The thread from @EffInvictus about this dumpster fire of a story is good, but I want to unpack it in some specific ways, and hopefully lay bare its insidiousness, intentional or otherwise.
I will be including screenshots of the text for critical purposes, but most of them are too lengthy for the alt text feature, and would balloon the length of this thread immensely. You can find the story here: clarkesworldmagazine.com/fall_1_20/
I should note that this isn't the first time an SFF story has engaged with gender in ways that are harmful to trans folks; there were two in 2018 that cis people mostly praised but trans people, especially trans women, took issue with.
This story uses critical gender theory and trans language with a fluency that suggests the author did their homework. But the subtext here feels very cis and het, with an undercurrent that links assigned sex, gender, and orientation in a very cisheteronormative way. 
Note the presumption of heterosexuality, of cisheteronormative presentation, of the reflexes of presentation being neurologically motivated. Note that even the interpretation of presentation is treated as somehow inherent to humans rather than a learned behavior.
This right here evokes GC/TERF language about "male violence."
This feels very much like the kind of story cis people are going to praise and say flattering things about the author's understanding of gender, especially if they turn out to be a cis man, while talking over the voices of trans people, especially trans women.
Consider the language used: "reassignment." If you say this word in the context of transness to cis people, they're going to think "vaginoplasty." It's a very loaded word.
Our interpretation of gender presentation is a culturally defined exercise in pattern recognition.
Our interpretation of gender presentation is a culturally defined exercise in pattern recognition.
The ideas about gender in this story are deeply rooted in unexamined Western ideas about binary gender; while there's lip service paid to the existence of nonbinary people, it feels like an afterthought. Like the anomaly that GC transmisogynists treat intersex people as.
"if gender is a construct then construct new ones" comes straight out of terven misunderstanding of what a "social construct" even is. And the idea of weaponizing the internal sense of gender also echoes the warped way GC rhetoric interprets the concept of gender identity.
Finally, the title. It's a tired transmisogynistic joke; it is more broadly used to dismiss transness in general, but it was conceived of and is primarily used as an attack on transfemininity in particular.
