No it's not. Comparing two similar situations (i.e. "the thoughts of a child on their identity") is not a false analogy because it's not drawing any conclusions thus doesn't meet any criteria of falsely drawing them.
No it's not, it's a logical equivalence. The fact that it's a subject of morality doesn't make it a moral equivalence because I'm not equating them
morally only
logically
No it's not. The logic follows perfectly.
Child decides it is something
This something is outside the ability of the child's reason
Parent's should deny this something as irrational.
Even if you disagree with the axioms involved it's not a non-sequitor because both gender-neutrality and dinosaurs are things often stated as a children's identity and serve as perfectly able to switch between each other in the qualifier of "outside the child's reason". If you can switch the "something" between things and the sentence still makes sense then it by definition logically follows.
No it's not. In fact it's highly specific language focusing on three distinct cases of irrational childish reasoning, the first being a different species, the second being an invented person and the third being a hero. There's no semantic confusing here between "dinosaur" and "transsexual", both terms are defined fully and both terms still are able to be substituted.
all rolled into one and therefore doesn't really make logical sense!
I think you've confused "I don't see the logic" with "there is no logic here". Ironically, a logical fallacy.
A child thinking he/she is a dinosaur is a different thing entirely to gender identification, as you well know.
Yes. Just in the way that a football pitch is different from chess board yet analogies give people the ability to compare like qualities between them.