The point of 'identifying as a cat' seems to be missed by many commentators (although not by the 14-year old child who brought it up).
It's a simple reductio ad absurdum, as follows:
Trans supporters claim people are authoritative regarding their self descriptions: we should take it that someone who says, "I am a woman" is, in fact, a woman, just on the basis of that statement of self-identification.
But if self-descriptions are authoritative, someone who says, "I am a cat," is, thereby, a cat. This is absurd. So self-descriptions are not authoritative. Hence, saying "I am a woman" does not entail that the person saying it is a woman.
No-one needs actually to identify as a cat for this simple little reductio argument to be sound and its conclusion true.
... A man claiming to be a woman is not, thereby, a woman.
Likewise, a girl claiming to be a boy is not, thereby, a boy.
And, well, who would have thought it? Isn't it - wasn't it always - just obvious? Does it really need spelling out?
Obvious to everyone except, it seems, that daft teacher rightly pilloried by her pupils for thinking self-identification authoritative. And others?
What nonsense all this trans stuff is. How are people taken in by such obvious shite? Teachers? Teachers? Ffs.