"This is the nub of the issue. The term seems to have been hijacked." --

You say hijacked, but if the majority of the populace cannot make up their mind on what the term means, I'd say it is not properly defined.

"Then given the risk of 'a man' assaulting a woman is something like 5/100 - no more gendered spaces" --

Technically, the statistics in America show that African-Americans commit more crimes on average than any other race. Are you suggesting that we start segregating stores into black stores and everyone-else stores to prevent crime? I hope not. While I agree that there is a risk of sexual assault, saying "you can't come in here" does not prevent an abuser from just entering the restroom anyway. Discriminating against who can come in the bathroom would have a negligible effect on sexual assaults, to the point where I would argue that it is not justified to punish the majority of trans people because of the small chance that one would be a sexual predator, especially considering that excluding them from the restroom would do near nothing to prevent the assault.

"Humans are 93+% accurate at telling sex from face alone. This is a non-argument."
--

I would like to see a source on this.

"No. It is an actual fact. Intersex is misleading and describes a variation in phenotype only. I have very clearly been over this. It is simply not an argument in fabour of your position - it is erroneous."
--

I would argue that there is enough variation genetically from person to person that you can't just black and white group people into categories based on what they were born as. Sure, being born with a penis will make you ON AVERAGE more violent, but are you going to claim that every single person born with a cock is more violent than every single female on the planet? No. You can make assumptions based on what someone was born as, but it is not a fact that they will be more violent because of what they were born as.

"Difference is, I don't want to. This is now getting into personal 'gripe' area, but there seems a trend among TRAs that they need to be in womens bathrooms" --

I think the issue with women's bathrooms is that they are supposed to be for all women, and yet those who identify as women are not allowed because of what they are born as. I understand the concern of being uncomfortable with someone born male being in the same room, but I feel like typically you are in a stall when doing your business, so why does it matter whether or not the person outside of the stall has a dick or not? Sexual assault is not a valid concern for this, as if someone is already so messed up as to commit sexual assault against an innocent, why would saying "you can't go in here" stop them? If someone intended to assault a woman in the women's bathroom, I doubt that saying "men aren't allowed in here" will have any hinderance on their behavior.

"Males harm females. That is almost a truism of humans. Historically, currently and there is no obvious end to it. Trans women are male." --

I disagree here. It is true that those born male are more likely on average to commit violent crime, and are typically stronger than the average female. But saying that all males, or even most males, harm females is just blatantly sexist and wrong. They may be more likely, but that is still such a small part of the population and cannot be attributed to everyone born male.

Again, transwomen are four times more likely to commit a sex crime, and I'm happy to egregiously calibrate for benefit-of-the-doubt to two times more likely --
So, I don't know where you found this info, all I could find were that trans people were 4 times more likely to be on the receiving end of rape and sexual crime. "Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime" from this source: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/

If you wish to say such baseless and horrible things, please cite a source or actually read what you're quoting

"But without good leadership representing we commoners, anything is possible." --

I agree 100%, the issue is that good leadership isn't very common. People like to pick sides and factionalize. The media profits from this and stokes the fires, to the point where people choose leaders out of fanaticism or hatred of the other side, instead of based on what would be best for themselves and their country. As much as I wish for the situation to de-escalate as it has in the past, it's a very real possibility that hate festers and the factions manifest into a legit coup, or god forbid a civil war, as it has in the previously democratic states of the past.

"People will always move towards or revert back to democracy now" --

Well, yes, but the same argument can be made that democracy will always crumble because of internal dissent and collapse into a dictatorship. History paints a cycle of political philosophies crumbling, not showing up for centuries, and then popping back up. For the record, I'm all for democracy, but it's inevitable that no nation can stay democratic forever. Or even exist forever.

"No, I’m saying if I didn’t have a measuring stick that had nothing to do with how I identify things, I couldn’t take measure of what my assignment at birth meant or what sex meant or male or not-male, what is the same, what is different…" --

I think I understand what you mean, and I somewhat agree? I think that the idea of what "male" and "female" are dictated by your own experiences, including experiencing the differences between the two. Contrasting different genders is one way in which we form our understandings on gender.

Democracy and the individual freedoms of self-government, it seems to me, are too obvious to ever really alter --

You say that, but democracy fell in Greece, in Rome, in China, in Perisa, and in various other nations. Democracy has failed and turned into dictatorship many times, so is it really too obvious to be altered?

