I'm not sure in what sense you're repeating your comment, as I do believe this is the first time you and I have interacted anywhere.

When someone uses a term — like "sex assigned at birth," or any term at all — they might mean various things depending on who they are, to whom they're speaking, about whom they're speaking, and who overhears it. A word can mean different things depending on the sentence in which it's used and the knowledge and motives that underlie it. In sum, a word depends on its context.

I can't tell you what everyone else means every time they use a word. That's an infinite list.

In this article, I'm saying that people do have many various reasons for using this particular term, which the authors of the NYT article completely ignore as a possibility. Those authors did not explicitly consider that people use this particular term to mean things and that those meanings could be important. They know perfectly well that people do mean things when they use a word; they were purposefully denying it. They are trying to frame trans people as purposeless, meaningless, and incapable of coherent language.