In fact, OCD is pretty resistant to cures overall. For many people, you make OCD more livable by accepting their status of OCD and working with them to deal with the results of it. Much like you can't "cure" trans people by having them no longer be trans, instead you need to give them the tools to live with it.
To my understanding, this is a version of Simpson's paradox, or something like it. It's much like people who are on depression medication are more depressed than people who are not, even though depression medication is highly effective.
Very few get bullied to the degree the gender non-conforming do.
Circular logic is never invalid. It's just unreliable.
You saying a thing does not make it so. There is no circular logic in the difference between biological males and biological females being in the organic structures that produce gametes. You are simply unable to work your way around that truth and are throwing anything at the wall to distract from it.
I agree. The circularity of the logic in your definition makes it so, regardless of what I say.
The circular logic is that the "structures that produce male gametes occur in males", therefore, "we define males by the structures that could theoretically produce male gametes", even when they physiologically can not produce gametes.
I agree there is no way to undercut circular logic, much as there is no way to convince a bigot to drop the bigotry. You just identify them and move on.
Believe me, if I were not limited by my desire to stick to verifiable notions in a skeptical mind-frame, I could be throwing a LOT more at the wall.
Not "kinda". It is the core definition of sex. It is beyond me why people want to debate or obfuscate what a biological male is.
Citation please.
It's one definition of sex, and not the one most people use.
You mean, based on a scientific scale of who receives the most bullying?
