LordReed:


Actually you've shown how you define gender which means you are already diverging and creating your own paradigm, similar to how you are accusing others of doing.



They do, a pupil is any human child in primary school, a cook is any adult human who prepares meals, none of these roles are defined by their sex.



Yes indeed but are you the arbiter of what social convention is or we all collectively deciding where we should go?



Indeed you shouldn't care what someone calls themselves and I doubt anybody is interested in forcing you into a position where you have to pass delusion as truth.

How i define gender? Lol this is the part i stop talking.

Adult - Human - Male

johnydon22:


How i define gender? Lol this is the part i stop talking.

Adult - Human - Male

It is like you didn't read what budaatum posted. Here it is again:

The distinction between sex and gender differentiates a person's biological sex (the anatomy of an individual's reproductive system, and secondary sex characteristics) from that person's gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity).[1][2] In this model, the idea of a "biological gender" is an oxymoron: the biological aspects are not gender-related, and the gender-related aspects are not biological. In some circumstances, an individual's assigned sex and gender do not align, and the person may be transgender.[1] In other cases, an individual may have biological sex characteristics that complicate sex assignment, and the person may be intersex.

The sex and gender distinction is not universal. In ordinary speech, sex and gender are often used interchangeably.[3][4] Some dictionaries and academic disciplines give them different definitions while others do not. Some languages, such as German or Finnish, have no separate words for sex and gender, and the distinction has to be made through context. On occasion, using the English word gender is appropriate.[5][6]

How are the bolded parts the same as your definition of gender?

johnydon22:


There isn't anyone who is reasonable that cannot really see how science can be a huge mass control tool.

You seem to miss the point. The natural philosophy era, when things were how humans whimmed, was the precursor to the natural science era when human whims were displaced for the "description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation." That's not to say we eliminated human whims completely however. Compel us with evidence for your case and we will eventually have to submit our whim. Make sure you are compelling though. No wishy washy! Amaze me.

Of course science is huge mass control! If the masses are not controlled with the science of "description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation", the masses will be controlled by the pastor or the imam or the church or the mosque or the money or the shop or any stupid whim they make up in their heads called gods. I doubt you'd rather that!

johnydon22:
Science is the greatest form of philosophy known to man today, a wonderful tool fueling the advancement of humanity.

I think that yes, science can in fact be controlled by worldview and even an authority, at least conventional science.

Few hundred years ago, religion was the highlight of humanity's trust, almosy all trusted it and thus it became the greatest tool for control.

Today, science enjoys the same amount of trust and therefore can be used as a great tool for mass control or delusion.

I was writing a paper on Transgenderism for someone somtime last year, one of my sources a doctor wrote a journal on how WHO is blacklisting doctors who refuse to accept that human sex is interchangeable or that transgendersm isn't delusion, a deviation from objective biological reality.

Is that science? Censoring ideas due to their polical implications?

See?

Science is funded and run by people and people are many times can be moved by agendas especially types of science that can have economic or political implications.

There is nobody more in control than the person who runs an enterprise that enjoys mass trust.

@bold
Lol. Seems the WHO has liberals/leftists/SJWs as authority. Liberalism infects and destroys anything it touches and science is no exception.

@boldslant
Even the mainstream stream media in America and Europe are biased. They are supposed to be neutral but they go out of their way manufacture propaganda, smear certain individuals etc. It boils down to who is in charge. I remember that Google sacked one of its employees for writing a scientific based study on gender.

johnydon22:



Yes. I'd still think is

I'd simply agree that sex can be changed.

Just like if science gets to the point, you can be changed into a dog.

I'd agree that you can be changed into a dog but maintain that the initial part where you as a human believe you arw a dog is delusion

So what then makes the sex of a person? If you agree that sex is set at the chromosomal level, then it's no longer a delusion if someonce can change that, right?

However, I'm getting the impression that you feel sex is set at both the chromosomal level and the mental/conscious level too. However, consciousness is sexless and genderless. It can be anything at any time. It's our consciousness that chooses how we percieve ourselves at any time and if our conscious self decides it's a horse, and the subconscious agrees with it, then for all intents and purposes, the person is mentally a horse, no matter what anatomy, physiology and morphology say.

So it still boils down to chromosomes and if that can be tweaked, I don't believe there's delusion.

