That narrative seems to be contradicted by the AAP’s actual stance, which I took the liberty to double check:
Children who are persistently uncomfortable with their gender who display strong and consistent cross-gender behaviors may be experiencing a gender identity disorder (GID). According to the study, “Characteristics of…
There is nothing about the example you provided that requires conceptualizing you as a man, specifically. It’s in reference to your anatomy and what that will mean later in your life — it does not necessarily have to imply that you are a man, it can simply be an observation in and of itself requiring no further conclusions.
I agree with parts of your analysis, but I think this is off the mark. Even in the context of medicine researchers are acknowledging the limitations of insistently cross-classifying, as you conclude here. The motivation for doing so is seldom a matter of curiosity and almost always a premise involving the segregation or subjugation of trans folk.
No, because cis people will sort us in their minds accordingly with or without our input.
There is no objective meaning of the term “woman.” To you, specifically, it implies anatomy. But then, you call many people women whose anatomy does not meet the textbook description of “female.”
“Cis” is not an acronym, it’s a prefix. Stop capitalizing it like this, it makes no sense.
In the scenario you provide the impetus is on her to state that she has a dealbreaker. She could only fairly claim to be injured if a trans man lied after she asked him straightforwardly if he could reproduce with her.
That doesn’t make any sense. If you acknowledge there is a “spectrum of attachment” then one end of the spectrum is “utter alienation.” Surely many cis women could relate to that.