Pronouns

If refusing to use a person's pronoun is considered hate speech,

Probably be best if they use a third bathroom,

So you would also agree then, on that note, that a 40 year old who's personal preference is that they are eight should be able to go to childcare then?  

Also, I disagree with your framing of this as a scientific question. Imagine I said "you are lying that your name is Bones, it's because you're delusional and ashamed of your real name." Obviously, I would be ignoring the distinction between your actual name and your username. It would not make sense to make the case by saying, that your name is scientifically, legally, your real name. Your username is your chosen username, and there is nothing scientific about it other than verifying what your chosen username is. Does that make your username completely meaningless, because it has no basis in scientific or legal reality? No, because it provides you with the freedom of expression to identify yourself that way.

What if there's no 2nd bathroom, or even a 1st?

'Build a third.

But that's the same as saying "ok I'll give a new definition of species which is made up and i'll therefore say I'm not a human". It's silly. There's no point of it. You haven't achieved anything by creating a new word. That's like me saying "God as defined as that which is me" exists. You haven't done anything meaningful. You haven't argued why your definition is good, why it is necessary, or why it helps in any way. 

But at least we have established the terms of the disagreement. We seem to agree that the statement that "trans women aren't women" or that they are "delusional" is a piece of empty rhetoric, and wrong.

Then, we agree that the debate is really about whether the changes to language proposed by trans are good for society, useful, helpful, etc. Which is different from debating whether their claims are biologically incorrect or delusional.

You say that you value the biological difference between sexes, that you don't want it obscured. That is what you value, but that needs to be weighed against the reasons on the opposite side.

One reason for the new language would be that there are a large enough minority of people who simply want to identify that way, that they prefer or enjoy it.

Imagine I said "you are lying that your name is Bones, it's because you're delusional and ashamed of your real name." Obviously, I would be ignoring the distinction between your actual name and your username. It would not make sense to make the case by saying, that your name is scientifically, legally, your real name. Your username is your chosen username, and there is nothing scientific about it other than verifying what your chosen username is. Does that make your username completely meaningless, because it has no basis in scientific or legal reality?

0.5 percent of the population identify as trans.

i'm not sure how much sense it makes to be "proud of" something you did not accomplish

So you would also agree then, on that note, that a 40 year old who's personal preference is that they are eight should be able to go to childcare then?  

height, weight, age, skin-tone, hair and eye color are quantifiable descriptions of a citizen that do not require a microscope and or a strip-search to determine

0.5 percent of the population identify as trans.

if this number is "too small to consider" then why bother making new laws to systematically exclude these individuals from public spaces ?

The same reason why you would make laws excluding the very small percent of pedophilles we have from being within schools.

The same reason why you would make laws excluding the very small percent of pedophilles we have from being within schools.

Strangely, "being trans" is not a criminal act.

i'm not sure how much sense it makes to be "proud of" something you did not accomplish

"Proud" in a patriotic sense. 

No I still think it is wrong, trans women are men, under the best, most scientific and useful definition. What you have done is essentially saying "1+1 is 15 because well under my definition of the word, it's the case". You haven't proved why the term is necessary, or how it helps.  

You say you don't support age because it obfuscates the difference between biological boys and men. That's a perfectly good critique, and I'm confused as to why you don't apply it to gender.

The reasons on the other side is literally to make >1% percent of the society correct. Oughtn't truth prioritize such an endeavour? 

But I know all this. I know that Bones isn't a real name, so people who argue that it is not my given legal name are correct. I don't mind that. Bones is a different label for a different purpose. Whatever my name is, whether it Bone or Bones, does not and cannot change any objective fact about me. 

I've already established why this name-gender link is fraudulent - the term "man" is a noun, and you still haven't given me a cogent definition of the term and thus your entire argument is void on that ground. 

I worked in criminal justice for over 20 years and have stated this myself, so you can address it to somebody other than me.

You say that because they are less that 1% of the population, it's not legitimate. How big would the proportion need to be before they are allowed to innovate on how they understand and use language?

Why does that number matter?

People die all the time, what I need is comparisons with other deaths, to tell me if it's enough to take concern over,

But that there is 24 million people with schizophrenia, doesn't mean I have to change laws to respect their beliefs.

It doesn't matter that there's X many Communists or X many Atheist or Theist,

But also, even if there are tiny number of criminals, we still make laws that disallow an action.