It's like saying because someone has undergone a kidney transplant, the person is kidney-less because the kidney that's now there is not the one the person came with. Is it the person's original kidney? No. Does the person have a kidney? Of course!

johnydon22:


There isn't anyone who is reasonable that cannot really see how science can be a huge mass control tool.

It's sad that many people miss the point of science that as long as something comes with "Science said" it becomes true.

Any form of idea that has political or economic implications and is under the control of an authority can be used to further the agenda of this authority when they decide to.

I am a leading voice in science in the world, I invented another type of fabric and i want to sell them, i can simply tell the people that research shows their conventional clothes is harmful to their health. They'd believe it because? Science!

I hope you understand that prophets will always jump between humans and what some call 'God'. Yet, here you are lamenting.

Me? The hunter has learnt to shoot without missing so buda flies without perching. It's after all not as if I could force them to curtail their preaching of their scientific gospel. Besides, its a clear improvement on the past.

I get it. You might not see the evocre argument the way I do - one part asking to return to the past while the other is saying onward Christian soldiers. Do tell, which, in your opinion, is saying, evolve?

Beeb ran a play this avo about gender changing, if anyone can get hold of it, its eye opening. My own heart goes out to the likes of Semenya. As to gender. Welcome to the new world where we are whatever we say we are.

Did I hear you say "house of cards"?

paraltero:


So what then makes the sex of a person? If you agree that sex is set at the chromosomal level, then it's no longer a delusion if someonce can change that, right?

Delusion is believing you are this when you are not.

However, I'm getting the impression that you feel sex is set at both the chromosomal level and the mental/conscious level too.

Uuuhm, No. Identity is mental.

And identity can either be factually wrong or right.

However, consciousness is sexless and genderless. It can be anything at any time. It's our consciousness that chooses how we percieve ourselves at any time and if our conscious self decides it's a horse, and the subconscious agrees with it, then for all intents and purposes, the person is mentally a horse, no matter what anatomy, physiology and morphology say.

Exactly and when your mental perception of yourself is factually incorrect, it's delusion and mental problem at worse.

If your mentally see yourself as a horse, it doesn't make you a horse but it affirms something is mentally off with you.

So it still boils down to chromosomes and if that can be tweaked, I don't believe there's delusion.

Human sex is biological
Identity is mental.

Identity can either be factually correct or not - A human who knows he's human is factually correct.

A human who believes he is a dog is factually incorrect.

When identity isn't factually correct, it's delusion at best and mental problem at worse.

It's like saying because someone has undergone a kidney transplant, the person is kidney-less because the kidney that's now there is not the one the person came with. Is it the person's original kidney? No. Does the person have a kidney? Of course!

Imagine the false equivalence. Lol.

johnydon22:
Delusion is believing you are this when you are not.

Uuuhm, No. Identity is mental.

And identity can either be factually wrong or right.

Exactly and when your mental perception of yourself is factually incorrect, it's delusion and mental problem at worse.

If your mentally see yourself as a horse, it doesn't make you a horse but it affirms something is mentally off with you.



Human sex is biological
Identity is mental.

Identity can either be factually correct or not - A human who knows he's human is factually correct.

A human who believes he is a dog is factually incorrect.

When identity isn't factually correct, it's delusion at best and mental problem at worse.

Imagine the false equivalence. Lol.

But when it comes to identity, there is no fact! Identity's uniqueness is that it is whatever it is. There is no default, no template, no standard. All identities differ, no matter how slight the differences might be. So if there is no standard for is, how can you tell something isn't? So if a human believes he is a dog, then by all intents and purposes, he is a dog mentally.

Your position is the exact same on people use to attack gay people, talking about "oh, most humans are straight so being straight is the standard and homosexuality isn't natural so you guys are wrong and abnormal". This even after homosexuality has been shown to exist in nearly every species. That something isn't usual doesn't make it unnatural, but that's a digression.

If it's taken that identity is unque and there's no true state for identity, it means all your position falls back to biology. Now I asked if your position is still tenable if human biology itself can be changed.

paraltero:


But when it comes to identity, there is no fact!

Jesus! To be honest, statements as this makes me want to hit my head on the wall, it shows the person I'm discussing with either have not given what he is saying a great deal of thought or he downright don't understand it enough to discuss it.

Let me try one more time to break this to the utmost elementary level.

Identity in fact is and can be factual.

There are two types of identity.

1. Non-arbitrary identity
2. Arbitrary identity

1. Non-arbitrary identities are the type of identities that have inherent qualities grounded in physical reality. E.g; Mammal, lion, cat, human, vertebrae, male, female, Caucasian etc.

