Intersex has nothing to do with gender roles, classic or otherwise: the term refers to abnormal sexual development. Intersex rights issues include non-consensual surgical interventions on perfectly-healthy infants, which can cause pain, infertility, and other issues. Norway has not banned this.
If you object to "medical interventions on underage people", then I'd suggest campaigning against this would be a better use of your time than railing against trans rights. Banning consensual, requested gender-affirming treatment that provides clear benefit to children, while allowing injurious cosmetic surgery on literal babies, is doing things the wrong way around. (Even if you turn around and get consensual gender-affirming treatment banned afterwards, that'd still better than the status quo.)
> There’s not that much of a focus on gender because it’s ok to be a feminine male or a woman with masculine traits.
Excellent! I approve. However, that doesn't have very much to do with transgender people.
> this obsession with making new categories
Is a compromise, because in other cultures that have much more rigid conceptions of gender, cultural factors prevent us from abolishing the gender system: drawing new categories around observed clustering and calling them "genders" is somewhat of a hack. (Though not without precedent: many cultures throughout history have taken this approach, usually with 3–5 genders and a lot of them ascribe spiritual significance to the non-binary genders. Orthodox Judaism is an outlier: they have unusually-many genders but ascribe negligible spiritual significance to them.) What you're seeing is probably a side-effect of multiculturalism: in this case, exporting your culture's gender non-conformity more intensely will alleviate it.
If you object to "medical interventions on underage people", then I'd suggest campaigning against this would be a better use of your time than railing against trans rights. Banning consensual, requested gender-affirming treatment that provides clear benefit to children, while allowing injurious cosmetic surgery on literal babies, is doing things the wrong way around. (Even if you turn around and get consensual gender-affirming treatment banned afterwards, that'd still better than the status quo.)
> There’s not that much of a focus on gender because it’s ok to be a feminine male or a woman with masculine traits.
Excellent! I approve. However, that doesn't have very much to do with transgender people.
> this obsession with making new categories
Is a compromise, because in other cultures that have much more rigid conceptions of gender, cultural factors prevent us from abolishing the gender system: drawing new categories around observed clustering and calling them "genders" is somewhat of a hack. (Though not without precedent: many cultures throughout history have taken this approach, usually with 3–5 genders and a lot of them ascribe spiritual significance to the non-binary genders. Orthodox Judaism is an outlier: they have unusually-many genders but ascribe negligible spiritual significance to them.) What you're seeing is probably a side-effect of multiculturalism: in this case, exporting your culture's gender non-conformity more intensely will alleviate it.