@Hagosaurus I would so love to meet someone who did believe in GI and was prepared to discuss it - unfortunately so far, it’s either been abuse or a tacit agreement to not talk about it for fear of upsetting them. As far as I can see, GC is the only position which makes any sense. I would generally want to test my position with robust debate, but sadly, that’s not an option here
So what you’re essentially after is called the “principle of charity”- where you ascribe to your opponent the most convincing and coherent account of their argument you can. Then you need to see if your understanding of being GC can answer the best possible case of gender identity theory.
To do this you need to understand not just gender identity theory but identity theory in general and to see where it’s come from and how it works. This comes out of an idea called “subjectivity”- I.e.: reality as it is, in itself, is inaccessible. All we can really know is our own experience of reality.
if this is the case, and reality as it appears is all we can access but not reality as it is in itself (phenomenal reality as opposed to noumenal reality) then we are left with some issues about how we can know reality. This is the foundation of subjectivity, and it’s origins and history are both fascinating and LONG (stretching back to the pre-socratics).
If subjectivity is to be believed, then the leaps become more obvious: what is my being a man or woman? I can give an account of my own experience, but am unable to give an account of anyone else.
even worse- the language that I use to think and give my account is tainted by other people- there are those “cultural elites” who control language and thought in society, and thus to a large degree control narrative by controlling language. This is called post-structuralism.
Therefore, whatever you call man or woman, may, or may not have anything to do with what being a man or woman really is, because ultimately your experience is closed to anyone who is not you, and therefore the idea that you can define “man-ness” and “woman-ness” comes down to the great catastrophe that you just can’t know.
therefore your assertion of a scientific definition of man and woman as the two dimorphic parts of the species “homosapiens” is just you falling prey to those who wish to control you with their own language and ideas, and have failed to permit you to express your own subjective reality. And further your attempt to control the meaning of “man” and “woman” is just you oppressing me with your cultural position of power (living in a heteronormative society and culture, using heteronormative language).
That is, in my experience, the most convincing trans identity argument I can construct. I disagree with it, but if you wanted an argument to get on with it’s the best I have seen.