What does "identifies as" mean

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Bollocks. You’re trying to say that certain relationships don’t deserve the same respect as others.

No, you are actually saying it.

It doesn't seem to me that this thread is about relationships. It's about whether someone can "become" something they demonstrably aren't just by saying the magic words "I identify as". Like black, or an SF fan, or Australian, or a woman, or Napoleon, or the Queen of Sheba.

Opinions seem to differ, and nobody has produced a compelling case for "yes" as the answer to any of these.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by p0lka

'Identifies as' seems to me to equate to 'ooh here's a label, I shall define myself by that label, that will fulfil me'.

Don't be a label, be yourself.

Labels are a useful tool, with practical applications. Like all tools, they can be misused, or over-used. But it's a poor workman who dismisses tools.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

It doesn't seem to me that this thread is about relationships. It's about whether someone can "become" something they demonstrably aren't just by saying the magic words "I identify as". Like black, or an SF fan, or Australian, or a woman, or Napoleon, or the Queen of Sheba.

Opinions seem to differ, and nobody has produced a compelling case for "yes" as the answer to any of these.

That's certainly what you want these discussions to be about. It makes it easy for you to believe you've got the critical-thinking high ground when you conflate identity with mental illness and use words like "magic."

[casebro]

I identify as "an ass hole". My pronoun of choice is "Sir", used in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by Darat

I really would like to see your evidence of this breakthrough research!

It was discussed in a thread here, about a year ago? "Gay gene" might be a key word. The study was that 23&Me gave their genetic data bank with medical/social histories to one of the big English universities- Cambridge Analytical? Probably terrabytes of data to sort through. Millions of gene snps, 50 shades of gray?

[casebro]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

So would I.

My understanding, which is necessarily armchair level, is that there is a region of the brain responsible for sexual response, and that in homosexual people, that region is observably activated by people of the same sex.

There has also been some limited research on people with clearly diagnosed gender identity disorder, showing activation in their brains of the region related to self-perception. It's the same area that is activated with other body dysmorphias like anorexia, body integrity identity disorder, and phantom limb syndrome. The challenge is that this type of study has only been done on small numbers of people who are male, attracted to males, and have persistent and severe gender dysphoria. So it's not extensible to other groups of people who identify as transgender.

and the cause is a subtle genetic combination. Not a choice, just a random Darwinian variation.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by casebro

It was discussed in a thread here, about a year ago? "Gay gene" might be a key word. The study was that 23&Me gave their genetic data bank with medical/social histories to one of the big English universities- Cambridge Analytical? Probably terrabytes of data to sort through. Millions of gene snps, 50 shades of gray?

Nope it wasn't.

Remember what you claimed:

My idea is only a half step forward from the fact that the only scientific physical difference that has been found for gayness is genetics. It's the same gene cluster as other extreme mental conditions. You know, things like OCD, creativity, chronic over achieving, addictions (including to sex),...

Even the first, non highlighted part is in fact very provisional at the moment, there have been some studies that indicate there may be some genetic component in some same sex attraction self identification.

The second part that I highlighted is simply not true in any manner.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Okay, yeah, but taking a sort of skeptical outside view of religion, shouldn't "Christian" just be anyone who sincerely affirms Jesus was (in some sense) Christ?

....snip...

I'm happy to accept "I identify as a Christian" as the only criteria required for someone for me to accept that they are a Christian, but there are many Christians (i.e. people who say they are Christians) who do not accept that self-identification is sufficient.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Darat

I'm happy to accept "I identify as a Christian" as the only criteria required for someone for me to accept that they are a Christian, but there are many Christians (i.e. people who say they are Christians) who do not accept that self-identification is sufficient.

That's absolutely true and it's a good example. I've heard that Catholics don't believe that Protestants are Christians (while the reverse would not apply). There isn't any specific behaviour that one has to perform to be recognised as a Christian by at least one of the Christian denominations. You'll find those that merely stipulate that one has to have "accepted Jesus Christ as your saviour and lord". And I don't see how you verify that.

