Replying to Colleen because that seems most appropriate, but these are mostly more general points.
It's more that errata, strictly speaking, are things like spell designs not adding up, or accidentally allowing people to fast-cast mastered Rituals. That is, in the context of the rules, they are obvious mistakes, and just need correcting. That thread has raised several broader issues, all of which have been split out into their own threads, because they actually need discussion, not just correction. It was entirely on-topic to raise this point, and the errata thread was the right place to raise it, because it brought the point to my attention. It just wasn't the right place to have the discussion.
This is something that players should be able to do, and your character builds are great examples. However, there is a reason why we don't just have one Story Flaw — There is something in your background that drags you into stories. The lists of Virtues and Flaws are providing suggestions for character concepts, particularly for new players who might not know the background very well. For example, having Monastic Vows as a Major Story Flaw tells the players that this is a thing in the background, and that they might want to play such a character.
So, the Virtues and Flaws should support the sort of creativity you are demonstrating, but I don't think that they should require it of all new players.
Finally, I'd like to draw attention to the function of Personality and Story Flaws that is implicit in the above. If a Flaw exists for something, that actually means "We think this is a cool and appropriate concept for the game, and would like to encourage you to play this sort of character. Here, have a mechanical bonus for doing so". This should be more explicit, I think, but there is a limit to how much I can do about that in errata.
Chasing this back has led me to an interesting historical discovery. The Flaw was, it seems, originally created (in The Hidden Paths: Shamans for ArM3) by a pair of writers including someone I am fairly sure is a trans woman (Sarah Link), in almost exactly its current wording. Although the genetic fallacy is a fallacy, I find that this discovery shifts my attitude slightly. It's going to be harder to convince me to simply remove an explicit inclusion of trans people added to the game by a trans person than it would have been to convince me to remove the same Flaw added by a cis person.
The main question is really "Do we want to explicitly encourage people to consider playing a gender-nonconforming character, and make it explicit that such characters are an appropriate and historically accurate part of Mythic Europe, or do we not? And if we do, how do we want to phrase it?". (The current phrasing of the Flaw certainly does have issues; it sounds a lot less inclusive than it probably did thirty years ago.)
The subsidiary question is "Can we do anything about the unfortunate connotations of the legacy name of the mechanic that does this?", and I suspect that the answer is "Not in errata".
(There is, in fact, quite a bit of text on pages 36 and 37 explaining that Personality Flaws are not personal flaws. I think the problem is that people read the introductory text once, if that.)
Right, I really need to work on the straightforward errata…