A good point. We can't ignore the fact that issues like this can and do have a bearing on how we construct and understand gender. And if we cannot properly understand gender and gender roles, how can we hope to understand sexuality?
We are very far from such an understanding. We jump into conclusions based on the so-called "norm," or "normalcy," which is simply constatation that this or that happens more often than this or that. And according to this logic, tooth decay (karies) is norm, while healthy teeth is not norm, because the number of people on our planet who have karies is much bigger than the number of people who do not.
I don't know if that's a great example: tooth decay in the norm, since that is the natural state our mouths would be in without direct intervention. Tooth health isn't normal - however, it is yet another example of humanity transcending its animal nature through its better qualities (discipline, ingenuity, perseverance, etc.). In the world, the way things are now, sin is the norm we've allowed to occur; and sinlessness isn't normal - however, it is again an example of humanity transcending its fallen nature through its better qualities and God's divine help.
Of course, as I've argued in many places here, the problem is that we focus the discussion on a few 'hot-button' issues, and ignore the overall (like focusing on incisor decay, while neglecting the molars & canines) picture of sin.
How one self-identifies gender is ultimately between them and their Creator; a male can be very masculine and a greater sinner than a male who is very effeminate (especially if the former likes to beat up the latter). Like everything else, as long as it isn't flying in the face of God's plan, then it's all about "how you use it" (the same thing we say about wealth, intelligence, strength, charisma, etc.).
How one is attracted is also between them and their creator. The Church's position doesn't focus on the attraction, it focuses on when we take it and misuse it (lust, sex outside of marriage, etc.). In this way, we should apply the teaching of the Church equally within our own disposition: if we think homosexuals should be counseled against sex, then we should do the same for heterosexuals. If we want to shout about the evils of homosexual marriage, then we should do the same for heterosexual cohabitation. If we want to hate people because they're sinners, we should hate all people.
Of course then we'd find ourselves in the position of the townspeople who were going to stone the adulteress - realizing that we deserve stones thrown at us at least as much as the person(s) at whom we are directing our rage.
From our perspective, we'd be better able to minister to the maligned if we were to look at the overall picture of sin and realize that we should be
just as maligned as they are. Don't accept the sin, but don't destroy the sinner, unless one is prepared to be destroyed also.