I suppose the only counter-point might be if someone insisted they were a Christian while being a member in good standing of their local mosque or synagogue, and carrying out all the rituals and behaviour required of Muslims or Jews. Even so, I'm sure someone, somewhere, could make a case...

So while many denominations would reject that self-identification, others wouldn't.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

That's certainly what you want these discussions to be about. It makes it easy for you to believe you've got the critical-thinking high ground when you conflate identity with mental illness and use words like "magic."

I merely state what appears to be the postion. You might not like my choice of language, but on what point am I mistaken? We're talking about "identities" that are acquired merely by claiming them, with no objective verification aside from the simple verbal claim.

If you don't like that being described as "magic words", then explain why not.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

That's absolutely true and it's a good example. I've heard that Catholics don't believe that Protestants are Christians (while the reverse would not apply). There isn't any specific behaviour that one has to perform to be recognised as a Christian by at least one of the Christian denominations. You'll find those that merely stipulate that one has to have "accepted Jesus Christ as your saviour and lord". And I don't see how you verify that.

I suppose the only counter-point might be if someone insisted they were a Christian while being a member in good standing of their local mosque or synagogue, and carrying out all the rituals and behaviour required of Muslims or Jews. Even so, I'm sure someone, somewhere, could make a case...

So while many denominations would reject that self-identification, others wouldn't.

Jeez, it’s a long time since I was an altar boy and solid Catholic, but my recollection is that Protestants were hopelessly misguided for not following “the true church” but I think they were always considered Christian.

[Rolfe]

It probably varies. I haven't actually met a live breathing Catholic who didn't consider me a Christian.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Quote:

Why would there be one outside view?

Because there is only one thing all the aforementioned religious movements have in common.

How did you choose which religious movements you were going to search for commonality in. The whole question turns on what to include and what to exclude. This feels circular.

[Warp12]

What does it mean? Nothing.

Humans are the only members of the animal kingdom to come up with such inane concepts. Thankfully.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Didn't you know, theprestige, if you can't produce an exact case of the hypothetical you used as an illustrative example, absolutely none of what you described has ever happened at all?

Originally Posted by theprestige

Oh, well, I knew that! /s

Oh my, watching you guys claim this stuff totally happens then whine because you're both expected to back that up and unable to back that up is a very convincing argument!

Originally Posted by theprestige

I guess where I'm really struggling right now, though, is to see how wareyin's "argument" (such as it is) answers the question of what "identifies as" means, and whether wareyin believes "identifies as" is a valid basis for imposing obligations on others.

Did you know we can participate in threads without answering a question asked in the OP? But do go on whining about the "obligations" imposed on you. I'm absolutely certain that they are particularly onerus and burdensome and not at all complaining about a tempest in a teacup.

[Thermal]

The previous pope said that protestants were not Christians/sons of God/in the Body of Christ.The missals in my wife's Catholic church right this minute remind non-Catholics not to partake in communion. I believe the articles of faith even specify belief in "one holy Catholic and apostolic church".

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

That's certainly what you want these discussions to be about.

It makes sense that Rolfe would be discussing the thing she wants to discuss, and that the discussion she's participating in would be about something she wants it to be about.

Quote:

It makes it easy for you to believe you've got the critical-thinking high ground when you conflate identity with mental illness and use words like "magic."

Many identities are, in fact, mental illness. Others are completely irrelevant to anyone other than the identifier. You want identities arising from gender dysphoria to be some third thing: neither mental illness nor irrelevant. So that's the case you need to make. That these identities legitimately impose obligations on everyone else.

Identifying as black imposes no obligations on anyone else. Identifying as homosexual imposes no obligations on anyone else. Identifying as progressive imposes no obligations on anyone else.

Identifying as Napoleon imposes no obligations on anyone else, except perhaps an obligation to provide affordable, accessible mental health care and other social support, if the identification causes distress or disruption.

Identifying as handicapped often imposes obligations on someone else, in terms of providing accessibility and other accommodations. But in that case, the identification isn't self-ID. Someone else actually identifies you as such, in order to qualify.

Is that the kind of identity-obligation you have in mind here? We are obligated to provide certain accommodations to people who have been identified as suffering from gender dysphoria? No, that's not it - you've already rejected the mental health framework.

