Yeah, but spending time overanalyzing the words that you strung together is a little funny, isn't it? Like, you're not getting any insight into me or what I think by nitpicking the exact particular sentence you formulated yourself.
The back-and-forth would be quite unnecessary if you'd have just said that's not what you meant/believe. Instead you've defended that specific position to the absolute hilt.
But really, if you're now at the point of trying to argue what you agreed with isn't indicative of your position, then that's essentially concession.
It does. If you care to go back way before you said that thing I agreed to without you understanding why, my precise words on the topic were: "Sense of self and identity are slightly different concepts." Those are the words from my mind, not anything about sense of self not mattering.
Yes, I'm quite aware you've taken several quite different positions throughout the thread. Or made statements that are "strongly suggestive" of contradictory positions, if you'd prefer.
External perception is not independent from characteristics, and internal perception is not independent from external perception. The way people see you is going to be largely based on who and what you are. The way you see yourself is going to have a bases in both who you are and in how people treat you.
How odd, then, that you objected so strenuously when I said one's characteristics are the most reliable basis for comparisons and observations-- considering that's pretty much the position you've now come to!
If you know the way someone is seen by others, you know the majority of their identity. There really is little to identity beyond than what is observed or observable externally.
Really? So, say someone transitions, and takes on the appearance of the opposite sex-- in informal terms, they "pass". Without them specifically mentioning they're trans, observers see their adopted sex anyway.
Then you'd agree there's "little to their [sex] identity" other than their adopted sex?