Can I ask which parts you feel most skeptical about? I'm not sure what your standards are for "100% solid science", I might agree with you but I'm not sure.

Thank you for the guidance on how to approach this topic, though I feel a little confused. I thought I clearly stated gender identity comes from a biological place and that gender is not just a social construct, linking to two articles that cover everything I was trying to communicate (esp. the Julia Serano article). I guess if you didn't read the articles and you just try to respond to my sentence it might not go well ... Maybe the idea is that I need to make it more about my own experience or something, since people might feel differently about those statements being made by a trans person, but that feels ... wrong to me somehow. We shouldn't necessarily care who says something as to whether it's a right view, even if who says what might be contextually relevant to interpretation. 🤔

Or maybe your point was that I need to connect the biological basis of gender identity more to the way social constructionism is problematic. (I don't like focusing on validating / invalidating, since I think we can choose to be validating to something we don't think is real or true, and truth might sometimes be invalidating. We probably can't separate the moral concerns entirely from our theorizing, but it's an important point that gender theories don't succeed or fail based on whether they are trans affirming or not, but on whether they accord with reality and are backed by evidence. This goes for Ray Blanchard's theories as much as Judith Butler's.)

Sorry, I feel like I'm missing your point, but I really appreciate the attempt and I think I am getting glimpses of your point. My original comment was admittedly too short and lacking a lot of important context, which I was trying to economically back-fill with the articles I linked to. (Admittedly, I was short on time, and since this was a joke tweet I wasn't taking it too seriously.)

i would also include that i do not believe that invalidating your/others’ experiences as sort of innately biologically transgender people is the intention of those that say gender is a social construct.

Oh of course, to the contrary I think a lot of people assume social constructionism is validating, so many people will tell me "gender is just a social construct" thinking they are signalling they are trans-accepting. It makes me cringe, it's not a small part of why this particular thing upsets me and I bothered even linking to the article in the first place. I can't stand the misinformation, and I also hate how it led to real world suffering, like with David Reimer. This is a view that needs to be revised, even if it is well intended.

opening a post with “gender identity is biological” is just uhh, quite a strong statement to open a comment with (

If someone hears a challenge to social constructionism they might assume I am endorsing biological essentialism, esp. if I'm talking about the biological basis of gender identity, so I get that. Partially I feel that is a problem with the reader, not a me-problem, but demanding people correctly parse and then read articles is probably a high bar and I should expect knee-jerk reactions if I'm not doing more work. Again, a lot of this was because I didn't have enough time and I was under pressure when writing the message.

I think I'll edit the post and try to clarify a bit. 😅

I can feel strongly about this issue, but it's also something I bite my tongue on over and over - it creates this instability where maybe I feel a building need to address it sometimes because I can only handle so much. I know most people are shallow in their understanding of most things and even though that bothers me, I feel like that's a problem with me, I am out of sync with everyone else. Still, when I'm not filtering or being quick I might accidentally slip into lecture mode. 😬

EDIT: oh, and I wanted to say - thank you for being so nice and patient with me, lol - you're a real human and I appreciate that so much ✨ 💞 😊