So we're back to a self-ID, like otherkin or progressive, that somehow imposes obligations on everyone else. And so far you have no coherent, rational explanation to fill in that "somehow". But you still want "identifies as" to mean "I'm entitled to things from other people simply by claiming an identity". Why?

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Thermal

The previous pope said that protestants were not Christians/sons of God/in the Body of Christ.The missals in my wife's Catholic church right this minute remind non-Catholics not to partake in communion. I believe the articles of faith even specify belief in "one holy Catholic and apostolic church".

The "protestant" churches also have the words "one holy, catholic and apostolic church" in the creeds they recite. It just means something like inclusive or universal. It doesn't refer to the specific denomination now known as "Catholics". (In Scotland it's sometimes necessary to explain this to people who have a prejudice or bigotry against the "Catholic church".) It means that whatever divisions divide us, still the Church across the world, holy and universal, comprises in all its parts the "body of Christ".

Yes, the bar on non-Catholics taking communion is rather supportive of the position that these people are not Christian. I remember going to the funeral of the husband of a long-standing forum member, in a large Catholic church (on a cold and frosty morning, with my mother exhorting me to "have a big breakfast if you're going to a Catholic funeral, they go on forever"). I would have liked to have taken communion there, and nobody could have stopped me as I didn't have a label on me saying "member of the Church of Scotland here, never been baptised or confirmed in a Catholic church". But I didn't, because I knew the position of the Catholic church and chose to respect it. (I don't think Soapy Sam, sitting beside me on the pew, would have gone up on a bet!)

There was some discussion on the forum about this afterwards, and while some people opined that it was OK for a non-Catholic to take communion, this was specifically disproved by people more familiar with the rules. It's a lot stronger than Jews not eating pork, which is allowed if not doing so would be rude to your host (but you're not supposed to enjoy it actually).

So it does vary. The rule in the Church of Scotland is that you can take communion with us if you have been baptised into any branch of the Christian church whatsoever - and nobody will ask for your baptismal certificate. Baptism is accepted as valid, full stop. While it would seem that the Catholic church does not accept the validity of baptism in other denominations, and would require a former member of a protestant church to be baptised again. So it's probably the strict truth that the Catholic church as a whole doesn't believe that non-Catholics are Christians, but it doesn't normally behave as if that is the case, taking part in ecumenical initiatives with other churches, and fraternal association between ministers, priests, vicars and so on across the board.

One thing that surprised me in an earlier forum discussion was the virtual inability some members found of getting free from an earlier membership of the Catholic church, now repudiated. Apparently they think they have you for life once you're signed up. I'm not sure what practical different it makes, but there were some circumstances that prompted some forum members to go to some effort to get deregistered.

So as far as self-identification goes, maybe a Catholic would only accept evidence that someone had been confirmed in a Catholic church before recognising them as a Christian. In my own church any statement such as "I have accepted Jesus Christ as my Saviour and Lord" would be taken at face value, although if it did turn out that you had never been baptised, ever, even as a baby, some strange looks might result.

It's not really off-topic, because I think this is a good example where self-ID nearly does it. But even there, never been baptised? Er, what?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It makes sense that Rolfe would be discussing the thing she wants to discuss, and that the discussion she's participating in would be about something she wants it to be about.


Many identities are, in fact, mental illness. Others are completely irrelevant to anyone other than the identifier. You want identities arising from gender dysphoria to be some third thing: neither mental illness nor irrelevant.

Whoa, there, "some third thing"? Some third thing, like the actual vast majority of identities, rather than the rare and new thing you're pretending?

Originally Posted by theprestige

So that's the case you need to make. That these identities legitimately impose obligations on everyone else.

Identifying as black imposes no obligations on anyone else. Identifying as homosexual imposes no obligations on anyone else. Identifying as progressive imposes no obligations on anyone else.

Identifying as Napoleon imposes no obligations on anyone else, except perhaps an obligation to provide affordable, accessible mental health care and other social support, if the identification causes distress or disruption.

