Some confusion about the definition of gender

I’ve recently realized I’ve held some conflicting ideas/assumptions about gender/sex, arising from the fact that how I conceive of my own gender is different from how I conceptualize gender in (attempted) support of trans and non-binary people.

Maybe someone can help me figure out where I’m going wrong. I’m not sure if it’s a logical inconsistency or a definition problem or lack of information or something else.

------------------

Gender is not sex; it is not about anatomical features you’re born with. Likewise, it’s not about the anatomical features a particular gender “should” have; losing part of your body doesn’t change your gender, nor does having different anatomy from what your chromosomes are typically associated with.

Gender dysphoria is feeling like you’re in the wrong body for your gender (Or is is just the anxiety and stress that can come with that feeling, but not the feeling itself?). Some compare it to your brain’s map of your body not matching how your body physically is formed. But being transgender is about more than just your brain not matching your physical features, isn't it? Being transgender (and just “gender” in general) is not just about anatomy, correct? What is that other part then? Because…

Gender is also not about personality and interests; it’s not about aligning to stereotypical gendered behaviors and preferences.

If gender, as traditionally defined, is actually a social construct that is learned and internalized through how we’re socialized, then gender is not an inherent thing on an individual level; it is a set of traits that society expects people to conform to, based on perceived anatomical differences. But this would suggest that being transgender means rejecting those categories entirely, and many (most?) transgender people are not non-binary; they still feel male or female (or should I say “man or woman”?). (This doesn’t deny the reality of gender dysphoria, but it does seem to confuse the terminology of gender dysphoria). And suggesting non-binary means entirely rejecting gender seems very incorrect too.

So, then in order to feel one gender or another, gender is not (entirely) a social construct but has inherent aspects. These “inherent aspects” may even be trends that traditional gender roles were built on and restricted people to. But what are “inherent aspects” if not parts of the brain (anatomy)/brain processes/hormones and how they inform personality/behavior/interests? Things I thought don’t define gender?

So if it’s not about anatomy and it’s not about personality and it’s not simply something society has invented and imposed, then what does it mean to be male or female? What else is there to gender if it’s not any of those things? What am I missing?

Perhaps "gender" as a concept is like "species" as a concept - no one definition fully explains it. But with species, there are no moral issues with using one definition over another if that best conveys what you're focusing on. But with gender, there are moral implications, and more than that, it seems like every definition is marginalizing or oppressive or erasing someone's identity in some way. Even rejecting the concept results in transphobia/sexism/erasure! So how do we talk about gender when every use of it, even non-use, is harmful? What am I not understanding?