flip a switch to crude materialism when confronted with the notion of a transgender or transracial person and insist "No, no, you are your body, your meat decides your identity! It's all about how other people see your meat!"
The idea of a “human” is technically a language-act. It’s a form of make-believe. Our minds are what create the category of human in the first place and then assign humanness to others. If we weren’t sapient in the first place, we might be humans without ever even knowing what a human is. Most other species on this planet are not intelligent enough to have names for their own species. They just kind of exist as nameless things, incapable of assigning themselves to any particular category of thing. A dog has absolutely no idea that it is a dog and possesses a quality of “dog-ness”, for instance. Let's say a wild dog lived in complete isolation from humans. Without ever having seen the dog, verified its dog-ness, and assigned it the property of dog, could it ever have been said to be a dog?
This line of thinking has a name. It's called the Problem of Universals and it's older than dirt. Plato, of course, argued that abstract concepts had a separate reality from the things they represented. Aristotle was also, in a sense, a realist and argued that things had a "hylomorphic substance"; that they consisted both of matter and an abstract, immaterial form representing that matter. Some later philosophers argued for nominalism, or the idea that the categories of things we can speak about are just made-up names and do not describe any intrinsic property of anything.
The ruling class are truly, insanely evil. With identity politics, they have created an argument that can never actually be won, which people can argue about forever and ever, quite literally for thousands of years hence, without ever arriving at a meaningful conclusion.