This is basically my viewpoint, even if I don't concretely accept every aspect of transgenderism as it's presented (again, I'm agnostic and not opposed to any specific views due to ignorance and not opposition). Gay v. straight seems pretty clearly to be a false dichotomy to me as far as the general population is concerned, and I see no reason why gender should be any different. You'd have to prove to me that transgenderism isn't a real thing basically, otherwise I'd assume that it at least has some merit.

Don't be an idiot. You understand the basics of evolution and genetics.

Did you know that hyenas share more of their genetic code in common with domestic cats than domestic dogs? And humans have 90% homologous DNA with cats compared to 81% shared with dogs. Again, the world is not as simple as you would like it to be.

EDIT: In case the retort was not obvious, there are closer interspecies comparisons you could make that are less obvious-seeming than that which you made. If you believe in evolution, then you have to accept that life exists on a spectrum. The way we arrive at these end-branches (e.g., cats and dogs) is when the common ancestors of both die out, leaving these seemingly dead-ends.

^ That's one of my favorite animal facts. Hyenas are the best.

My dog isn't a cat. It's not on a spectrum.

I'm no longer going to talk to you.

Well I'm not trying to lynch these people are harass them. I just want to know why people are catering to something that I think is a delusion. How is that being a disservice? The human consciousnesses has tricked plenty of people into believing something that the collective consciousness knows to be untrue. Typically we label those people as being mentally ill. In the case of gender, though, we are getting this idea shoved down our throats by intolerant preachers of tolerance that we have to cater to these people's perceptions with no facts or evidence as to why I should, compared to how we treat others with different identity issues.

The fact of the matter is, I define somebodies gender based on their genitals. Because by definition a male is somebody who has a penis and testicles to me. Of course that gets mixed around when it comes to people transitioning genders or people with both genital sets, but there is a physical standard that defines each gender that they each will match. I don't think gender is defined by how you feel or how you act or what you choose to identify yourself as. It's all physical. And to go even further science tells us that your chromosomes define your gender. XX makes you a male and XY makes you a female. Sometimes you can get extra chromosomes too, which would make more sense to me as to why I'd call somebody who is physically a male a female, but I know damn well that none of this is based on that. I don't even consider chromosomes as the basis of it because somebody who transitions into a female still has the XX but I'd call them a female after they altered their gender.

What's really annoying is that I will get insulted and harassed for going against these 'tolerant' ideas. None of you are giving me any kind of logic or reasoning as to why I should change my perception. It's just, "man, just go with it, it's easier". But why can't I question it with out being told I'm ignorant? Why can't we discuss if gender identity comes from mental illness &/or the forced idea of how a gender should behave? Which, yeah, I know that gender identity causes are much much more diverse than just those two things. I don't know, man. I don't like the idea of having to change or fake my perception with no reasoning behind it. The fact that most people can do is tell me I'm just being ignorant or to just ****ing do it is bothersome. Or some fake ass **** because we all know DJ isn't calling anybody attack helicopter.

Then what is the difference between your gender and your sex?

And that quote, from what I understand, is saying that AFTER getting treatment their brains start to resemble their desired gender. Okay. Well I'm not arguing that somebody that transitions to a different gender is not that different gender. I'm arguing that somebody who has not transitioned is still identified by their physical gender.

I don't want to get too involved in this because there's a lot to unpack, but are you just saying that you don't accept that there's an in-between state? I mean, if you accept the fact that people do transition, if you accept the end-point of that transition, then it seems you would have to accept that during the act of transition, people exist between the states you've identified?

Yeah, I can acknowledge that. I call them shemales, or transgender. Or the gender they are transitioning to.

Edit: ****ing unpack, it's a Sunday I don't got anything better to do. Maybe you can help me understand better.

????????????????????????????????????????