Following on from the discussion, the sentence explaining uppattivasena
can be viewed as in brackets. (Possibly it is an addition by the author
of Pj II to an inherited comment or a later gloss.):
uppattivasena pana yad etaṃ “itthī puriso” ti saññakkharaṃ vohāranāmaṃ,
yā cāyaṃ micchāparivitakkānussavādivasena “evarūpena attanā bhavitabban”
ti bālānaṃ viparītasaññā uppajjati, tadubhayanissitāni tesaṃ vasena
uppajjanti, na attapaccakkhāni.
I would translate:
(But in the case of arising <naturally>, <fixed views> arise because of
the conventional names i.e. the syllables <which express> the notions of
"woman, man <and so on>" and because of the distorted notion which
arises for fools who because of wrong thinking, tradition, etc. think "I
must be like this/The Self must be like this" <and> are dependent on
both of these; they are not one's own direct knowledge/ direct
experience of a Self.)
Probably given the context I would prefer to render atta as Self.
Lance Cousins