There is still context in that statement. Would you expect someone to be asking for a medical determination of someone walking by in the street?

A good example of a word which has different contexts in different settings is the word parent. In a social setting it typically means "the primary caregiver for a child" (or something to that nature), but in a medical setting, it would mean something like "An individual who has directly passed down their genes to a child" (or something to that nature). If someone were to ask you "Did you just see a parent and a child walk by" you would answer utilizing the first definition, you wouldn't ask for clarification about whether they were speaking about a biological parent because that isn't what the context implies. On the other hand, if you are taking a your child to a doctor, questions about genetics would be far more relevant. That is what we call the utilization of context.

It's hardly "full" of people saying that. 

So what about the people who feel better after transitioning?

>why do you refuse to acknowledge them?

On the contrary, I have said that it is possible, but it doesn't make any sense to me why it would be any kind of norm.  

Additionally I have said that such things would be abuse.  

Why do you continue to ignore things that have been said?  

telling children that sex and gender are separate

Don't see any flaw in this... 

ok since the wording used is slippery(intentionally I'm sure to deflect criticism) I mean in the sense that the proposal is that there is no connection between the two

you don't think that is a stupid proposition?

(...)

With that out of the way, I will address the one question that you did ask on the topic of what I said:

"Can you provide an example of how sex and gender work together to produce femaleness?"

Lets define "femaleness" as all of things associated with a female (biological and social and everything in between). When we think of an individual who holds these attributes of "femaleness" we may think of someone who is shorter and has breasts (generally biological characteristics) and wears dresses and has long hair (generally social (normative) characteristics). Both these biological characteristics and these social characters work together to produce the concept of "femaleness".

That's not their argument (and you know it, because the next piece is a reply to you), as can be seen in this post:

Well, now that depends on context, doesn't it?  Biological, sexual, gender, etc....  

Are you asking in terms of reproductive function?
Are you asking in terms of social conformity?
Are you asking in terms of romantic or sexual partner?
Are you asking in terms of expression?

Again, lack of knowledge that these are separate but integrated concepts shows that you (and he) are ignorant on the subject as a whole. It's like reading chapter 1 of a book and proclaiming your authority over the whole book regardless of the remaining chapters. Further, you don't even want to read the remaining chapters because you know it contrasts with your stated position of the subject.

Only one of those questions is valid...."Are you asking in terms of reproductive function". All others are irrelevant. Its like asking a child if he is Freddy Kruger because thats what he dressed up as for Halloween. Expressing yourself as the opposite sex is role play, it doesnt make you the opposite sex. Having sexual relationships with the same sex also doesnt make you the opposite sex. If you feel you need to role play for social acceptance than you are sick and need help, it still doesnt change the fact you are either born a man or a woman based on reproductive organs. 

It's hardly "full" of people saying that. 

So what about the people who feel better after transitioning?

>why do you refuse to acknowledge them?

On the contrary, I have said that it is possible, but it doesn't make any sense to me why it would be any kind of norm.  

Additionally I have said that such things would be abuse.  

Why do you continue to ignore things that have been said?  

i'm speaking about the trans movement in general, I already acknowledged that sundin at least at this point in time was able to perceive idiocy that lies at the bottom of this idea and promptly stopped replying

personally I don't understand how someone who pretends to be informed on this topic can deny the reality of where this movement is heading - some examples for you to consider

https://medium.com/@juliaserano/debunking-trans-women-are-not-women-arguments-85fd5ab0e19c

"The “biological woman” fallacy

Claims that trans women are not women often rely on essentialist (and therefore incorrect) assumptions about biology. For instance, people might argue that trans women are not “genetically female,” despite the fact that we cannot readily ascertain anybody’s sex chromosomes. Indeed, most people have never even had their sex chromosomes examined, and those that do are sometimes surprised by the results."

"I would argue that all of these appeals to biology are inherently anti-feminist. Sexists routinely dismiss women by pointing to real or presumed biological differences. Feminists have long challenged the objectification of our bodies, and have argued that we are not limited by our biology. So it is hypocritical for any self-identified feminist to use “biology” and “body parts” arguments in their attempts to dismiss trans women."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwick/meet-the-feminist-academics-championing-trans-rights

"In other words, sex is a social interpretation; a doctor decides the sex based on a baby’s genitals, regardless of internal organs, chromosomes, and hormones (all of which might contradict this).

So who is best fit to decide someone’s sex, and thereby assume their gender identity? Is it society, a doctor, or the individual themselves?

The other problem with biology, when discussing feminism and trans people, is where it leads, said Emejulu.

“The goal,” she said, referring to feminism throughout history, “was always to say that biology was not destiny because that was precisely the argument that people used to keep women in private spaces: that women with their ‘smaller brains’ were ‘prone to fainting’ and are not fit to be in public spaces, such as politics and the workplace.”

Using biology, therefore, to further the case for feminism, does not work, she said. “So I find it baffling that people would use these arguments in order to exclude another group of women.”"

https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/02/trans-women-not-biologically-male/

"No, Trans Women Are NOT ‘Biologically Male"

"Ever thought or said something like this? You might even have good intentions by stating what you think is a simple fact – after all, gender is a social construct, while sex is biological, right?

Actually, this “simple fact” of trans women being “biologically male” is inaccurate – and this misrepresentation of the truth is being used to justify some pretty hateful things."

https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/blog/decentering-narrative-trans-folks-body-image-and-eds

"Another barrier is the way in which cisnormative*** body ideals and beauty standards are idealized.  Those who break gender norms are not typically viewed in a positive light, and this has a negative effect on trans individuals in particular.  The pressure to “pass” as cisgender can be especially destructive to those who already hold negative feelings towards themselves and their bodies. "

https://medium.com/@Phaylen/we-need-to-talk-about-the-myth-of-passing-in-the-trans-community-e1bedaf32ebb

"Let’s call “Passing” what it really is: The desire to meet the standard of an external social gaze. The privilege of blending in with the rest of society as a “norm” rather than stand out as an “other.” I am not sure why no one has told these incredible people why standing out is far more powerful than falling into formation to satisfy the often unreasonable definitions of femininity and masculinity as if they have firm definitions… they don’t. I know many women with masculine traits, wide shoulders for example, arms with ample hair, some stand over six feet tall or are mistaken for a man on the telephone because their voice is not received as explicitly female. There are men with small waists, even proud busts that make small-breasted women jealous. Some have soft features or mannerisms that have been classified as traditionally feminine. Cisgender people, even with these vast variations in appearances and mannerisms rarely suffer a blow to their quality of life as a result of not fitting into socially constructed molds of how men and women develop. That fact is, while masculinity and femininity are identifiable characteristics, they are not and never have been exclusive to men or women, transgender or not."

Only one of those questions is valid...."Are you asking in terms of reproductive function". All others are irrelevant. Its like asking a child if he is Freddy Kruger because thats what he dressed up as for Halloween. Expressing yourself as the opposite sex is role play, it doesnt make you the opposite sex. Having sexual relationships with the same sex also doesnt make you the opposite sex. If you feel you need to role play for social acceptance than you are sick and need help, it still doesnt change the fact you are either born a man or a woman based on reproductive organs.