I suspect this is what those pushing these laws wanted all along. They talk about dying in dignity and all that but seems it's much more about normalizing human culling.
If you compare the female and male world records for pretty much any sport, you'll very clearly see the effect of SRY and other male-making genes.
The rationale for the female category is to remove this male advantage from competition. Allowing a subset of males who have the advantage of their sex to compete against female athletes, just because these males call themselves women, undermines the whole point of women's sport.
This is why we need such testing as described in the article. It's no different in principle to, for example, weigh-ins in boxing that enable fair competition in each weight category.
Your account has been using HN primarily for ideological battle, which is not allowed here, regardless of what you're battling for or against (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
The overwhelming majority of that advantage comes from sex hormones, not the gene itself. Depending on discipline, most or all of the advantage goes away within several years on HRT.
Take that and then consider that this goes even harder for people whose bodies never masculinized due to androgen insensitivity or whatever. Maybe it still carries some advantage, but... so what? So does pretty much every single gene variant top athletes have and nobody is trying to single those out.
This also shows King Lear as a good example of why trigger warnings are unnecessary, given that in 400 years of performance no-one bothered with such warnings and no harm was caused by their absence.
Trigger warnings appeared because people were being harmed. They asked for a heads-up, so we gave it to them. It costs us nothing, except having to listen to the whining of ideologues who hate that we did something for somebody other than them.
Having state-mandated software running on every device sounds like a much more invasive solution, and more easily turned against device owners.
Whereas making online service providers responsible for the content they offer is more lightweight for the end user and is more consistent with how it's done offline, like with age verification for certain types of purchases.
No, it's merely included on every device sold (at least those with preinstalled operating systems), for the benefit of lazy parents. But it is software like any other, that can be completely removed by the owner (that is what "fully in control of the owner" means), and is open-source on top of it.
Best thing to do is not watch the news as much, it's designed to make you worry about things that are out of your control.