No. I actually literally study the science of how and why neurons, acting in concert, produce behavior.
There is a neurological basis for all behavior originating from thought, perception, or understanding because these things are accomplished by the sequential activation of neurons.
I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is your extrapolation from there to the assumption that the perceptions and understanding of said neuron clusters is
REAL.
You say you study this. Alright. When a schizophrenic's brain has a bunch of neurons firing off and acting in concert that creates the thoughts and perceptions and understanding that reptilians are hunting them... Does that make their thoughts, perceptions, and understanding objectively real? Does their perception of hunting reptilians become truth for everyone else on the planet?
I mean shit, it's like you asking me to prove that algorithms have something to do with math. Math is MADE of Algorithmic description. It's algorithms all the way down.
It's much more like I'm asking you to prove that a particular algorithm that you've written down actually does what you claim it does and is mathematically sound.
Behavior is neurons, and the relationship those neurons have with hormonal biasing.
Sure. But behavior isn't reality, nor does it alter objective reality. When my bipolar sister goes into an episode and decides that the lady behind the counter that told her there are no coke zeros left is lying to her because she's just a mean person... that doesn't make it true. Her neurons lead her to behave in a certain way.. and I'm for damn sure that her hormonal cycles affect her disorder (and hence her behavior). That still doesn't make her perception or her understanding of the situation true.
You have a magical definition of woman that relies on something that doesn't actually have any behavior in and of its own beyond spitting out eggs (depending; not necessary or sufficient, after all), and a combination of progesterone and estrogen (which you claim isn't actually what makes you a woman!)
Well, that would be because "woman" is not a set of behaviors. The presence or absence of hormones doesn't make me female or male. The machinery for large immobile gametes makes me female. All of my hormonal processes fired off in the right order at the right stages of my development for a human with large immobile gametes, thus I developed the reproductive system and the secondary sex characteristics that are normally associated with a female. I have the lived experience of the physical repercussions of that very real biology, as well as the lived experience of my society's conditioning and treatment of females, and the expectations placed upon females... and the combination of those experiences and my actual real biology is what makes me a woman.
You have displayed intransigence in any ability to understand the biology of it.
You've displayed an intransigence to supporting your claims and a persistence in claiming that brains are gendered.
You get no civility from me because you refuse to accept that you could even be possibly wrong about what makes a person meaningfully "woman" for the rest of us. You set the bar to an unattainable peak, conveniently betraying in your own language that you don't even fully buy your own rhetoric.
What? It's not an unattainable peak for a female. It's the actual state of being for a female.
Honestly, what "being a duck" means to a rabbit is pretty much irrelevant, when the duck says "no, rabbits aren't ducks".
I don't contain any notable African heritage, and my skin is about as pale as the average Irishwoman can be. Even though I grew up with a black stepfather, my upbringing was largely on military bases, and then of a very run-of-the-mill white middle class suburb. I don't have the melanin of a black person in America, nor do I have the lived social experience of a black woman in America.
So you think that I have any place at all telling a black woman what being black is all about? Do you think I have any reasonable basis from which to declare that her understanding of black womanhood is incorrect, and that she's not giving enough consideration to what being black means to non-black people?
KIS has shown herself to be a caring, compassionate, and thoughtful woman.
KIS has shown herself to be a... woman.
KIS has shown themselves to be a caring compassionate person, who I am happy to do the courtesy of referring to as a woman. I'm happy to let KIS live her life as a woman and I support her efforts. Were KIS a rampant jerk expressing misogynistic views that female biology doesn't matter... I likely would not be quite so supportive.
You wish to exclude people for something you have no right to know. Something they have no obligation to tell you. Something they ought not tell you in particular because you will use it to "other" them. Something I hope sincerely puts egg on your face the day you lose a friend because you didn't know she was trans until after you alienate her.
It really depends. In many social situations, I don't give a crap what's in someone's pants, and I truly don't care how someone chooses to dress or comport themselves. I think everyone should be allowed to dress and express themselves however they want within the confines of a polite society (wearing a bathing suit to a business dinner is probably a no-go regardless of how you look in it).
I do, however, think that be-penised people shouldn't be granted access to female-only spaces as a
right. Nor do I think that people who benefit from a male biology should compete against females in sports. Nor do I think that self-identification without a diagnosis should grant people the right to invade the spaces of others or to dictate their spaces.
I also think that the guidelines for treating minors presenting with gender issues needs to be tightened up. Not done away with, not banned - for some children it is the right treatment path. But I do think it needs to be more careful, and that clinicians should have the right to question a child's professed gender identity to ensure that it is legitimate and not a mask for a different problem.