@gonzo: I'll only get a notification of your responses if you tag me (so far as I know). I do check in on discussions like this periodically, so even if you don't tag me I'll catch up. It just might take a day or two.

@gonzo: So to the point... I have too many discussions where people reduce qualia to ostensibly material factors, so I always try to preclude that move early on. But that aside, you seem to be casting this as a situation that needs to be 'normalized', when in fact it is an inherently chaotic situation that must 'normalize itself' through processes of social interaction and integration

@gonzo: there is no 'right' or 'wrong' here; there are two self-normalized worldviews that conflict, and until those self-normalized worldviews find some degree of in-common normalization, there is going to be stress. So what we should be looking for is a common view that de-stresses the situation, so that the process of re-normalizing can begin.

@gonzo: Everyone has their agenda-driven ideology one person's agenda-driven ideology is neither better nor worse than another's, and all that really matters is settling on a common worldview in which those ideologies can reasonably coexist.

With all due respect @Ted Wrigley, my interest is neither to "normalize" anything, nor to make a normative - "what is right or wrong" - claim about anything. I needlessly added the last two paragraphs to my last comment merely to import pragmatic relevance to a merely philosophical inquiry.

From the beginning of this exchange, my intention has is to interrogate a claim that you made in the last paragraph of your posted answer. As a philosopher, not as a politician or sociologist. Simply think of me as a pesky neither stupid nor brilliant student in one of your classes that has raised his hand during a lecture and asked you to explain what you mean by a particular phrase or word.

As I have already, I simply ask what you meant by the TERMs "male" and "female" gender, as opposed to sex, in the assertion. I do not think I need to articulate the question, which I consider to be neither grumpy nor ambiguous, for a third time. But I would be happy to if you wish.

In particular you believe that the identification as male or female is rooted upon stereotypical behavioral predispositions, or, say central nervous system circuitry, as outlined in the NIH link I sent you earlier? Neither? Both? BTW, that article’s abstract begins” Xenomelia, the “foreign limb syndrome,” is characterized by the non-acceptance of one or more of one’s own extremities and the resulting desire for elective limb amputation or paralysis.” Cont below.

@Ted Wrigley continued: "Formerly labeled “body integrity identity disorder” (BIID), the condition was originally considered a psychological or psychiatric disorder, but a brain-centered Zeitgeist and a rapidly growing interest in the neural underpinnings of bodily self-consciousness has shifted the focus toward dysfunctional central nervous system circuits." Its a kind of mind-body duality issue.

@Ted Wrigley Sorry for the sloppy editing. Most importantly, the first sentence of my last comment was, of course, a question: "Do you believe...?" Not the assertion "you believe that..." These are other boo boos which I will let lie.