1) "many transgendered individuals are biologically more similar to those of their identified gender than typical of those of their assigned"

and yet they feel dysphoria over not having a particular body type and have to transition and this somehow is consistent to you

2) "Twin studies have shown that identical twins are more likely both be transgendered than fraternal twins which implies a genetic component to transgender identity. Some studies have shown that brain structures in transgendered individuals (pre-transition) tend to more closely resemble those of their identified gender than their assigned sex."

other research either shows the opposite or points out that the brains children are very plastic and can adopt to certain stimuli such as a parent affirming a gender identity that was just a phase

3) regardless this presents problems as shown below

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/27/feature/seeking-a-scientific-explanation-for-trans-identity-could-do-more-harm-than-good/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1c43fd111fd7

https://thinkprogress.org/transgender-brain-scan-study-68f9ba4b1c43/

4) "This all indicates the "but you are going against biology" argument is fundamentally misguided, as at its core, biology is a core component of transgender identity." 

ok, whatever, you haven't made a biology argument here anyway, so can you please stop dodging and actually answer the question?

5) "" We should not deny the identity of a trans individual on the basis of biology""

what exactly does this mean? are you implying that a man becomes a woman by simply stating he is one? i really would like clarification on this point""

isn't it interesting that after about 10 times now you still can't answer despite being in support of this idea?

1) I'm not sure what you are asking/implying here

2) Twin studies are important in distinguishing between environmental or genetic factors, because the environment for fraternal and identical twins tends to be very similar, so if there is a significant difference between outcomes between the two groups, it implies that there is a genetic component at play, which has been demonstrated through twin studies.

3) I don't believe you actually read either of those articles because they do not really argue against any of my points, especially in the context my points were used. Again, my argument here is in relation to "biology based transphobia", that is to say, the idea that a transgender identity is "against biology". This is simply not the case. These articles state that some people may misuse this information in ways which far more closely mimics arguments that you've made than arguments I have made. You have not posted a valid counterargument to this idea throughout this post or throughout any others.

4) I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here.

5) You asked me to clarify what I said. I did. Now you are complaining that I wasn't implying what you thought I was implying so you are mad that I didn't say that I was. Come the fuck on, man. If you want me so badly to answer your question, my answer is "no". Happy now? I am not implying what you think I am implying. Now fucking move past that terrible question. The reason I haven't answered it is because it is a stupid question and it only gets stupider every time you shove those words into my mouth.

We already clarified that that was a misunderstanding on your part about what that image meant. I thought were were past that...

1) "I'm not sure what you are asking/implying here"

you said "many transgendered individuals are biologically more similar to those of their identified gender than typical of those of their assigned"

if that is the case then why  do they feel dysphoria and the desire to alter their biology? you don't a see contradiction here?

2) "I don't believe you actually read either of those articles because they do not really argue against any of my points"

they do in the sense that you are attempting to use biology as a basis for validation, but the articles have describe the problem with this being that it leads to gate keeping based on whether a person exhibits certain characteristics or not

because ultimately as i've said the defining characteristic of whether someone is trans or not despite your arguments otherwise is whether they identify as such or not, this rabbit hole of listing biological evidence has been completely pointless since as i've said from the beginning its about identity

3) "You have not posted a valid counterargument to this idea throughout this post or throughout any others."

and i didn't need to because you don't even understand the issue at play here and as such you've been raising irrelevant points centered on biology when that isn't the core issue here, but actually identity

4) "You asked me to clarify what I said. I did. Now you are complaining that I wasn't implying what you thought I was implying so you are mad that I didn't say that I was."

no i was amazed that you refused to answer the most relevant question for about 10 times now, but apparently you finally have now

5) "If you want me so badly to answer your question, my answer is "no"."

so your answer is no, does that mean, therefore, that you require a person to have some form of biological/physical indication that they have been assigned the wrong sex at birth?

you seemed to imply otherwise here

"" We should not deny the identity of a trans individual on the basis of biology""

Yes, we went over that. But regardless of what the image is meant to convey, it's garbage. If such images were used for educational purposes, nothing good could come from them.

1) The changes that are being made are primarily physical, so no.

2) Again, recall the context of this whole damned conversation. It is about an article that you brought up about how biology shouldn't be used against trans individuals. Stating that this argument ("it is against biology") is fundamentally bullshit is entirely valid. Stop acting like these pro-transgender articles in any way contradict me more than they contradict you. They don't.

3) You are the one who brought up biology in the first place... Like, fuck man I know you love decontextualizing things but at least remember what we talked about fucking yesterday...

4) Yes you did...

And I quote: "what exactly does this mean"

5) No.

I disagree, but I see no reason to argue that point further.

1) "The changes that are being made are primarily physical, so no."

uh, again you are claiming that these people are biologically more similar to their preferred sex, what i'm asking is how can this be the case when they feel disphoria from not being biologically similar to their preferred sex?

2) "Again, recall the context of this whole damned conversation. It is about an article that you brought up about how biology shouldn't be used against trans individuals."

no the context is that i've said that the notion that gender and sex are independent of each other is stupid

3) "You are the one who brought up biology in the first place... Like, fuck man I know you love decontextualizing things but at least remember what we talked about fucking yesterday..."

i brought up biology as someone who disagrees with the stance that identity determines your gender

the point here is that alternatively if you are arguing in support of this ideology, then biology cannot be the basis of your argument but identity

that's why i was saying its a fucking stupid ideology because you cannot make an assessment off of identity only

and you agree with me since you have said that if a person assigned male at birth identifies as a woman then that does not automatically make them a woman because presumably you also agree that identity is not enough to categorise men and woman

4) "Yes you did..."

i was asking you since the beginning of this conversation whether you believe identity is the determining factor of whether a person is man or woman... that is what i was asking for clarification on

5) "does that mean, therefore, that you require a person to have some form of biological/physical indication that they have been assigned the wrong sex at birth?"

"No."

ok so, therefore, a man can choose to identify as a woman and that makes them a woman in your view, can we just make that conclusion and move on then?

We already clarified that that was a misunderstanding on your part about what that image meant. I thought were were past that...

1) Being more biologically similar in some ways does not mean biologically and physically identical in all ways. Stop.

2) Again, recall the article you posted.

3) That isn't what I said.

4) *shrug* Maybe you just don't word good.

5) Kind of, but its also a lot more complicated than that. Being overly reductive doesn't help anyone or anything.

Yes, we went over that. But regardless of what the image is meant to convey, it's garbage. If such images were used for educational purposes, nothing good could come from them.