What isn't scientific (as is, no longer valid in scientific consensus[0]) is the premise that gender and biological sex are synonymous, and that, as your comment implies, transgender or nonbinary identity is a denial of science.
Just in case you're going to jump on to the title of the third article i posted below, note that it says gender is not just a social construct, rather than that it isn't such at all. I'll quote an excerpt from that article:
Evidence that gender has some basis in biology, though, in no way implies a strict gender binary, nor negates the existence of transgender and non-binary identities. Many biology-based gender differences originate from the hormonal environment within the womb, which is very different on average for boys compared to girls. But there’s a huge variation in these environments, says Alice Eagly, psychology professor at Northwestern University. “Within boys there will be a range and within girls there will be a range. To say it’s biological doesn’t mean it’s perfectly binary,” she says.
[1]https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/what-do-we-mean-by-se...
[2]https://qz.com/1190996/scientific-research-shows-gender-is-n...
> In the 15th century gender expanded from its use as a term for a grammatical subclass to join sex in referring to either of the two primary biological forms of a species, a meaning sex has had since the 14th century
But while some language changes rise from the people, others (like this one) are dictated by powerful institutions.
Orwell described it well about 100 years ago. Change the meaning of words to make disagreement impossible. Newspeak "designed to diminish the range of thought".
Transgender identity and acknowledgement of the fluid, multidimensional nature of gender IS NOT a conspiracy to take your precious bodily fluids. Don't believe me? Go to San Francisco and try meeting some of the "co-conspirators" -- transgender men and women on the skids, having to turn to professions like sex work, because they ran from their conservative families fearing for their FUCKING LIVES. Living on the edges of society and the law, having to develop their own biopunk parallel medical support because legitimate medicine won't treat them in the way that they need, all to survive in a society that simply wishes they didn't exist because them existing violates a false foundational premise of society: that gender is binary and corresponds to physical sex.
But I've said too much. eyeroll is all the response you deserve.
The people you're describing are the victims of an ideology that falsely told them they could ignore biology and thereby ruined a lot of lives.[1]
Obviously their families were also wrong to abandon them, and like everyone else on the streets, they deserve help to put their lives back together, but if they are still living on the streets they obviously aren't getting that help from the people who claim to represent them but are actually using them as political props instead of helping them find homes and professions they like.
1: I encourage you to read this other discussion that was on HN today:
yes, there's a lot of horrid crap on this topic on HN lately. It's been politicised already, no need to push this agenda further. Your encouragement is not needed, that nonsense is quite visible. eyeroll.
If you won't even listen to her, dismissing her experience as "horrid crap", then perhaps you're "stuck in an ideological local maximum". Is there anyone you would listen to?
"What’s happening to children is morally and medically appalling."
You probably think you're supporting a good cause, but you're not.
project much?
"horrid crap" was my term, you don't get to tell me what I mean.
It's transparently a drummed-up wedge issue, designed to demonise a vulnerable minority for political gain and distraction, and as such is utterly without merit and not worthy of more of my attention. And if allowed to continue, it won't end with that group.
You don't strike me as an instigator of this nonsense though. No, you seem more like you're carrying water for them, what Lenin called a "Useful idiot".
tl;dr: Eyeroll
I agree it's a "drummed-up wedge issue", that's essentially what I've been saying all along, but you know who really drummed it up.
The same people who are encouraging vulnerable youth to have dangerous medical treatments.
This is a flat denial of reality over the last few years.
The point is, only one of the two sides in this debate are denying current (not 14th century) science, and it isn't the side you or yucky seem to believe.
But trying to dictate that people only use a word in a new way and never use its traditional definition is not science, it's (Orwellian) politics.
And pretending that biology doesn't matter is denying the very science you quoted.
Finally, the major questions about trans rights aren't about science at all, they are about values and why institutions exist.
Do we separate boys and girls in sports because of gender roles (sociocultural), or to give girls an opportunity to play sports without competing against people made stronger by high testosterone (biology)?
Do we separate men's and women's prisons because of gender roles (sociocultural), or to prevent sex and pregnancy (biology)?
Etc.
Allowing biological females to participate in separate sports without biological males, for example. Where do you stand on that? Don't you agree that biology (like testosterone level) matters sometimes?
Or in dating, do you think people have the right to want to know the biological sex of someone they date?
I acknowledge the lived experience of trans people but I don't think their desires outweigh the interests of all other people.
And of course, balancing those competing interests is absolutely political. It's just dishonest to claim this isn't political.
Note that this link presents incomplete information as it seems to imply there is only one axis to the gender spectrum.
As to gender, well then it sounds like you're just describing another word for personality. So what exactly is the difference?