It is a crap argument because it is imagining stuff instead of talking about actual transgender people. This type of person has always existed, and people are still struggling to come to grips with it, and addicted to labels. They are ignoring the human factors involved and nestling up with grammar as if it were some type of blankie.
I disagree with the sentiment of your post.
Yes, people with gender dysphoria have always existed. But for the most part, nobody has trouble coming to grips with people who have extreme dysphoria.
Umm... bullshit!
It doesn't bother Emily Lake =/ no one is bothered by it. We only decriminalized gay sex two decades ago!
They've been around for pretty much all of recorded history. They've mostly been males who strongly and persistently identify as female, and there is likely a gestational trigger or a genetic component to that occurrence.
And they have, in the majority of human history, been accommodated and incorporated into society.
Really, because changing a pronoun here or there is making a number of people freak the heck out.
What people are not on-board with is...
Umm, you are speaking for A LOT of people here.
extending the entire concept to include self-declaration with no history and no reasonable definition of "transgender", whereby it can apply to anyone for any reason whatsoever. What people are not on-board with is extending it to include people who identify as non-human, or as no-sex, or as fictional animal characters, or as mythical beings... and who wish to be accommodated as such. What people often object to is the demand that everyone else pretend that this internal view of themselves is more important than, and should replace the reality of, sex... and should grant immediate and unquestioned access to sex-exclusive space or to services where sex is material and relevant.
You are stuffing so many words into people's mouths here, one would swear it was Thanksgiving Dinner.
For someone one who makes a lot of references to rape, she DOES have a way of stuffing things into folks' mouths.
You know, my husband has food trauma, because his mother would force feed him when he would not eat what he was given. It has led to certain health problems, even.
Really, humanity only really offers (T or E)*(0...1...inf.) for puberty purposes, and for hormonal state.
Various people function at varying levels of happiness and capability at varying positions on that scale, usually in the 0-1 range, where 1 is exposure of someone at one or the other of the highest two distinct peaks in the distribution.
What determines where someone best functions is the shape of their brains.
Beyond this there is a highly comorbid distribution within a variety of behaviors and presentations and modes of communication that splits in similarly binary ways.
In any given situation people generally, on account of our herd instincts, seek to resonate more strongly with one than the other. And on account of who we are, something happens to make us want one more than the other of any given offering of behavior, or perhaps some other less common thing off the binary entirely.
I forgot I was not in this world but Wonderland. In this world, people have gender and sex. Babies have gender identities even if they are not aware of them.
I think this marks the exit ramp of discussion. I don't subscribe to your religion but I wish you all the best.
It's science, but I think you hit an exit off that a few mile markers back. Or possibly a few state lines ago.
Have you evolved your model at all since the stonewall era?