>You can't say what the gender woman is; how can GP just accept your made up term?

>You just became even more tautological with this answer to my question which was "what is the difference between a man and a woman?"

>>We have a good approximate idea of male and female gender in our society.

>Which is... ?

Such a simple question yet still no answer. At least now you're done deflecting with hypotheticals and admit by your silence that you simply cannot answer it.

>So you recognize it is conceivable for someone in a female body to desire to be a man. Great

Actualy you are conflating sex and gender here (again). I said I would like to go back to being male, not back to being a man. And this like I said is only somewhat certain in the begining; afterwords how could I know? And my claim is that I would go back because my raised gender (as maintained in the memories) is stonger than sex hormones (again, only certain in the first moments of the event). My response relies on the fact that _raised gender cannot be easily be changed_. If that is true then it reflects even worse on people who claim that their "true" gender is different from how they were raised. A moticum of serious thought could have told you this, but you are clearly being willfuly ignorant by this point, evading my question for the fourth time using hypotheticals you clearly can't understand yourself.

>For YOU, you think only your memories would drive this and you can’t fathom people coming to such a conclusion otherwise.

Yes, and this is because that is the logical outcome follwing the reasoning that brought me to that conclusion in the first place.

>You assert that hormones might lead you to accept being a woman.

As well as literaly being a woman, yes, and that is only in the case that it already happened, not before those two things happen. And even then like I said I would probably be misserable at best so "accept" means "to endure without protest or reaction"[0] in this case, not "to make a favorable response to" or "to give admittance or approval to" but I can see plainly that your are trying to twist words here.

>Well some people have naturally different levels hormones.

I beleive Estrogen-like endocrine disrupting chemicals, for example as found in plastics[1], have some effect on estogen levels in men. However given the unfathomably high suicide attempted rate of transgenders, I beleive that the solution to this problem is not more estrogen but less of it (for example not using plastics clothes, cups ect). It is also important to note that I beleive that the high rate of transgenderism can only be fully explained by societies applause and celebration of it. EEDCs only alllow more people to fall into this trap, more or less. And I will explain why bellow.

>So by your reasoning it stands that some people may have naturally varying identification with their gender.

Not exactly. Gender as I am explaining it is something taught and learned (for example, wearing a dress has no biological meaning, and men used to wear dresses). Feminimity, which makes up most of what causes the development of gender in the first case, on the other hand in fact is caused in part by hormones. But that does not mean that it is reasonable for what I have explained to be gender to change. For example, tomboys, who do not display the hormonal effects given by mean sex differences to the sams extent, still identify as girls. And you are overstating the extent to which people's hormones deviate from their expected levels for their sex if you think that incites a gender change. No more proof is needed than the fact that males take estrogen to transition; if their estrogen levels were already high enough that they were already women, they would not need more. And inversely they would not need testosterone blockers. Taking your statement at face value, however, that "people may have naturally varying identification with their gender," I have never disagreed. In fact part of my claim that gender, in any form but especially as an "identity" doesn't exist is that gender is useless is in part because of this reason, and note that sex covers 99% of the cases of what we would describe as gender without being an identity. And I don't beleive that a person of a given sex ever naturaly crosses from one gender to another (or perhaps in 0.00001% of cases or similar). And that is because hormone levels are never so out of whack, and the strength factor is still relevant, and raised gender (as I explain it, and for lack of a better word) reinforces sex deifferences.

>I think most of your thinking here is dumb and willfully ignorant of the explanations of people who feel they are not the correct gender despite being in a body of that sex.

They have other mental issues that make them think that (for example autism) coupled with proding fron other transexuals online.

>But sure, glad we can agree that this concept is fathomable.

We don't agree, in part because of what I have already written above, and in part because you barely have anything to say in a concreate way to begin with.

[0]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accept

[1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31792807/