You don't have experience, and you turn away vicarious experience - the inferential distance is too large.

Then you are perpetuating cissexism.

And no it doesn't, there are brain areas that are statistically different in the small population of trans brains donated to science, but there is no brain scan for trans and it would be useless anyway, because if you experience yourself as trans and the scan says "nope" it's the scan that's wrong. The individual is the sole authority and the diagnosis is by telling a shrink what you experience.

Don't ask for a source of something that clearly is an interpretation of observation not a study. That's pretty clearly acting dismissively.

And you know what I mean about claiming ownership too. Those comments are said by men to women in a particular way that is more intrusive and different from the way they are said to you. You are being dismissive here too.

whereas it is still so for men.

So break it.

Are you saying gender identity is not determined by biology? Because I have some transsexuals who would like to talk to you.

The etiology of trans is unknown. There are suggestions that hormones in the womb may play a part, with the brain and body controlled by hormone flushes at different times, resulting in something like "intersex of the brain". But what I meant was more simply, that social categorization of bodies as "male or female" doesn't determine their gender identity. Bear in mind I say social categorization here, because society looks at some things (penis length, particularly) and not at others (brains, particularly) about the body to put people into categories.

And no, I meant cross-gendered in the specific sense of "person socially assigned gender A in clothes socially assigned gender B".

BTW: trans being inborn and immutable is a political thing. It is easier to get rights if your discriminated-against attribute is "not your fault" so you can't be "blamed" for it. This doesn't affect the rightness of the cause, only the ease of implementing it in the face of religious (sin focused) transphobia.

There's an element of "claiming ownership" in cat calling and in "how are you doing" and "smile baby" too. It means "I have the right to your time, I have the right to your attention, I have the right to have you be pretty for me by smiling" Replying politely only confirms that, they think they have you trapped in a conversation now. And witness how this "right" is backed by indignation "bitch, think you're all that" and gendered tear-down-confidence insults "slut" and "fat ugly cow" as soon as the man is refused. Which is why women learn counter strategies that don't throw back his claim in his face (as he rightly deserves).

The reactions are driven by social instinct reacting with defensive in-group cohesion to out-group threat, so they have effects without feeling like attempts to achieve effects. They feel like righteous indignation, or wanting someone who looks like us, or fear, or moral disapproval, or dismissal as uninteresting, etc.

When somebody's born, they don't identify as a gender. By the time they reach talking infancy, they do and will tell you. They will probably want to adopt gendered clothing and behaviours. Those might, or might not match their anatomy. If they pick cross-gendered ones, that might last, or it might go away, or it might turn into gay/lesbian identity. If you aren't being pushy about any of this, they will find their own level. I am not proposing "never permit them a gender", I am proposing "never assign them a gender, coercively".

Unfortunately with strangers, I have less evidence about their genders than I might like. That is because people don't feel very free to express cross-gender presentation, and in fact it takes such an immense crushing need that people dare the taunts, for them to even be visible. So there are lots of tans women walking around looking like men, and there are lots of trans men walking around looking like women. And it is because of dismissive attitudes like yours about the skirt, which easily translate into ridicule and ostracism. A boy in skirt is not like a boy with underpants on his head, he's like a girl in jeans. That used to be scandalous. But we accepted it more readily, because dressing "like a girl" is seen as degrading while dressing "like a man" was seen as upgrading.

You are strawmanning "ignoring the biological gender" (and building upon an assumption that isn't true; biology isn't gender, it isn't even oversimplified binary sex - but that's a story for another day). I am not suggesting "ignoring" it, I am suggesting "not treating it as the thing that determines gender".

That refers to "I still think your previous comment was too simplistic".

People don't see their attitudes as anything but "normal" because being a sexist or a racist doesn't feel like villainy, doesn't even feel like a moral choice, it just feels like facts.

"Until the child tells you their gender identity", I said - you wait in a state of openness to all alternatives, and they tell you. A child is not cis until proven trans. It's "no data". They will say.

Yes, ultimately, this is not enforcing stereotypes. But that phrase primes you for vastly underestimating the scope of what you need to do. Like, it primes you to think in terms of "offer Jane a dinosaur as well as a Barbie" rather than "do not assume that Cody would prefer jeans rather than a skirt".

Children raised to assume they have control of their gender presentation and the right to assert their gender identity, will not be inclined to make assumptions about, or tease and ostracise, other people's gender.