You don't decide this for yourself, you simply find it out because this identifies are inherent physical reality.

You are not human because you said you are, you are human because you are a homo sapien - A definite state of being.

You cannot be a lion because you simply aren't a lion, you cannot be a horse, you cannot be a snake - This type of identity isn't interchangeable since it isn't personal in the first place, you simply fall into a distinct physical characterization.

This is factual.

2. Non-arbitrary identity - Types of identity not grounded in objective inherent physical definition or characterization.

Name
Country
Title
Etc.

And even though this is more of a belief and less of an objective, it can also be factual

Here is how; President of the republic of Nigeria is an arbitrary identity.

You are not the president of Nigeria.

If you are say you are - This is factually incorrect

Identity's uniqueness is that it is whatever it is.

Uuuuhm No, it can be self granted in some cases of arbitrary identities but non arbitrary identities aren't self granted.

The perception of identity can be factually incorrect or correct.

There is no default, no template, no standard. All identities differ, no matter how slight the differences might be. So if there is no standard for is, how can you tell something isn't? So if a human believes he is a dog, then by all intents and purposes, he is a dog mentally.

If a human believes he is a dog, he isn't a dog, he is simply a human who believes he is a dog. Belief have no bearing on reality.

Delusion: Belief in something that has been shown to be factually incorrect.

A human who believes he is a dog, is factually human, so his belief is factually incorrect.

At best, he is deluded, at worse, mentally deranged.

If you believe you are the president of Nigeria now, you are factually incorrect, hence subject to delusion.

Your position is the exact same on people use to attack gay people, talking about "oh, most humans are straight so being straight is the standard and homosexuality isn't natural so you guys are wrong and abnormal".

Lol. Humans have 10 fingers, it is ok to have 12 but it doesn't mean it's not an anomaly.

Humans have 1 head, a tiny minority come with an aberration of having 2, it's an abnormality.

Humans have 46 chromosomes total from both parents, some have more (down syndrome) it's ok, but it's an aberration.

Biological abnormalities happen.
Mental abnormalities happen.

Saying something is biologicallly an anomaly isn't same as saying it is not okay.

Jesus! The day truth becomes an attack and needs to be shushed to protect feelings, we become a society ruled by lies.

Which why many people here are atheistic or skeptics.

Stop the strawman, this your argument have no bearing on what we are discussing, neither is it relevant. It is a totally different argument.

Statements of facts aren't moral positions. Nawa o.

Premise oga, stick with the premise

Budaatum, see what you talked about people manufacturing something that isn't your argument in their head and arguing over it?

This even after homosexuality has been shown to exist in nearly every species. That something isn't usual doesn't make it unnatural, but that's a digression.

#Sighs. What is your argument here?

If it's taken that identity is unque and there's no true state for identity, it means all your position falls back to biology.

Pretty sure i have shown you how identity works and how it can be factual or not

Now I asked if your position is still tenable if human biology itself can be changed.

Yes. Because there is a difference between "I want to be this" and "I am this"

If you even understood the argument, this question wouldn't be necessary

johnydon22:
Jesus! To be honest, statements as this makes me want to hit my head on the wall, it shows the person I'm discussing with either have not given what he is saying a great deal of thought or he downright don't understand it enough to discuss it.

Let me try one more time to break this to the utmost elementary level.

Identity in fact is and can be factual.

There are two types of identity.

1. Non-arbitrary identity
2. Arbitrary identity

1. Non-arbitrary identities are the type of identities that have inherent qualities grounded in physical reality. E.g; Mammal, lion, cat, human, vertebrae, male, female, Caucasian etc.

You don't decide this for yourself, you simply find it out because this identifies are inherent physical reality.

You are not human because you said you are, you are human because you are a homo sapien - A definite state of being.

You cannot be a lion because you simply aren't a lion, you cannot be a horse, you cannot be a snake - This type of identity isn't interchangeable since it isn't personal in the first place, you simply fall into a distinct physical characterization.

This is factual.

2. Non-arbitrary identity - Types of identity not grounded in objective inherent physical definition or characterization.

Name
Country
Title
Etc.

And even though this is more of a belief and less of an objective, it can also be factual

Here is how; President of the republic of Nigeria is an arbitrary identity.

You are not the president of Nigeria.

