egads. it ate my post. all of it. i put a chunk of time into it too because i know at least one person (you, Avrielle) will read it.
Re your example - If both people in a couple have strong ideas (articulated or not) about gender roles, they may take on opposite roles but still be in agreement on what those roles are and who does what. Matching up biology with convention only matters to the extent they want/need it to. I wouldn't work well in that sort of relationship though because I'm not geared towards gender roles in the first place.
Attraction for me is all about the person and personality. (Which is why I get ticked off when pans inadvertently write as it that territory were theirs alone.) Generally speaking, the people I tend to be attracted to aren't terribly fussed about appearance and tend to prefer spending their time (and money) on other things. Gender's sort of incidental to it all.
So it's really just that the things like hair and make-up which CD/TGs tend to adopt to signal 'woman' are the very things which tend to indicate a woman I'm less likely to be compatible with and attracted to.
That's me. By some definitions I'm slotted into the pan camp, while others say I couldn't possibly be. Aren't labels fun?