they really aren't. the principal is simple: be as inclusive - i.e. accepting of other people's identities as valid - as possible as often as possible.
in your robbery example, the key piece of information isn't their gender identity, it's what they look like. it's true, one could say "masculine-looking people" instead of "men", but the public safety element probably trumps the confusion the former could (no pun) engender. if they were arrested and turned out to be butch lesbians or non-binary or etc, future reports could make that change.
whereas the cervix and prostate stuff bears directly on people's reproductive organs rather than their gender identity, and - unless you buy the (extremely feeble) arguments that it's somehow harmful to cisgendered women - no good reason not use inclusive gender-neutral language.
most of the time there's no good reason not to use more inclusive language, but there are exceptions
personal pronouns are much easier. just find out what someone prefers and use it. when in doubt, ask.
I find hard to believe someone who can quite reams of difficult critical theory and economics would find this very difficult.