If you are say you are - This is factually incorrect

Uuuuhm No, it can be self granted in some cases of arbitrary identities but non arbitrary identities aren't self granted.

The perception of identity can be factually incorrect or correct.

If a human believes he is a dog, he isn't a dog, he is simply a human who believes he is a dog. Belief have no bearing on reality.

Delusion: Belief in something that has been shown to be factually incorrect.

A human who believes he is a dog, is factually human, so his belief is factually incorrect.

At best, he is deluded, at worse, mentally deranged.

If you believe you are the president of Nigeria now, you are factually incorrect, hence subject to delusion.



Lol. Humans have 10 fingers, it is ok to have 12 but it doesn't mean it's not an anomaly.

Humans have 1 head, a tiny minority come with an aberration of having 2, it's an abnormality.

Humans have 46 chromosomes total from both parents, some have more (down syndrome) it's ok, but it's an aberration.

Biological abnormalities happen.
Mental abnormalities happen.

Saying something is biologicallly an anomaly isn't same as saying it is not okay.

Jesus! The day truth becomes an attack and needs to be shushed to protect feelings, we become a society ruled by lies.

Which why many people here are atheistic or skeptics.

Stop the strawman, this your argument have no bearing on what we are discussing, neither is it relevant. It is a totally different argument.

Statements of facts aren't moral positions. Nawa o.

Premise oga, stick with the premise

Budaatum, see what you talked about people manufacturing something that isn't your argument in their head and arguing over it?

#Sighs. What is your argument here?

Pretty sure i have shown you how identity works and how it can be factual or not

Yes. Because there is a difference between "I want to be this" and "I am this"

If you even understood the argument, this question wouldn't be necessary

It's supposed to be a discussion not an argument. If you choose to make an argument out of it, hey, you're right. We can end it now.

paraltero:

But when it comes to identity, there is no fact! Identity's uniqueness is that it is whatever it is. There is no default, no template, no standard. All identities differ, no matter how slight the differences might be. So if there is no standard for is, how can you tell something isn't? So if a human believes he is a dog, then by all intents and purposes, he is a dog mentally.

"If there is no default, no template, no standard" a table is a elephant.

Agree?

paraltero:
Your position is the exact same on people use to attack gay people, talking about "oh, most humans are straight so being straight is the standard and homosexuality isn't natural so you guys are wrong and abnormal". This even after homosexuality has been shown to exist in nearly every species. That something isn't usual doesn't make it unnatural, but that's a digression.

No its very not "the exact same on people use to attack gay people"!

Identity is the reason that we name things, put them in little boxes so to say as a form of organising so that if one says to you "put the cup on the table", you don't go looking for elephants as you've done here!

Discriminating against gay people is not the same as calling a spade a spade. I can identify you as an African and manage not to be a racist!

paraltero:
If it's taken that identity is unque and there's no true state for identity, it means all your position falls back to biology. Now I asked if your position is still tenable if human biology itself can be changed.

Identity is unique! Nobody will mistake anyone else for buda. And it is those very unique biology as observed through the use of the senses that we identify and as the best fall back so far until we see better with those senses and change positions. But until we change positions, tables are indeed tables - except to those who imagine elephants in their heads, I guess.

paraltero:


It's supposed to be a discussion not an argument. If you choose to make an argument out of it, hey, you're right. We can end it now.

A discussion contemplating two distinct points carried by two or more agent is an argument.

Argument doesn't mean aggression. It means a distinct point or reason

johnydon22:


A discussion contemplating two distinct points carried by two or more agent is an argument.

Argument doesn't mean aggression. It means a distinct point or reason

Well you've introduced an element of agression and I'm not about that life.

budaatum:

"If there is no default, no template, no standard" a table is a elephant.

Agree?


No its very not "the exact same on people use to attack gay people"!

Identity is the reason that we name things, put them in little boxes so to say as a form of organising so that if one says to you "put the cup on the table", you don't go looking for elephants as you've done here!

Discriminating against gay people is not the same as calling a spade a spade. I can identify you as an African and manage not to be a racist!


Identity is unique! Nobody will mistake anyone else for buda. And it is those very unique biology as observed through the use of the senses that we identify and as the best fall back so far until we see better with those senses and change positions. But until we change positions, tables are indeed tables - except to those who imagine elephants in their heads, I guess.

Quick question: which identity is more valid; the identity people have of themselves or the identity other people give them?

paraltero:


Well you've introduced an element of agression and I'm not about that life.