Identifying as handicapped often imposes obligations on someone else, in terms of providing accessibility and other accommodations. But in that case, the identification isn't self-ID. Someone else actually identifies you as such, in order to qualify.

Is that the kind of identity-obligation you have in mind here? We are obligated to provide certain accommodations to people who have been identified as suffering from gender dysphoria? No, that's not it - you've already rejected the mental health framework.

So we're back to a self-ID, like otherkin or progressive, that somehow imposes obligations on everyone else. And so far you have no coherent, rational explanation to fill in that "somehow". But you still want "identifies as" to mean "I'm entitled to things from other people simply by claiming an identity". Why?

Edited by sarge:

removed uncivil content

But...you've been unable to come up with an example of these "obligations" you keep whining about that differs in some way from the "obligations" you have in dealing with everybody else. If your "imposed obligation" is "don't be a dick", then that's not really an obligation, is it?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by lionking

Jeez, it’s a long time since I was an altar boy and solid Catholic, but my recollection is that Protestants were hopelessly misguided for not following “the true church” but I think they were always considered Christian.

As anything is with the RCC it's complicated and even though Vatican 2 made some steps that sounded hopeful - and apparently the bases for the running joke "That would be an ecumenical matter" in Father Ted, when you cut through all the jargon if you ain't baptised in the RCC* you ain't been baptised. (*And yes there is even a wrinkle in that in the RCC accepts folks baptised in the two Orthodox CC - but they tend not to accept those baptised in the RCC!)

I think this is a good example for this thread as it shows no matter how straightforward it can seem to accept that a self-identification: "I'm a christian/I identify as a christian" is all well and fine it may not pass muster for many people.

Another example that I think explains why this can be a rather tricky issue is from the other direction. A man who has sex with men (even ignoring the likes of prison) - most people would say that would make them a homosexual or bisexual man, but they may not identify as gay/homosexual or bisexual. This turned out to be very important during the start of the AIDS pandemic/epidemic as messages aimed at homosexual and bisexual men weren't getting through to these men who have sex with men because they didn't self-identify with homosexual and bisexual men.


I think there is another wrinkle as some of the "I identify as..." is a result of language changing - from saying "I am a ..." often people will now use "I identify as....".

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Darat

(*And yes there is even a wrinkle in that in the RCC accepts folks baptised in the two Orthodox CC - but they tend not to accept those baptised in the RCC!)

I was going to ask about that, thanks for the information.

I guess I have always accepted anyone within any church, including Catholic and Orthodox, as a Christian. Maybe they're only being polite when I get the impression they accept me likewise. Who knows?

But even there, when I dig right down, if I found that someone who claimed they were a Christian but had not been baptised at all, I'd need a really, really convincing reason why not, and right now I can't think of one.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Darat

I think there is another wrinkle as some of the "I identify as..." is a result of language changing - from saying "I am a ..." often people will now use "I identify as....".

How does this answer the question, "what does 'identifies as' mean?"

Does "identifies as" mean "is"?

Does it mean "is" where the identity in question is a purely subjective self-perception, but perhaps something else where the identity in question is an observable fact, or unavoidably depends on how others perceive you?

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Darat

Another example that I think explains why this can be a rather tricky issue is from the other direction. A man who has sex with men (even ignoring the likes of prison) - most people would say that would make them a homosexual or bisexual man, but they may not identify as gay/homosexual or bisexual. This turned out to be very important during the start of the AIDS pandemic/epidemic as messages aimed at homosexual and bisexual men weren't getting through to these men who have sex with men because they didn't self-identify with homosexual and bisexual men.

Ah, that would be why the NHS tends to talk about "men who have sex with men", and it makes sense. If someone sees the "gay scene" as the defining criterion for being homosexual, and they don't participate in that at all, then they could well think messaging aimed at "homosexual men" didn't apply to them.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Ah, that would be why the NHS tends to talk about "men who have sex with men", and it makes sense. If someone sees the "gay scene" as the defining criterion for being homosexual, and they don't participate in that at all, then they could well think messaging aimed at "homosexual men" didn't apply to them.

