I understand that, and I somewhat have some sympathy for the confusion. That said, that confusion is semantic, not conceptual. Words change meaning and new words are created to explain new concepts. Imagine if every time a new scientific discovery is made, there was a wave of people who objected to it on the grounds that the word they are using to describe it isn't a real word. It would be laughable nonsense, and that is largely how I feel about the "Well, that isn't what the word means" argument. It is purely semantic and holds no real argumentative sway. I will gladly help someone to understand the difference between those two words in this context, but if your entire argument hinges upon not liking the semantics of it, there is no argument there.

A) The goalposts seem to be moving. The quote is not dismissing the role of biology but instead contextualizing it, and as such, your initial assertion is incorrect.

B) The goalposts seem to be moving. The quote is not dismissing the role of biology but instead elaborating on it, and as such, your initial assertion is incorrect. 

C) Basically the same as "B"

D) No. Maleness and femaleness are fundamental to this discussion. Don't blame me that you can't keep your head on straight when you have to deal with more than two words at a time.

E) Yes, and what better way to "Let go of presumptions" than to ignore most of what I say and make ridiculous assumptions. 10/10 from the German judge.

"The quote is not dismissing the role of biology but instead contextualizing it"

yeah I wasn't really expecting an honest answer

let me ask you a direct question instead 

lets say I'm a man right now with a massive 10 inch penis, a full beard, rippling muscular body etc etc etc in your opinion do i become a woman by identifying as one now?

if you truly believed the quote was valid, you would just say yes, i'd chuckle for a bit and the argument would be done, but for some reason even you can't take that step that far into the dark

"The quote is not dismissing the role of biology but instead elaborating on it"

ok so again let me expand since the expected dodging is occurring again

the author of the quote is dismissing all other means of identification beyond the person themself, do you at least agree on that?

"Basically the same as "B""

of course, I wasn't really expecting you to address this

"Maleness and femaleness are fundamental to this discussion."

" it is hypocritical for any self-identified feminist to use “biology” and “body parts” arguments in their attempts to dismiss trans women"

"As such, any assertion by society or even a doctor is typically unable to see the full picture of an individual's biology to make their conclusion."

yeah well those quotes say otherwise and yet you agree with them so...

"Yes, and what better way to "Let go of presumptions" than to ignore most of what I say and make ridiculous assumptions."

of course, because direct quotes are "assumptions"

and me be clear about something here, I do understand the counterpoint that sex is on a spectrum and therefore everything is so messy that classifications cannot be made... people here seem to have the idea that because there's disagreement on this topic that this must necessarily entail a lack of understanding but that's fallacious reasoning

Again, you have failed to demonstrate the key assertion of yours that those on the left are dismissing the role of biology. They are not. You have categorically failed to show evidence of this.

End of conversation.

"you have failed to demonstrate the key assertion of yours that those on the left are dismissing the role of biology."

within this conversation with you, I've never brought up the left, yet you have done so twice or more times now

or is this like a weak dishonest attempt to run away from the people I have quoted clearly denying the role of biology by abstracting out to the left as a whole?

to quote some of the quotes I have provided again and my "assumptions" as you would call them:

" it is hypocritical for any self-identified feminist to use “biology” and “body parts” arguments in their attempts to dismiss trans women"

"lets say I'm a man right now with a massive 10 inch penis, a full beard, rippling muscular body etc etc etc in your opinion do i become a woman by identifying as one now?

if you truly believed the quote was valid, you would just say yes"

 "As such, any assertion by society or even a doctor is typically unable to see the full picture of an individual's biology to make their conclusion."

"so therefore the only option left is for the person to identify themself as what they are(man, woman, sheep, ox, lion, etc etc etc), regardless of biology since biology is societies way of classifying things?"

""No, Trans Women Are NOT ‘Biologically Male""

and of course there are many many more but if you can't even bring yourself to deal with these in good faith what would be the point of going further?

I mean even if that's your tactic here(abstracting it out to the left as a whole) it is pointless, intersectionality is being embraced more and more by the left, the insanity hasn't been fully realised just yet(on purpose for a very obvious reason) but its coming and eventually you will have to make a choice

despite what you and others may think, I really don't have much of a dog in this fight besides rationality i suppose, but its interesting, amusing even to see the knots people will twist themselves into to defend "their side"

Alright. Insert whatever boogeyman you want.

Still bullshit tho.

its not a boogeyman its a ridiculous idea that you have failed to defend

let me ask one more time

" it is hypocritical for any self-identified feminist to use “biology” and “body parts” arguments in their attempts to dismiss trans women"

"lets say I'm a man right now with a massive 10 inch penis, a full beard, rippling muscular body etc etc etc in your opinion do i become a woman by identifying as one now?

if you truly believed the quote was valid, you would just say yes"

I wonder though why do you think these people are putting these idiotic ideas out that you then have to bend over backwards to try to make coherent?

Dawg, you are the one who has failed to justify your assertion that anyone is dismissing biology. They aren't. They are merely contextualizing and expanding on it.

Like, this is a tactic of yours. You say something, fail to back it up and then instead of taking any responsibility, you kind of just handwave it and attack me when I call out your bullshit.

Biology is not being dismissed. Someone going into depth expanding on the many facets of sex is not what dismissing biology looks like.

If anyone is dismissing Biology it is those who are asserting that Biology is nothing more than genitals.

ok then can you actually answer the question?

" it is hypocritical for any self-identified feminist to use “biology” and “body parts” arguments in their attempts to dismiss trans women"

"No, Trans Women Are NOT ‘Biologically Male""

"lets say I'm a man right now with a massive 10 inch penis, a full beard, rippling muscular body etc etc etc in your opinion do i become a woman by identifying as one now?

if you truly believed the quote was valid, you would just say yes"

I've felt like i'm in a tap dancing concert for a while now

I'll gladly answer your question as soon as we finish the discussion we are having. Do you acknowledge that you have failed to prove your assertion?