Frustration over very infantile or naive comments happen from time to time.

I'm not impervious to such feelings on the extreme cases.

paraltero:


Quick question: which identity is more valid; the identity people have of themselves or the identity other people give them?

Non-arbitrary identities aren't granted by anyone.

This question is completely non sequitur.

johnydon22:


Frustration over very infantile or naive comments happen from time to time.

I'm not impervious to such feelings on the extreme cases.

That you don't agree with my assertions don't make them infantile or naïve. You can't be judge, jury AND plaintiff. I've been civil throughout this discussion but hey, guess I can't expect everyone else to be the same.

johnydon22:


Non-arbitrary identities aren't granted by anyone.

This question is completely non sequitur.

Here's a small analogy. If I wear an outfit and I say it looks good but 10 people say it doesn't, who is right?

johnydon22:


Non-arbitrary identities aren't granted by anyone.

This question is completely non sequitur.

How far? Have you published a book yet?

paraltero:


Here's a small analogy. If I wear an outfit and I say it looks good but 10 people say it doesn't, who is right?

10 people.

This still doesn't fit into the analogy you are trying to describe.

Use this instead.

Muhammadu Buhari is the president of the federal republic of Nigeria.

You say you are the president.

Are you really?

paraltero:


That you don't agree with my assertions don't make them infantile or naïve.

True. They just have to be elementarily wrong (something that such a person discussing a subject should know about the subject but doesn't) to be infantile.

You can't be judge, jury AND plaintiff.

You can simply show the person how and why their statement is naive which i did.

I've been civil throughout this discussion but hey, guess I can't expect everyone else to be the same.

Again, no one is impervious to frustration over naive comments on a subject you supposedly are discussing.

naïveté isn't necessarily a bad thing.

johnydon22:
True. They just have to be elementarily wrong (something that such a person discussing a subject should know about the subject but doesn't) to be infantile.


You can simply show the person how and why their statement is naive which i did.

Again, no one is impervious to frustration over naive comments on a subject you supposedly are discussing.

naïveté isn't necessarily a bad thing.

It may be naïve to you but then you're neither an authority nor the person who makes the rules.

This kind of ties into my position. You say you're right. You believe you're right. If I gather 20 people and they all agree that you're wrong, are you wrong or still right?

paraltero:


It may be naïve to you but then you're neither an authority nor the person who makes the rules.

Nope, I'm not. There trinities such as
1. Facts
2. Logic
3. Definitions

This kind of ties into my position. You say you're right. You believe you're right. If I gather 20 people and they all agree that you're wrong, are you wrong or still right?

Nope. Argumentum ad populum doesn't necessarily mean true.

Truth is truth whether the whole world doesn't believe it.
Lie is a lie whether everyone believes it.

So, a man believing he is a dog, is obviously believing a lie hence deluded.

Whether the whole world agrees with him on this or not has no bearing on the objective fact in consideration.

Belief has no bearing on truth in the face of facts.

johnydon22:
Nope, I'm not. There trinities such as
1. Facts
2. Logic
3. Definitions


Nope. Argumentum ad populum doesn't necessarily mean true.

Truth is truth whether the whole world doesn't believe it.
Lie is a lie whether everyone believes it.

So, a man believing he is a dog, is obviously believing a lie hence deluded.

Whether the whole world agrees with him on this or not has no bearing on the objective fact in consideration.

Belief has no bearing on truth in the face of facts.

Okay, so who decides what is true?

paraltero:


Quick question: which identity is more valid; the identity people have of themselves or the identity other people give them?

Neither, if one has any sense. Identifying oneself is pointless. And the identity others have of one depends on their ability to see, which, however good they see, is insufficient to identify one fully.

paraltero:


Okay, so who decides what is true?

Facts (Reality)
Definitions (in terms of ideas)
Logic (Improves likelihood of a truthful approximation)

So, the question should be What or how is truth determined.

Who is begging the question because it already assumes a who determines truth.

Humans don't determine objective truth, they observe it. And in Aristotle's quote "Asserting that, that which is, is, is true. Asserting that, that, which is not, is, is false.

budaatum:

Neither, if one has any sense. Identifying oneself is pointless. And the identity others have of one depends on their ability to see, which, however good they see, is insufficient to identify one fully.

So if the neither is valid, why does what an individual identify as matter to you?

johnydon22:


Facts (Reality)
Definitions (in terms of ideas)
Logic (Improves likelihood of a truthful approximation)

So, the question should be What or how is truth determined.