This is the general collapse of our minds. If we say that monkey pox is mainly impacting gay men, who is going to think that the virus is selecting based on self identification? We end up bowdlerising our speech to say something that everybody would have understood already. How many people can there possibly be who would go to a gay orgy, but think they couldn't get monkey pox because they "aren't gay".

What is the language going to turn into if we have to change our terminology so as not to risk confusing somebody with an IQ of 70?

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

This is the general collapse of our minds. If we say that monkey pox is mainly impacting gay men, who is going to think that the virus is selecting based on self identification? We end up bowdlerising our speech to say something that everybody would have understood already. How many people can there possibly be who would go to a gay orgy, but think they couldn't get monkey pox because they "aren't gay".

What is the language going to turn into if we have to change our terminology so as not to risk confusing somebody with an IQ of 70?

We could have stopped the monkeypox pandemic in its tracks simply by closing gay clubs, bathhouses, saunas and so on for a few weeks right at the beginning. But anyone who suggested that was vilified as a homophobe and it didn't happen. It's not just about identification, it's about ridiculous "offence" being taken over prudent public health moves.

I did see what seemed to be a very funny tweet from someone apologising for apparently having caused the entire monkeypox pandemic personally, by leaving off one letter and referring to "men who have sex with me". Unfortunately the fun was spoiled by the revelation that he'd done it on purpose to get likes and follows.

It does show the importance of clear language in health messaging though. Which the people changing all women's health information sources to remove the word "women" would do well to consider.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

What is the language going to turn into if we have to change our terminology so as not to risk confusing somebody with an IQ of 70?

It's going to turn into the same language it has always been. We already have to do that. We, as a species that communicates and has less than average intelligence members, have always had to choose our terminology so as not to risk confusing people.

Conservatives whine often enough that they're ignored by the "elite", yet now you want to complain that we shouldn't have to speak in ways that they understand?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

We could have stopped the monkeypox pandemic in its tracks simply by closing gay clubs, bathhouses, saunas and so on for a few weeks right at the beginning. But anyone who suggested that was vilified as a homophobe and it didn't happen. It's not just about identification, it's about ridiculous "offence" being taken over prudent public health moves.

This feels like a wider discussion. Remember when we were simultaneously being told to isolate over covid and that BLM protests actually reduced the spread of covid?

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

This feels like a wider discussion. Remember when we were simultaneously being told to isolate over covid and that BLM protests actually reduced the spread of covid?

Right enough, we should probably stop and not let it turn into a derail.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

This feels like a wider discussion. Remember when we were simultaneously being told to isolate over covid and that BLM protests actually reduced the spread of covid?

Rolfe isn't American, so BLM protests probably weren't on her radar the way they were for you.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Rolfe isn't American, so BLM protests probably weren't on her radar the way they were for you.

I'm not American. There were BLM protests in Scotland as well.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Darat

I'm happy to accept "I identify as a Christian" as the only criteria required for someone for me to accept that they are a Christian...

I wouldn't go quite that far.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote the following, in a letter to Benjamin Rush:

Quote:

I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, & believing he never claimed any other.

I think it's fine that he self self-identify as Christian, but he still doesn't fit within my usual meaning and usage of the term since that requires at least some affirmation of Christhood. (Most Xns go even further, of course, beyond Messiahship into the realm of godhood.)

[casebro]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Look, we get it, you really want to hate on trans people, either to claim they're mentally ill or to go out of your way to be rude and abusive to them in other ways. But...you've been unable to come up with an example of these "obligations" you keep whining about that differs in some way from the "obligations" you have in dealing with everybody else. .....

Didn't Canada pass a law requiring others to use the self identified person choice of pronoun? It makes you a criminal if you call somebody by a pronoun that you've chosen by their appearance.

In person, I could use your given name, or 'you'. I guess it is only in written communications that somebody can get their panties in a twist.

eta: Oh wait. 45 years ago I greeted an irate customer with what I thought was a respectful, "Yes Sir?" I didn't notice that "Don" was becoming "Dawn". Is "Good morning whatchamacallit?" currently OK? How am I expected to say whatchamacallit in gender speak? Whatchamacallit is almost the right word, literally.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Thomas Jefferson once wrote the following, in a letter to Benjamin Rush: I think it's fine that he self self-identify as Christian, but he still doesn't fit within my usual meaning and usage of the term since that requires at least some affirmation of Christhood. (Most Xns go even further, of course, beyond Messiahship into the realm of godhood.)

