This is a claim of fact. The author shows the scientific evidence disproving this claim

The text cites ongoing U.S. debates over transgender rights, showing how scientific arguments are being used to justify legislation and social exclusion. While also showing the broader social and political context that online rhetoric has real-world consequences.

This shows that the genre of the article is science commentary or an opinion based blog post.

By listing real-world consequences, the author wants the audience to understand that inaccurate biological claims directly contribute to discrimination and policy decisions that affect people’s lives.

Sun is trying to appeal to supporters of transgender rights, as well a skeptics who believe their views are scientifically grounded and need to be challenged on those terms.

Responding to groups like the IDW that claim to defend science while using it to argue against transgender rights is motivated by the growing influence of arguments in politics and public discourse around these issues.

The author matters because Sun is a neuroscientist writing about biological sex and gender from a scientific stand point. Her background establishes credibility and helps explain why the article focuses on correcting scientific misunderstandings rather than debating gender purely as a social issue.

Sun’s article argues that biological sex cannot be reduced to a simple binary and that scientific research contradicts the “basic biology” often cited to oppose transgender identities.