Who is begging the question because it already assumes a who determines truth.

Humans don't determine objective truth, they observe it. And in Aristotle's quote "Asserting that, that which is, is, is true. Asserting that, that, which is not, is, is false.

But if they observe it then it's still down to human perception.

We see black as black because it's what, y'know, see. How can we tell that's the real color, and not just what we perceive it to be.

This is basically saying "I see it so it must be true", not taking into cognizance how frequently perception fails us.

Also, if you know your science, then you know that humanity is on a continuous journey of discovery. And as a result, nothing is absolutely true and everything is completely possible. That science has not found a biological or psychological reason why someone looks a certain way but identifies as something different does not mean it's naturally impossible or that it's wrong.

Science only tells you it has an explanation it strongly believes in based on the available evidence. It never tells you with absolute certainty that anything is and will always be a certain way.

paraltero:


So if the neither is valid, why does what an individual identify as matter to you?

The same reason we are not all called paraltero, or buda, and tables and elephants! So as to differentiate one from the other. That's at least one reason why individual identity matters. And not just by name, but also the attributes that we are naming.

budaatum:

The same reason we are not all called paraltero, or buda, and tables and elephants! So as to differentiate one from the other. That's at least one reason why individual identity matters. And not just by name, but also the attributes that we are naming.

So you're saying it's not a matter of truth or fact or defaults or all that jazz. It's just for ease of identification.

But that being said, why not just address someone as what he/she/it wants? I mean, it's like saying anyone in a lab coat is a doctor simply because doctors are known for wearing lab coats. If you address a scientist as a doctor because you saw him in a hospital wearing his lab coat and he takes offence, would you blame him?

paraltero:

So you're saying it's not a matter of truth or fact or defaults or all that jazz. It's just for ease of identification.

It is a matter of fact, based on valid evidence. Let me show you. I am responding at this moment to comments made by an individual I identify as paraltero because paraltero is how that person identified themself. I will build my own profile of paraltero based on the evidence paraltero presents to me.

You may call it "ease of identification", but it wouldn't be easy if we all named our selves paraltero.

paraltero:
But that being said, why not just address someone as what he/she/it wants? I mean, it's like saying anyone in a lab coat is a doctor simply because doctors are known for wearing lab coats. If you address a scientist as a doctor because you saw him in a hospital wearing his lab coat and he takes offence, would you blame him?

We do address everyone as they want to. I want to be addressed as buda so I name myself buda, you want to be addressed as paraltero so you name yourself paraltero, but we don't go about naming ourselves doctors even if we were wearing lab coats because we know lab coats does not a doctor make.

Its to do with context. If I'm dying in the middle of the road and someone in a lab coat, or not, comes up and says, "I am doctor", I'd hardly argue. But if I'm hiring a doctor for a position in a hospital, lab coat would not do. Same with gender. If one were born a Sikiru and wants to be Sikira, one just tells everyone and only answers to Sikira from now on. But if Sikira commits a crime or is in an accident and we need to operate, would it make no difference if we were operating on Sikira or Sikiru or throwing a Sikiru in a Sikira jail?

budaatum:

It is a matter of fact, based on valid evidence. Let me show you. I am responding at this moment to comments made by an individual I identify as paraltero because paraltero is how that person identified themself. I will build my own profile of paraltero based on the evidence paraltero presents to me.

You may call it "ease of identification", but it wouldn't be easy if we all named our selves paraltero.


We do address everyone as they want to. I want to be addressed as buda so I name myself buda, you want to be addressed as paraltero so you name yourself paraltero, but we don't go about naming ourselves doctors even if we were wearing lab coats because we know lab coats does not a doctor make.

Its to do with context. If I'm dying in the middle of the road and someone in a lab coat, or not, comes up and says, "I am doctor", I'd hardly argue. But if I'm hiring a doctor for a position in a hospital, lab coat would not do. Same with gender. If one were born a Sikiru and wants to be Sikira, one just tells everyone and only answers to Sikira from now on. But if Sikira commits a crime or is in an accident and we need to operate, would it make no difference if we were operating on Sikira or Sikiru or throwing a Sikiru in a Sikira jail?

You have made valid points. However my point is that if, say, Jamiu decides to identify as a woman and it is possible to change everything about Jamiu to match what is typical of women right down to the genetic level, would it still be right to call Jamiu a man?