No, they don't.

We have basically two scenarios here, which aren't even mutually exclusive.

Scenario One:
Hatred developers are exaggerating ISIS forces in 2020 by a factor of 100 at the very least, hence making open stationary war and a full fledged invasion of the entirety of Europe possible. That's the basic premise. As I've said elsewhere, that premise is like complimenting ISIS for their 20 inch 7 pound dicks.

Scenario Two:
Hatred developers are counting Syrian refugees as terrorists to reach the numbers for their scenario, and are commenting on this kind of "invasion" with their game.

So in either any case, it's a fear mongering scenario that directly capitalizes on anti-Muslim sentiments (which is PC Gamer's phrasing... which I'll put here as a counterpoint to your routine simpli- and falsification).

I think it would be good if the devs made the gunner Muslim too.

First of all, "transgender" isn't a noun; it is an adjective.

Secondly, the term "sex change" should be avoided, as that term emphasizes the surgery aspect.

Third, not every transgender person needs, or even wants surgery. Not every trans person experiences dysphoria the same way; some trans people choose to live with their birth genitals, but still transition. Hormones are enough for many trans people. Also, some people have non-binary identities and choose to only partially transition.

Maybe you need to read this:
http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender

Yes those two can be two possible scenarios in which such a thing happens. But I don't think the devs take reality into account when they do this. They could just be trying to paint the new enemy archetype without much effort. So I wouldn't go into reality based assumptions from them, especially not put words in their mouth before they release it.

Although both (as well as any enemy really) is fearmongering; I wouldn't say the first capitalizes on anti-Muslim sentiment. The 2nd one can, implying that is what they have in mind (assuming they have anything in their mind at all beyond creating the new generic Russians or terrorists). I still don't think they're trying to capitalize on hatred of Muslims and see them much more as exploiting the hatred of ISIS.

Read that, a lot of it sounds like it redefines normal terms to throw out commonly used meanings

And for, one only in rare situations are babies "assigned" a sex . most of the time the sex of the babies are just noted.
that's not to say that is 100% accurate though.

Actually, all babies (whose births are documented) are assigned a sex at birth. Usually, this is the one associated with the baby's genitals. (If the baby's genitals are ambiguous, things get more complicated.) Of course, sometimes the assigned sex does not match the baby's gender identity.

Noting the sex of the baby is in fact assigning that sex.

Personally, I disagree with the practice of assinging a sex to the baby and noting it on the baby's birth certificate; IMO the government should have no reason to know whether somebody is male or female. (It's not even necessary for discrimination cases; one need only consider things like the appearance of the person making the complaint to identify sex discrimination.)

A baby doesn't have a gender identity, it can't even grasp the concept.

Interesting idea, but in these times it's all about protecting the bit of privacy we still (believe to) have, thinking about getting additional protection of data privacy sadly seems very far fetched. :/
Governments usually want to know that out of many reasons, compulsory military service being probably the most important one - men are still discriminated in most countries when it comes to that while women can already go to college and gain time ahead instead of being imprisoned in some barracks, being degraded and having to play war for a long time only because of their sex.

No, that is deducing what the baby's physical SEX is.
I partially agree, In that I feel courts shouldn't know the sex or gender of those involved.

why should a woman doing forced fellatio on a minor (a boy) get a lesser sentence than if the sexes were reversed.

If that were true, it would happen a lot earlier in most cases (at least in the (so called) First World). Most people have ultrasound screenings and now the physical sex beforehand (and decorate the kid's room accordingly).

We didn't want to know, so most of our stuff was green and yellow... but we had stuff from our relatives too, in all colours. The babies wore it, they didn't care. And we neither.

This thread has shown one of my main concerns about transgender activism and the bluring of rality.

Sex is not "assigned", you are born with it, just as we are not assigned our humanity or our ears, or even our date of birth or skin color.

Your view of reality is incomplete. Sex is, in fact, assigned, as it is written down on forms such as birth certificates.

Also. the categories "male" and "female" don't encompass everyone; sometimes people have some male traits and some female traits. (For example, a person can have both a Y chromosome and a vagina, and that's without surgery.)

I suggest reading this article, which describes something that can happen in certain bird species:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/a-gynandromorph-cardinal-one-half-male-the-other-half-female/

So no. Transgender activism is not blurring reality; it's exposing aspects of reality that most people aren't aware of. (Much like science, in general, does.)

By the way, you spelled "blurring" and "reality" incorrectly.

I really want to agree with that, because it will topple the basis of feminism pandering for more privileges then the male. If male and female can interchange with a thought, there will be no reason to specially favor females because male can claim they are female.

Still my logic tells me the doctor / nurse is writing down their observation of the baby biological sex. If your statement of doctor / nurses assigning the baby sex is true, then they will be able to write down the opposite gender of the baby biological sex. So no, the doc is not assigning the baby sex.

It is all written before the doctor writes anything. In the genes, the crhomosomes that give instructions on how to build the body, and only on rare situations that fails to happen.

Here is the thing: The doctor/nurse is going off incomplete infomation. If you really want to know whether someone is male or female, the only reliable method is to ask the person; looking at a person's characteristics could lead you to the wrong conclusion.

The problem is that, if the wrong sex is applied to the baby (and it is an assignment of sex, as the doc is making a decision and writing it down; that is an assignment), by recording it in the birth certificate one ends up with a birth certificate that is, in fact, false, and the newborn is now stuck with it for a long time (in some places, for life).

So you're saying a person determines their sex by themself?