This. Gender was invented in 1955 and like most postwar innovations was a terrible mistake.
Describing an extant phenomenon does not equate to inventing it from nothing, nor does it imply that it wasn't understood in some similar form in other cultures besides the sphere of Western academia (although some scholarly works from before then did in fact document the practice of what we might call gender non-conformity in other cultures; the bottom quote in my signature is taken from one such text on the indigenous peoples of Siberia), nor does the admittedly highly lacking and repulsive personal conduct of one person, who we've already established as my no means the "inventor" of the concept in any form discredit anything that might be remotely associated with them.
You're grasping at straws to reinforce a bubble where normative Western understandings of gender roles and societal expectations around our bodies can never be questioned, and to coercively impose that bubble on every extant culture when as many different answers to these questions exist as there are unique human cultures. If you think that entire fields of human knowledge can be discredited by virtue of having unsavory characters (who in this case aren't considered particularly innovative or influential even within their fields, which you'd know and instead know more about those who actually are/were if you cared about this area of study beyond regurgitated talking points from those who hate it on principle), then you just ought to reject the entirety of human knowledge because there are a hell of a lot more sex pests in the history of thought than just those you consider heinous enough (read: disagree with enough for entirely different reasons) to act like anything they may have any tangential relationship to is hogwash. It smacks of, dare I say it, "cancel culture"?
That's a lot to infer from a funny joke post!
Honestly though my views aren't that far from what you'd expect them to be, except that I would be willing to throw out the "contributions" of sex perverts if it seems likely that their perversity had an influence on their thought (I'm a Nietzschean in that way so not much of a "gotcha" there). But the vast majority of philosophers lived in time periods when people kept those things to themselves, so we'll never know.
Anyway, like most people I've never had a reason to question my gender role (except to ask myself whether I was performing my role well enough), so it's not my place to say whether gender-nonconforming people are valid or not. I can only remark, what I'm sure doesn't surprise you at all, how strangely it strikes me that some people's inner experience would be so different from their biological experience. I understand a mother's worship of the Great Mother, but a eunuch's? Very removed from my own understanding.
