Yes. I'm going to attempt to change your opinion through reason.
Don't do that. I'm having a so far rational and reasonable discussion with another adult. Don't talk down to me.
If it were "by definition" meaningless then you would be able to point to a definition that renders it meaningless.
I don't even understand what you are trying to say here. How does the fact that I can't define disprove that I find it meaningless?
You can't, and more importantly it has significant meaning to the people involved. Nobody opts for gender reassignment unless it's very important to them.
Gender reassignment surgery is actually one angle on this I understand completely. That's a functional, objective change.
It's in a way, the exact opposite to a penised, XY chromosomed individual "identifying" as a woman. It's recognizing that something physical has to be changed in order to change genders. It's an admission that isn't pure self realization.
You do identify as a gender, it's just that you have the privilege to never be challenged in your gender identity.
That's like saying someone who is 5'5" and identifies as 5'5" is privileged to never be challenged on their height identity.
No I "identify" as male only within the context as I feel I really don't have a say in the matter. I was born with an outie instead of an innie, kind of made the decision for me.
For the transgender person it is a great deal more complicated than that, going by how they self-identify is just an amazingly easy and accurate short-cut you and I can use.
Okay you can't just run and hide behind "It's complicated" for everything, especially when absolutely nothing you are suggesting does anything to uncomplicate anything.
But you object to calling her a woman. Why?
I "object" to nothing. I just see it as demanding I call a tail a leg so the dog can claim to have 5 legs.
This is a constant problem. Progressives cannot comprehend anyone just disagreeing with them or not understanding them. Everything, everything has to contextualized as some form of hate or fear.
Should she be allowed to use the bathroom of her choice? Why or why not?
Yes, but because I don't think gendered bathrooms should be a thing. I don't think a woman who identifies as a man has any more or less "right" to be in the men's room than any random woman (and vice versa in all possible combinations.)
And why do you say she takes on "zero" of the roles traditionally associated with women?
I assumed the "If they chose to" modifier didn't have to be spelled out.
They shouldn't be held or beholden to gender roles. They can choose to follow them all the live long day I don't care.
You claim there is no difference, but to me the person who is born with one set of genitalia but who identifies with a different gender is profoundly different from a cis-gendered person born with similar genitals. I don't understand why that isn't obvious or why you should get lost over it?
Listen I've already typed this out a good half dozen times in this thread.
For cis-gender to be a viable concept you have to accept that men and women are fundamentally different in non-biological, non-trivial ways and I do not.
Without agree that men and women have those meaningful, non-biological difference "X that identifies as Y" is totally meaningless because there's no differences between X and Y that fit into that criteria.
This is why again and again and again in this thread and others I've asked, pleaded, begged someone to answer me the simple question.
I meet an individual with one biological sexes feature (genitals, chromosomes, hormones, etc) but they say "identify" as the other gender.
What just changed? What should I now to do, say, act, think, conceptualize or... anything differently? What switch in my brain do I need to throw?
"Treat them as the other gender" doesn't make any sense because I don't treat the genders differently.
"Think of them as the other gender" doesn't make any sense because, again I don't conceptualize the genders differently on this level. I'm not gonna imagine them with different genitals and I don't spend a lot of time thinking about people's chromosomes and hormone production.
"Use their preferred pronoun." Fine sure, because believe it or not I do respect that no matter how much I don't understand this it is very important to people and I'm not one of those peoples looking for reasons to be a jerkwad while still being technically correct. If it means that much to them I'll do it even if it doesn't make sense to me because I'm not a horrible person.
But when asked directly I can't just hit a magic button and make this all make sense to me.
And again the irony is none of the matters on a functional level. I will treat the guy who "identifies" as a woman and the guy who simply rejects all the unnecessary roles he chooses not to confirm too with equal and identical respect, civility, and so forth because there's no differences outside of pure semantics between the two to me.
I just resent being told I have to A) Maintain a bunch of old, outmoded gender roles just so people can identify with their opposites and B) pretend I conceptualize something a different way that does no functional harm just to appease some sense of progressiveness.
