3. "If Dawkins was asking about intersex conditions, or asking whether the outward appearance of somebody's body was always an accurate predictor of their sex, there might be some interesting nuance to dig into there."

This assumes that intersex, transgender, etc. are completely unrelated and can't be related. Again, my very first comment was an example, but there's an abundance of evidence that the experience of gender-sex incongruity has a biological basis.

Genetic basis: sciencedaily.com/releas…

Genetic basis: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar…

A notable quote: "In this review, we have focused on brain sex differences because of the role that they play in people's health and behavior. Historically, it was believed that such differences were solely due to gonadal hormone secretions. Yet, emerging research is also implicating direct genetic effects."

Brain basis: consultqd.clevelandclin…

Brain basis: newsweek.com/transgende…

It's a holistic system. Monism for the win.

"But he's asking about people who are *unambiguously male or female* who claim they're literally the opposite."

This is why I'm not really bothered by the tweet and said that at the outset. I just said he should know better. By reducing it to just identification and nothing more pretends that all of ^ evidence (and much more) doesn't exist.

I get it, man, it's just a tweet. It's character limited. But it's also like reducing (for lack of a better analogy) bipolar people to "choosing" to be moody.

To answer his question, he'd be vilified because there's no, zero, nada evidence of a genetic or brain structure basis for a desire to be transracial. There never will be because race isn't a real, measurable category (as I said at the outset) and THAT is the purely mental construct with no biological basis. The two aren't analogous which is the problem with the tweet.