Some of the jargon around Genderism and the wider woke worldview is ripe for mockery, and I don't think there's much wrong with that, but it's not the most useful response.
One of the terms which interests me, because of it's ubiquitous nature, is 'valid'. Lots of people talk about being validated, via their identity claims, and the basic demand to say TWAW, TMAM, etc. is a flashpoint from the genderist perspective because by not agreeing, we do not 'validate' the identity, which is accorded a power akin to an act of genocide.
I've been trying to unpick what is going on here, in the hopes of some sort of understanding. What is a a person desiring when they want to be 'valid', and 'validated' in their identity?
In terms of bare etymology, valid springs from strong, so there is a follow through here of someone's ideas about themselves being 'made strong' by the validation they receive.
But I think even most adherents to these ideas will eventually acknowledge that if you need external support for something you claim is inherent within you, then you're not really strengthening anything, you're just putting in flimsy scaffolding, dependent on others.
I'm beginning to pick up that there is something else going on with this plaintive cry 'I am valid!' What I'm seeing is a group of people who are so crippled with insecurities they doubt their worth as human beings. People who are looking at a big, frightening world and shouting "I mean something!"
In essence, I'm seeing this particular bit of the jargon as a very specific part of the religious impulse that underpins so much of the Genderist, Identity-focused movement. When you see people repeating that phrase "You are valid", they are offering each other the same sort of comfort more traditional religious believers offer when they say "God loves you, you are not forgotten, you matter."
I suspect this is why the simple, logical discussions about the material reality of sex don't really cut any ice - you are trying to talk to a different part of the human psyche with a scientific argument. Genderist ideas arise from a different place. They may co-opt a few science-lite ideas, like a Creationist from Answers in Genesis might quote a few scientific journals, but the heart of these ideas is philosophical - it's a search for meaning and personal truth.
Which is probably why, as tempting as mockery may be, it's ultimately counterproductive in actually pulling people away from the damaging ideas at the heart of Genderism that have such devastating real life consequences.
So a young woman who rejects the prevailing culture of what it means to be 'a woman' and demands that, as an Non Binary person, she be acknowledged as 'valid', with attendant pronouns, is doing more than just being a bit controlling. She's trying to assert that she matters.
It's an existential, religious cry, not a statement about material reality. We're all, both genderists and those of us who reject gender, making category errors when we don't grasp this, which is why so many of us are talking past each other.