As I noted, you focus on "social science" which is largely about explaining the behavior of "groups". In this case, you separate groups by how they identify, and the common behaviors people in that group should exhibit to claim that gender status. (I doubt you would support the argument that the boy in Viriginia who claimed he was a transgender female even after sexually assaulting two different girls at two different schools was in fact a transgender female... the behavior doesn't fit the label).
Though I suspect that at some point, you force people into groups, or you would have thousands of genders, which is not very useful. Gender becomes useful only if it helps to explain behaviors.
Not sure why you insist on attributing "maleness" to this discussion, when the current debate over "gender" in sports and Title IX as an example is largely being led by feminists and conservative women, who are both on the same side (quite interesting when you think about it), believing that "women's sports" are for women with two X chromosomes. Since it affects men less, they are not as active in the debate.
This tendency to attribute "maleness" to issues reminds me of the current abortion debate, where it turns out men are less likely to want limits on abortion than women, yet progressives suggest it is men trying to control women's bodies. The very recent Harvard poll was a bit surprised when it noted that, "75 percent of women support the 15-week cut-off or a more restrictive law while 69 percent of men also agree with that timeline." I guess we can throw that "male" attribution away and perhaps agree that maleness is not at the center of many issues today.
The convenient narrative that men are behind so many behaviors collapses in many instances when examined with less prejudice. Most human behaviors evolved like most things because they made sense at one time. The belief advanced by many that they were a function of men imposing their will on women really does not jive with serious historical analysis.
Another example is the argument about why women were limited from participating in war. From a pure societal perspective, men are more expendable than women. So, men fought wars to protect their societies while women did not. These days with population no longer something that needs "preserving" women are entering the armed forces and are perishing alongside their male counterparts in an increasing number of militaries around the world.
Meanwhile, there is little evidence the societies that reject religion like Communist Russia and China are less violent (in fact they rank number 1 and 2 for the greatest number of genocides committed against their own people). This points to the nature of man and not God.
As a classical liberal, I would hope you feel the same way as I do, that government exists to protect the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator to all humans including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I love the fact, that God gave us these rights including the right to do right and wrong.
The only limit on these rights is when we exercise them in a way that denies others their rights. In those instances, we have laws and courts whose goal should be to accommodate individual rights and find a balance when accommodation cannot work.
I am a bit concerned that progressives are increasingly viewing rights as privileges that can be limited in the interest of pursuing "the greater good". China today is proof that such a policy never ends well.
