I mostly agree, but I don't think that's responsive to what I said. My point was that, to the best of my understanding, the idea of "female DNA" just doesn't se

I mostly agree, but I don't think that's responsive to what I said. My point was that, to the best of my understanding, the idea of "female DNA" just doesn't seem like a good way of conceptualizing biological sex, to the point where it doesn't seem useful to me for explaining anything. The actual changes needed to flip an embryo from male to female are fairly tiny. On the other hand, the number of genes related to sex characteristics is large, but they're mostly shared between both sexes and not uniformly expressed in members of a given sex (hence why transgender HRT administered before puberty results in development largely indistinguishable from a natural puberty). So proposing "female DNA" as a cause for some observation seems unenlightening to me.