"The philosophy is not that they are unrelated but instead that they are not mutually inclusive. In other words, yes, gender and sex tend to align in most individuals, however, this alignment is not fundamental, meaning that other individuals may not experience, identify or express gender in the ways that most typically do."

this is not the philosophy at play here, this is:

"Gender Expression/Presentation: The physical manifestation of one’s gender identity through clothing, hairstyle, voice, body shape, etc. Most transgender people seek to make their gender expression (how they look) match their gender identity (who they are), rather than their sex assigned at birth."

if a person assigned male at birth identifies as a woman and then changes their clothing and behavior to emulate women, is that person a man or woman in your opinion?

Pray tell, what is the issue with this statement? It is simply saying that some people choose to not conform with gender norms. That is about as non-controversial as possible...

as i've said it proposes that gender and sex are unrelated and that what determines gender is clothing, hair, etc etc etc

why did you refuse to answer my question?

"if a person assigned male at birth identifies as a woman and then changes their clothing and behavior to emulate women, is that person a man or woman in your opinion?"

i think what concerns me the most about this philosophy is the lengths people are willing to go to in attempts to mask what is being proposed

I've already addressed this:

"The philosophy is not that they are unrelated but instead that they are not mutually inclusive. In other words, yes, gender and sex tend to align in most individuals, however, this alignment is not fundamental, meaning that other individuals may not experience, identify or express gender in the ways that most typically do."

And again:

Gender: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

This includes things like how someone dresses and styles their hair. This does not include an individual's chromosomes.

Again, is there an argument here or do you have no purpose beyond ensuring everybody knows just how befuddled you are about all of this?

"

Gender: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

This includes things like how someone dresses and styles their hair. This does not include an individual's chromosomes."

you haven't actually posted anything here that is at odds with what i've claimed, which to reiterate is that the claim being made is that gender arises independently of sex

why did you refuse to answer my question?

"if a person assigned male at birth identifies as a woman and then changes their clothing and behavior to emulate women, is that person a man or woman in your opinion?"

It's almost like this has happened before in the past, where people with different idea's and beliefs found their own geographical location and did their own thing there, leaving everyone else alone for the most part. If you had to deal with them on their turf, you just dealt with it and then left if you couldn't put up with it.

The idea that a person should be free to go anywhere in the world and live like they typically do at home is beyond ridiculous. That's how things work where you specifically come from, but otherwise you need to abide by someone else's rules when it comes to their location, even if it's a neighbors home. If you wish to be welcomed, then you will need to follow their rules.

Doesn't matter if it's countries, states, cities, businesses or homes, it's their way or the highway. What's mine is not your's, and what's your's is not mine. If you wan't to take part in what's mine, you'll act in a manner I permit, and if you don't, you lose that option. Rights and freedoms are not a free pass to everything.

I don't only blame the people though, as the Gov's themselves should make this clear when taking new people in who don't fit the mold, and enforce it. If the people don't like it, then they need to make a choice, based on what options are available to them. Everyone has to learn to take the good with the bad because nowhere is perfect.

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see what side they take on this. It's always struck me odd that liberals tend to side with the Muslim religion while shunning Christianity for the most part, given that, at least from my understanding, Islam is like Christianity x100 when it comes to conservative, puritanical and restrictive views. Not pigeonholing Muslims of course and I have nothing against them, and of course there are more liberal, accepting Muslims out there - but just pointing out that as a whole, this seems to be the mentality of the religion. 

Gotta say... it's fairly sad to see a protest of equality. I mean that right there is where I think anyone involved in this should go home and think about what they're doing.

But luckily for the do-gooding Left Wing, radical Islam has the definitive solution to their dilemma: it's stones, neither too large nor too small.    

No. Not siding with the Muslim religion, siding for Muslims to be treated the same as any other group of people, as per the first amendment of the constitution.

The reason the left seems to be against Christianity (in the US at least) is because Christians wield tremendously more political capital in the US, and are usually the ones trying to force others to abide by their religious convictions.  If Muslims or any other group are pulling that shit, I have no problem condemning it all the same.