Methinks you're regarding the part she told you to disregard. Try to interpret what she wrote without that part included.
LoL. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE
All three of them have an axe to grind: "all humans are either male or female". They've painted themselves into a very tight corner and lack the intellectual honesty to deal with that fact - though Heying at least engaged with me on the point but then turned turtle and disappeared up her own fundament when push came to shove:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/on-being-defrauded-by-heather-heying
You're just following them over the same cliff; you might try thinking about what they're actually saying, and not be quite so quick to follow suit just because it comports with your own dogma.
Sounds present tense to me.
LoL. "past" and "future" are always relative to the present. She's still referring to, and acknowledging and accepting past and future functionality as sufficient conditions for membership in her (polythetic) sex categories. As I've said several times, that doesn't, in itself, seem all that "fatal", even if it seems rather unscientific. The problem is that it conflicts rather badly with descriptions of the many species that change sex.