That's an interesting one, because it doesn't seem to require baptism and does indeed rely on self-identification. I imagine there are some Christians who would accept it.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I'm not American. There were BLM protests in Scotland as well.

And the Scottish equivalent of the CDC was telling you that protests reduced the spread of covid? I'm sorry, but that's unlikely enough that I think it's more an example of people using terminology that confused you rather than an example of claiming protests against police killing a black man reduced the spread of covid.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Mojo

The expression “the love that dare not speak its name” is fortunately obsolete in civilised countries.

Your comment is entirely irrelevant to this thread, as well as irrelevant to my post, and additionally irrelevant to theprestige's post.

Again, I strongly suggest that you set aside the assumptions you've made, because your inference is completely wrong.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by casebro

Didn't Canada pass a law requiring others to use the self identified person choice of pronoun? It makes you a criminal if you call somebody by a pronoun that you've chosen by their appearance.

I don't know, did Canada pass such a law? Has anyone been charged with using the wrong pronoun?

Originally Posted by casebro

In person, I could use your given name, or 'you'. I guess it is only in written communications that somebody can get their panties in a twist.

You've never been in a conversation in a group of people before?
'Yeah, Tony, me and Bob here went out to beat up trans people last night, and lemme tell ya, he really walloped on them! Didn't ya, Bob?'

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

That's certainly what you want these discussions to be about. It makes it easy for you to believe you've got the critical-thinking high ground when you conflate identity with mental illness and use words like "magic."

Nobody is conflating identity as a whole with mental illness or magic. That said... there is a question of whether a person's self-declared identity, when in direct contradiction to material reality, should be considered to override and supplant material reality.

So, regardless of whether you think it's mental illness or not... If I were to self-declare my personal identity as a fuchsia cat with telepathic powers... Does my self-declared identity require you to accept that I am in reality a fuchsia cat with telepathic powers?

How much obligation on others does one's personal identity impose?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Nobody is conflating identity as a whole with mental illness or magic. That said... there is a question of whether a person's self-declared identity, when in direct contradiction to material reality, should be considered to override and supplant material reality.

So, regardless of whether you think it's mental illness or not... If I were to self-declare my personal identity as a fuchsia cat with telepathic powers... Does my self-declared identity require you to accept that I am in reality a fuchsia cat with telepathic powers?

How much obligation on others does one's personal identity impose?

Well, since there's no such thing as a fuchsia cat with telepathic powers, I think you're trying to say that claiming to be a woman is similarly claiming to be something that doesn't exist. But, since women do in fact exist, I think your example may not be the best for what you're trying to say.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Darat

I'm happy to accept "I identify as a Christian" as the only criteria required for someone for me to accept that they are a Christian, but there are many Christians (i.e. people who say they are Christians) who do not accept that self-identification is sufficient.

Sure, provided that self-identification doesn't impose an obligation on me.

If the person down the road self-identifies as a muslim, even though I know they go to the local pentacostal church every weekend and lead the live nativity scene every winter... I don't really care. How they identify is irrelevant to me.

On the other hand, if they self-identify as muslim, and as a result of that self-identification demand that I end every sentence with "praise be to allah" and only serve halal food at any neighborhood gathering... well, that's something else altogether.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Oh my, watching you guys claim this stuff totally happens then whine because you're both expected to back that up and unable to back that up is a very convincing argument!

Are you serious or are you taking the piss with this?

YOU are the one who claimed it does not happen, YOU are the one who asserted that the hypothetical was not possible. Then when given MULTIPLE examples of bearded males claiming to be women... YOU are the one who tap-danced away with some semantic No True Scotsman claim that somehow those don't qualify because... unspecified reasons.

This is pretty basic critical thinking.

You: X does not happen
Me: Here are multiple examples of X happening
You: Well, that doesn't count, you cherry picked and besides those are actually X and I don't accept them...