"I wouldn’t be able to see the difference between the sex I was born as and the gender I identify"
--

If you view gender as the same thing as Sex Assigned At Birth, then sure, the two are the same. There is nothing wrong with viewing it that way. But other people may not see it that way, and they have just as much of a right to see it their way as you do to see it yours.

"To protect freedom, should enslaving and oppressive speech be allowed? It’s like asking if we should be able to vote to change our government into a monarchy" --

The problem here is the nature of society. What is moral now may not be moral in the future, just as what was moral in the past is not moral now. As of right now, Democracy, Equality, and Freedom of speech are considered moral, hence why a democracy is the most moral form of government. But what if in the future society considers Domination, Loyalty, and Stability to be more moral? Can we judge and make moral decisions for a future society with different morals? Do we have the right to impose our morals on a future that may not share the same views? If so, do the people of the past have the right to impose their morals upon us? Morality shifts and changes based on time and location, and you have to take that into account when talking about politics and the society of the future. Between just going with the flow of morality, or trying to argue that we can impose our morals on the future, I personally don't know which is the right answer, perhaps that is something I should dive further into and form an opinion on.

Thank you! I didn't see the other discussion

"We don’t just get to pick how to use the word “male” or “woman”, like we don’t just get to pick whether we are born with a penis and a tendency to like dating girls or dating men or wearing dresses or pants, etc. That’s not how language works and not how nature works." --

You're right in that we don't control what sex we are born as, and there definitely is a division between male and female in terms of a scientific definition. But I'd argue that there is a difference between the sex you are born as and the gender you identify as. Even without chemical or surgical changes, there are psychological differences between someone who was born male and identifies male and someone who was born male and identifies female. When surgery and drugs get involved, it gets even more complex, as even the scientific definition starts to get blurry when it comes to biological changes. The problem is again, the scientific facts are there: There is a difference between those born with a penis and those born with a vagina. But science does not say how that relates to gender, as how the sex you were born as relates to current gender is a matter of opinion. If you say that gender is a fact of science, then you are talking about Sex Assigned At Birth, which many consider to NOT be the same as gender.

"feminine man is still a man. It makes no difference to the world except in sport and women’s exclusive places. Which should be based on biology. Not what someone feels." --

And you can argue about genitals there for sure. You can totally separate sports based on sex assigned at birth or by genitals. But what is a "Women's exclusive place"? Like a women's restroom? There is an argument to be made there, but why does it matter which gender uses which bathroom? For a locker room, I can understand not wanting someone with the opposing genitalia, but I feel like those should be individual changing/showering places anyways, regardless of genitals.

"Is femboy a gender or just a description of a type of man?" --

I suppose that depends on how you interpret gender ;D

"What does that mean? How do you interpret your gender?" --

What I mean by that is that how you view gender is relative. There will be different stereotypes/ general images of gender based on where and how you were raised. What gender means to someone varies from person to person. So someone's gender is the gender they identify as and how they view that gender. It would be too hard to describe all of my thoughts on gender, but I was assigned male at birth, and I still consider myself male. I do like to crossdress though, and while I know to most people it's not a "gender", I consider myself a femboy. Basically I'm a guy who likes to be a little girly at times. This is what I mean by it's based on how you interpret it. I interpret gender in a way that allows for the "gender" of femboy, while others may not. And I identify with the gender of femboy, therefore giving me my Gender Identity.

"Surely that is an extremely outdated view of what it is to be a woman. How does gender identity women dress and act?" --

Not really? I'm fairly confident that the majority of the populace believes in "boys" and "girls" clothing. And I am also fairly confident that most people, when thinking of a female or male, imagine them wearing that clothing. Most people who identify as a different gender than what they were born as dress that way as well, I feel, as it gives them a sense of validation in their own eyes. Not outdated at all.

"Is a woman who likes masculine pursuits and clothes a different gender even if she thinks her gender is female?" --

Nope! Again, Gender is based on how an individual interprets gender, and their gender identity is based on how they place themselves in terms of gender. I'm only saying that people typically seek to express their gender by wearing clothes typically ascribed to that gender. Others just like to wear clothes of the other gender, or simply don't care what they wear. Clothes do not impact gender, but gender can impact how you choose to express yourself.

