Confusion about what is natural

There seems to be some confusion about the word 'natural' when it comes to considering moral issues. When you start from a false premise you end up with faulty conclusions. It is by no means always the case that the conclusion 'there are only 2 genders' comes from creationists,but if you start with the idea that there was a garden of Eden who made 2 genders,your mind is going to be pretty much against anything else as being 'sinful'.
One might ask how these 'mistakes' of hermaphrodites and people stuck in the wrong gender body happened in a 'perfect creation'. In fact it is evolution that is behind human bodies and there is more variation than '2 genders'.
Making a subjective moral judgement based on the idea that someone is 'faulty' because they don't conform to your presumptions about gender identity means you are liable to castigate and alienate other human beings for something that it not their fault. Why do this?
The sheer fact that not everyone is male or female shows that the creation story is wrong,and that in fact human biology is more diverse.If you tag this as a'mistake' it means you are second guessing what you think nature ought to have done.
With scientific investigation of biology,it may well be that we can tell what ought to have happened. Do we think Lorenzo Odone was supposed to have myelin problems that affected his brain? No - it was a mistake.But should we castigate him for having a brain dysfunction because a 'mistake' happened,or  have sympathy for his condition? Obviously the latter.
In reptiles,gender is more plastic and can change due to temperature,should eggs that change gender be considered 'sinful' or 'unnatural'? No,that would be plain ignorance of how nature works.

Similar arguments are used about things like feeding babies 'naturally' in public. Some people take 'offence' at this and think the onus is on the woman to cover up or 'be discreet',as if there is something 'unnatural' or shameful about showing a breast in public.
This is due to their own notions that have sexualised the breast which is actually a feeding organ and the child is only doing what others are doing - eating.
"Being offended" is not a reason to not do something. In Mill's 'Offence and Harm' it is indicated that only if something is 'harmful' should we query it. Offending feelings is not a reason to curb an actvity. It is also the subjective assessment of the person in question if they are offended - so it is up to them,not someone else who is the source,to deal with it.