I'm explaining how gender and biology differ, yet all you're doing here is claiming they are the same without reconciling the differences.
That hasn't been my argument at all anywhere in this discussion.
My argument has always been that gender is a product of biological sex. Gender extends from biological sex, but isn't the same as biological sex.
I agreed with you that behavior is part of the equation as well. Behavior is also observable, so that does nothing to conflict with my point. Whether that behavior is caused by female neurology is irrelevant because you do not scan other people's brains before making a determination as to their gender.
No, no. Don't start playing a cheeky little semantics game.
You originally meant purely physical traits as being the part that is "observable", not behaviour being observable as well:
"Agreed, except that the concept of "biological female" we are extrapolating from is based entirely on observable characteristics such as genetillia and physical traits like soft facial features or non muscular arms." The transgenderism debate (debateart.com)
That was the original point of disagreement.
Your observations are not always reality. The magician's trick performed in front of you is often missed by the naked eye, but does that mean magic exists? There is an underlying reality to the universe and you cannot just make things up and expect them to always be true. Sorry!
Complete (and absurd) strawman.
Of course it seems absurd. It's a repurposing of your argument to show your reasoning can produce ridiculous conclusions: "The question of whether transgenderism is a mental disorder has nothing to do with the fact that we as humans do, always have, and always will rely simply on our observations to make a determination regarding ones gender and/or biological sex."
If we "rely simply on observations" to determine things, we get wild conclusions that 100,000 of aliens have visited Earth, and that putting on a wig, makeup and dress can turn a man into a woman. That the necessary wild extreme of your argument. That's why we shouldn't simply rely on observations to determine truth.
You've dropped the contention on whether lived experience is a valid form of evidence (that because I'm not transgender, I can't make arguments involving them), so I'll assume that you agree that it is not.
Your point that I responded to had nothing to do with evidence. It had to do with you determining how other people should live their lives, to which I stand by my statement that your lack of experience with their struggles absolutely makes you unqualified to weigh in on it.
Yes, it didn't have anything to do with evidence, because that wasn't required given the style of argument. You originally said words to the effect of, 'you're not trans, therefore you don't know what it's like'. I responded with the fire analogy. I don't see why I would need to cite anything for that type of argument. Do you not believe fire exists or something?
And again, I'm not arguing about trans people should do with their lives, I'm arguing what we shouldn't do to them. We shouldn't label their mental illness as a 'gender'.
I specifically found another study showing trans people are more likely to be the instigators of bullying, rather than the bullied
Funny, because that same source says something else...
Conclusion: Transgender identity, especially non-binary identity, is associated with both being bullied and perpetrating bullying even when a range of variables including internal stress and involvement in bullying in the opposite role are taken into account.
You're confusing the data points.
It's simultaneously true that trans people (1) are more likely to be bullies than bullied, and (2) are more likely to be bullied than the general population. There's no contradiction in both those being true simultaneously.
But sure. Make an unfalsifiable hypothesis wherein no study is valid because 'trans people are the most ridiculed and least welcomed people in our society [citation needed]', and thus handwave their horrendous incarceration rate (40%) and their higher likelihood to have a mental disorder
It's not an unfalsifiable hypothesis, is applying basic logic and common sense to a fact. Just as most child rapists turned to be raped themselves, those who are bullied are more likely to bully others. It's human nature, there's nothing surprising about it.
Sorry but it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. You want to handwave bad trans behavior and indications of mental illness because people are sometimes mean to trans people. We can't ever legitimately criticize or define trans people because the meanness affects them too much.