"What, or rather who, dictates that how one expresses themself or presents themselves to others must be contingent or follow some formulae or set of expectations[?]" --

I'd argue that no one dictates it, and that there is no specific formula. Gender identity and expression is entirely relevant on one's own experiences. One part of the world may view "girly" completely differently than another part, and hence someone who expresses themselves as "female" would express themselves differently based on what their culture is like. Basically, gender identity is how an individual understands gender, and where they place themselves in that understanding.

"Do you agree with the traditional or stereotypical assortment (ie. male: brashness, boldness. aggression/dominance?; female: whimsy, "daintiness", passivity/submission?) or something else?"
--

There is something to be said for the effects of testosterone, and what that has done for society's view of what "male" means, but there have always been exceptions to the stereotypes, and I think everyone is free to interpret gender as they please.

"Who's to say in some fictional village the female inhabitants just so happened to have evolved larger and more "aggressive" than the male inhabitants who together in turn resemble a living antithesis of modern gender norms (ie. the females are larger, louder, more violent, let's say and the males are smaller, quiter, and more obedient or otherwise on average are submissive to the females). What about that sort of scenario?" --

This is exactly my point! In this kind of society, someone who portrays themselves as female might act more aggressive, louder, and those who express as male may be more submissive. Of course, stereotypes and gender may not be the same to all people, so I wouldn't be surprised to see some outliers portraying themselves as submissive females or dominant males (or something else entirely).

"Point being, it seems like you're referring to social constructs (that sure, obviously are derived from *circumstantial* biological norms) that still, can vary or change wildly depending on many circumstances." --

Yes. I believe that you are allowed to interpret gender in anyway you want, but that is typically shaped by how you grew up and the culture you were raised around. Perspective is shaped by experience, and that's why people who express themselves as male or female (or something else) tend to do so by portraying the stereotypical "traits" that are associated with the gender they identify with. It's simply what their view of being that gender means.

" Is that really reliable simply because it's all we know? Ignorance is not knowledge, now is it?"
--

Not at all! That's what's beautiful about the world, in my opinion, that there is no "Right" answer, no way to ever truly know something. I'd argue that ignorance has to be knowledge, or else we know nothing. Science can't answer the questions of purpose, meaning, and morality. Science is simply us trying to understand the world we live in. Science is facts, and it is completely up to us to interpret those facts. You say that societal gender constructs are unreliable because they are how evolution randomly happened, and therefore are random, but can you say for sure that a divine hand did not guide said evolution? Can you say for sure that anything else could have happened? And even if something else could have happened, should we really include "what-ifs?" in our interpretation of the real world? Society and humanity have developed as they have, perhaps for a reason, perhaps by chance, but I say we should accept it as it is. There is no way to say whether these gender constructs are reliable or not, but they certainly do exist, and certainly need to be addressed in any interpretation of gender identity and expression.

"In philosophy we savagely attack ideas, not the persons who hold them."
--

I know! Don't worry, I don't hold any ill-intent towards anyone just for having a different opinion than I. Everyone is allowed to interpret anything in their own way, and while I may disagree with it, there's typically no way to prove who is right when it comes to interpretation and opinion. :D

"How does gender identity manifest itself? A man (biologically) feels his gender is female. What does that mean?" --

I simply mean Gender Identity in the sense of how one views and portrays oneself. And that in of itself depends on how an individual views gender. For example, someone may view their own gender as female, so they dress and act in a way that they see as more feminine, trying to express their identity as female. Gender Identity (idk why I keep capitalising it) manifests itself through how an individual views gender, and how they ascribe gender to themselves.

If I may throw my own opinion out there, I do believe that Gender Identity and what you are assigned at birth are not the same thing. Gender is not only about organs, but also about how you express and present yourself to others. A lot of people here are using fancy logic trains and confusing messages to convert their point, but I will be clear with mine: If someone tells me their gender, I will refer to them in that gender. We're arguing over what the definition of gender is, and there is no "scientific" way to solve that. You can say it's what you were assigned at birth, or that it's whatever you say it is now, and there is no "evidence" or "proof" that one way is better. It's wholly based on opinion. My choice is the one that is the most respectful to the individual in question. There's no reason to insult, hurt, or annoy others because your opinion on what gender is doesn't line up with theirs. They're not denying what they were born as, simply stating what they are now. And it would be stupid to offend them because of you're opinion. Correcting someone who is factually wrong is one thing, but berating someone and trying to force your interpretation of the word "gender" upon them is small-minded and stupid. Anyways, this is my first contribution here, hope it goes over well :D