I don't think you DID watch the video I linked you to. I don't think you saw that "girl" was not only synonymous with "child". It originally included BOY children. That's how much gendered language has changed.

You failed to answer what "natural" language change is.

I'm ignoring your comments about the threat of trans inclusion, yes, because it's putting the cart way before the horse. Why would I argue with you about what is or is not a threat and why and how to solve it when we haven't even come to any agreements about what it means to be trans, what they're asking for? There are things I would say in response to your alarmist problems that I'm not confident you would even understand because I can't get you to understand the very first thing I'm trying to explain.

Dude, when I was duped by Mormonism, I was a teenager who escaped an abusive home. I got myself out of it all by myself under enormous pressure to remain, with serious consequences to me that I still experience, more than ten years ago. It's incredibly childish for you to keep referencing my Mormonism like it's some excellent "gotcha" point, especially given that my leaving Mormonism lends me way more credibility than my ever joining as a teenager. The leaving part is more recent, so it's obviously more relevant. Every time you try to insult me by referencing my Mormonism, it sounds like a kindergartener making a silly insult up.

I'm not making attempts to attack your intelligence. I don't even know what "attack intelligence" means. You mean insult it? I'm just telling you my experience in arguing with you is that you're not logical, you're highly emotional, you are all over the place, and even when I tell you exactly what I'm doing, that I am trying to pull you back to or hold you to the very first point we're arguing that we haven't resolved, you see this as "dodging." Because you literally do not know how to have a logical debate—or you haven't demonstrated that here, at least. I keep telling you that you don't understand the main point I'm making and it's got you so frustrated and upset that I continually tell you that you don't understand something, that instead of PROVING that you understand it by being able to accurately restate for me what I'm saying and then asking questions to understand what you're not getting accurate in your summation of my point, you run off madly in all directions, performing exasperation. The performance of exasperation and bringing new arguments into a debate is an escape tactic.

Yes, it literally lacks imagination when the only way people can possibly think of to solve a problem is to stick with the solution they already have. Yes. If the only way you can possibly think of to design a prison is exactly the way it is now, if the only way you can think of to design sports is exactly the way it is now, you literally, demonstrably, factually lack imagination. You're letting design problems dictate what must be true about trans and cis identity.

And to want to keep something the way it is because change is scary and you can't even open your mind up to a conversation about change, to just put your emotions on hold and allow for all of the arguments you're refuting to be true and fair within a hypothetical space for five fucking minutes, to advance a logical argument or design solution, that's childish. Children get super stuck on what they think are facts. Children can't allow for the hypothetical. Children aren't philosophical. Yes, I think you and TERFs behave and think exactly like children. I'm not sure if I've ever run into grown adults who behave more like children on any other issue, actually. It reminds me of the book "Red is Best" where a child insists on having a red cup because "red is best". She never exactly explains why, because she doesn't have an answer. It's just her opinion. TERFs say that women are only biology because they are. It's true because it's true. It simply IS. Obviously. It's how children argue.

I CAN explain how I would keep YOU out of a female space. I can do more than that. If you read my essay about how to design social transformation, you might glean that I am not the least bit afraid of answering big or complex questions. But I refuse to get into a discussion with you that puts the cart before the horse: that starts with some false assumptions. I would say that you're doing that, then you'd say, "What false assumptions?!" and I'd have to take you right back to the very beginning of this conversation that we can't resolve. So, why not just stay there in the first place?