No! I am not a relativist. Observed behavior is what it is, and a scientific mindset means creating the best possible models for it. Some models are objectively better than others.
(At a meta level, I also believe that the naturalistic/scientific way of looking at the world is objectively better than other ways. At an even more meta level, I believe what I believe because, modulo uncertainty, it is the objectively best set of beliefs; if I believed otherwise, I'd change my beliefs in that direction.)
> Most conservatives, however, simply reject these formulations as a mixture of false, societally destructive, and causing far more harm than good.
Exactly. Conservatives believe their simplistic map is the territory.
> Before the 20th century gender was not used to meaning anything beyond male/female.
Not the terms maybe. But there is existence beyond signs and signifiers, which is exactly what Baudrillard and others have said.
> It was John Money and colleagues who likely lead the way with its redefinition, and, as we all know, Money proved to be a twisted, despicable human being. His seminal research was also proven profoundly and completely false, making him an extremely poor scientist as well.
I care about reality, not some scientist being a fuckup. There are plenty of scientists who describe reality better than conservatives do and also have unimpeachable integrity.
> Conservatives argue that the best definition for gender is a synonym for biological sex, which for humans has two functional possibilities. I have yet to see an iota of real proof that something else is better.
Well, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. You have the simplistic belief that your binary/immutable map of an observably complex territory is the territory.
Reality is quite complex, so more complex models are in general going to describe reality better. That alone should make people be suspicious of simpler models when more complex models have greater explanatory power. (Occam's razor only applies when multiple explanations describe the world with equal predictive power. As a first cut, a maxim of going against Occam's razor will generally lead to better results.)