Gender has no physical existence or meaning. It's a societal construct, a purely artificial idea.
Why were the words "male" and "female" used to describe these constructs then? Surely if a _new_ concept was made, _new_ words could be used for it and this whole crapshoot could be bypassed.
I think confusion and hatred were the goal of using that terminology.
So is the idea of pulsars,
You see how a different word is used for a different concept and different categorization/description?
New ideas arrive and displace old ideas because they have stronger evidence.
When the "new ideas" are by admitted by themselves as entirely socially constructed and don't necessarily have any bearing on reality, how can they ever be shown to be false if they are? without the ability to falsify a conjecture evidence is impossible (evidence are simply tests that could falsify a conjecture and have been done but have not, we prefer the conjectures that have had the most tests done of the most types but has yet to be shown to be false)
Well firstly - even if there was a "my gender is pizza" person- what exactly makes them wrong ?
This is the problem, the concept of what is being spoken about is so vague, so devoid of meaning that it can mean whatever people want.
The use of male and female in such a way strips the words of conveying any actual meaning, and language is all the poorer for it. When people want to talk about things to do with aspects of males and females there is a whole boatload of unnecessary confusion which has been created.
If the point of language is to convey meaning, things that reduce languages expressive ability work against it.
People can be however they want to be, but people should be able to call a spade a spade without offensive intent being assumed.
What about freedom of thought ?
People are free to think whatever they like, such as 2+2=58, but I am also free to point out to them that that is not the case. Freedom works both ways.
It's like people claiming the earth is only a few thousand years old, they are free to think that, I am free to think them silly and point out that current evidence is not in their favour and their preferred theory has epistemological issues.
It's like otherkin and wolfkin, people who honestly believe they are an animal in a humans body, they are free to think that, and I am free to point out to them that they are in fact human and that no evidence could ever be presented of a supernatural world because the claims aren't falsifiable.
Anyway, a more accurate analogy would be to say that intersex people are like red/green colourblind people. They may wear a red shirt and green pants together and believe they are wearing matching clothes. Just because red and green looks different to you - does it make them worthy of discrimination that it looks the same to them ?
Well for starters discrimination is simply the ability to discern the differences between things, if a person can tell the differences between things they are already discriminating.
There is a difference between discrimination and unfair treatment based on discriminating against someone on something based on irrelevant criteria.
People should be able to tell different things apart without it being assumed something nasty is being said. People should be able to tell a dolphin and a fish apart without having people say "dolphins are big enough and live in the sea, they should be called a fish"
There are standards, they may change, but I think it best for words to be at least capable of having descriptive power. Having something mean anything someone wants (the concept of gender identity) causes problems when people try to wield that as a weapon against people.
It all comes back to, if someone honestly thinks themselves a wolf in a humans body, they are more than welcome to continue to believe that, and I am more than welcome to still consider them potentially mentally ill and either keep my distance from them or try to figure out how/why they came to believe such a ridiculous thing.
We dress boys in blue and girls in pink, our great grandparents did it the other way around. Both groups believed they were dressing babies appropriately for their gender.
Appropriately for their "sex" not gender, how does a baby know if it identifies as a pizza yet?
Behavioural norms for sexes exist and have existed for a long time, they change over time too. I'd rather people go "oh, your boy looks good in pink" and be accepting of behaviours than start trying to claim the baby is now a different sex because of the clothes they are wearing.
Because gender is such a fungible concept to begin with society literally reversed it's idea of what colour goes with what gender in a mere 100 years and at all times during it most of them were fundamentalistically believing that they were preserving the correct social order !
"gender identity" as an abstract thing that can be anything at all has no meaning and can be whatever you want it to be, as you have been trying to say yourself for a fair bit. Society has had different expectations of the dress of the _sexes_ and that has changed significantly over the last 100 years, yes indeed.