This was a big discussion in my anthropology class and huge to the people taking the anthro senior class (which was sex and sexuality) last semester. Most of the points brought up were the fact that this person wanted to be considered a man and underwent procedures to do so. But at what point do we call this person a man when they were born a woman and still have all/most of the female reproductive organs? Personally, it's not for me to judge people on what gender they are, even if they are clearly male or female. I know that sounds weird, but from my anthro point of view, how can I deny them the right to that?
Some of you would say 'They're obviously a woman - they have a vagina!' But there are many different categories that anthropologists have for sexuality and this is one of them. And oddly enough something like this happens all over the world on a daily basis without so much as a blink of an eye. Although, I don't know if any of them can or do have children while in their 'opposite gender role,' if you will.
So yeah, there's that long, overstated anthropologist point of view. >_>
Gender identity and biological functionality are two separate ideas. Gender identity, and any identity for that matter, is merely a socio-ego construct. Whereas biological functionality is just that; biological. Two X chromosomes? Female. One X and one Y chromosome? Male.