Why does a paper that covers one of several alternative surgical methods for Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome (which occurs in people who are XX and present as female save for incomplete or absent vaginal and uterine development) support this statement?

Especially when they note that the LPV technique "still fails to produce the vaginal substratum containing elastic tissue" even though vaginal lining seems pretty normal?

Also, one would assume the same technique would work, and work as well, in trans women, but biology is sometimes annoyingly fussy that way. To really nail that point, you need something that demonstrates this. (And, finally, to top it all off, you would need to make an argument that LPV or some other better method was the primary one that has been used.)

Maybe you want to find a better reference, or add one? I don't know what the state of the art is now, but this one doesn't really support your statement fully. If anything, given that Impossible Burgers are quite surprisingly like but still distinguishable from actual burgers, it reinforces the parallel. (I hate comedy in this style--I find it crude, demeaning, and too simpleminded to be amusing. But if we restrict ourselves to clinically analyzing the parallel, the link you give I think reinforces the joke rather than undermining it.)

Also the link you provide that you say shows it's "physiological thing, not a psychological thing" doesn't actually report that. It reports a consensus that being trans is "not a mental health disorder", which doesn't mean it's not psychological, only that it shouldn't be considered aberrant psychology that should be addressed through psychological interventions alone. Generally, physological vs psychological differences are not particularly helpful distinctions to draw. You can talk to people (psychology) and cause drastic changes in their stress hormones (physiology), or give them psychoactive substances (physiology) and improve their mood (psychology). Most things are both. (I grant that doctors sometimes like to call things psychological when they can't figure out a way to help.)

Sorry to be so picky, but I think it's important that if you're going to make arguments based on medicine and clinical research, that you report it accurately and draw warranted conclusions. Otherwise it's better to either phrase more tentatively, or leave it out.

(None of this should be taken to indicate that I disagree with your other points. Most of the rest seems quite sensible. Chapelle-type comedy isn't my thing anyway, though, so I'm a poor judge.)