Experts confirm gender identity is biological

[America Needs R'hllor]

... The medical test is asking people how they feel. Depression has a biological basis, but there is no clinical test to tell objectively if someone has depression or not.

I like your comparison.  Yes depression is like transgenderism.  It is real and it is considered a mental illness, just like transgenderism is a mental illness.   To treat depression, do you make the word around the depressed person all gloomy so it matches their mental outlook?  Of course not!  You try to treat their depression.  Same with transgenderism.  You shouldn't try to cut up and drug their body to make it look more like the gender they imagine, you try to cure the transgenderism itself and make them content with the body they've got.  My message to trans people is, you are perfect just the way you are!  Your body is the way its supposed to be!  You just need to change how you view it.  That is the true, inspiring message trans people need to hear. 

I bet you were saying the same thing about homosexuals a few years ago.

[America Needs R'hllor]

BWP, I would like to be  of my . What's up with that?

LOL, this is absolutely perfect.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Young nerds who spend all day every day getting mad about what people call themselves on Tumblr are my favorite political commentators. We def need more on this forum and in our lives in general.

You dismiss dumb kids on Tumblr because you realize how stupid and harmful to your cause they look, but you can't actually explain in your own terms why they are wrong. Transracialism follows logically from transgenderism. The only reason one is accepted and the other isn't is because the media has gotten behind one and not the other. There's no scientific or logical reason to say one is valid and not the other aside from concerns about optics.

I don't think it is though.

The key difference though is the fact that gender as a thing is not socially constructed but a real division; but gender roles clearly are.  The study in the OP (plus some other research into the subject) seem to have demonstrated that there are clear differences in the way that men and women think and act, and that these do not necessarily line up with ones anatomy.  The socially constructed nature of gender roles and the roles that are perceived as being mainly for men or for women in different societies are generally preferred by those who are "male" or "female" - which can differ significantly between cultures.  Consider for example that a majority of Russian doctors are women because it is perceived there are being a "womens job" (incidentally, they also get paid a lot lot less than many other countries, for some reason) whilst in most of the English speaking world the stereotypical Doctor is seen as a man, to the point where the concept of Female Doctors actually being a thing is foreign in many places.  The actual existence of gender isn't the thing that's socially constructed, its the roles that we as a society split between the genders that is; and that's why a person can argue both for the abolition of gender roles and for the existence of trans people.  Add to that the earlier evidence that I've cited that shows that allowing transgender people to transition is beneficial and the lack of such evidence (or really any serious academic study) into the transracial thing and I think that demonstrates a clear difference.

With race though; the science is that there are no real significant differences between two people of different races and our conception of race is entirely a social construct.  There's nothing deterministic about the cultural differences between people of different ethnicities, its something that's entirely a human creation.  Consider for example a person that's adopted by a family made of a different race to them (the typical example is a black child adopted by an all white family: you could make a claim that such people are culturally white due to their background and upbringing (I read something written by a former adoptee about the challenges of having to balance being both a black person with the discrimination that still happens and having grown up as a normal, accepted part of a white family, alas I can't find it anymore - they regretted not being able to have links to their families culture though).  I'm not an expert on the subject of race and the ways that racial identities are constructed though; you'd have to talk to someone who knew something about that side of sociology or anthropology to get a clear statement.

There's a good piece here from a very trustworthy source about the differences between the transgender and transracial stuff that I'd recommend having a look at.  I hope that all makes sense; its a very complex area that is really rather hard to get your head around if its totally new to you.

genderanalysis.net  is not exactly a "very trustworthy"  source for objective information.  It would be like me citing a webpage from the Family Research Council.

Naturally - although note that they've cited most of their claims, which improves the quality of a source.  Biased sources are not always objectively BAD sources; provided that the quality of the evidence that they provide and the sources that they use are quality sources.  Besides, that argument is one that I agree with, and she makes the case in a much better way that I ever could.

Its also notably better than any of the sources that you've provided...

no, its not.

You can stomp your feet and keep saying "NO!", but it won't make you right.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Since it's obviously connected to the subject:

I've had a debate with a friend, who's a Lesbian and a radical feminist. She doesn't believe in gender identity, and sees it as a social construct that doesn't change your sex, so she claims that while transsexual people should be able to do and behave however they want, it doesn't make them any less man/woman. According to her radical feminism, everyone should be able to behave however they want, regardless of their biological sex, but a man and a woman are who they are born. She also claims that transsexual women don't experience the same oppression, related to pregnancy, for example, as cis women.
I showed her the research, but she says that it's only a proof that gender dysphoria exists, not that it changes whether one is a man or a woman. I obviously disagree, and see her opinion as a result of the radical feminism and frustration about silly anti-lesbian rhetoric of some SJWs, like the 'cotton ceiling'. But in any case- what are your thoughts about that?

[America Needs R'hllor]

Young nerds who spend all day every day getting mad about what people call themselves on Tumblr are my favorite political commentators. We def need more on this forum and in our lives in general.

You dismiss dumb kids on Tumblr because you realize how stupid and harmful to your cause they look, but you can't actually explain in your own terms why they are wrong. Transracialism follows logically from transgenderism. The only reason one is accepted and the other isn't is because the media has gotten behind one and not the other. There's no scientific or logical reason to say one is valid and not the other aside from concerns about optics.

I don't think it is though.

The key difference though is the fact that gender as a thing is not socially constructed but a real division; but gender roles clearly are.  The study in the OP (plus some other research into the subject) seem to have demonstrated that there are clear differences in the way that men and women think and act, and that these do not necessarily line up with ones anatomy.  The socially constructed nature of gender roles and the roles that are perceived as being mainly for men or for women in different societies are generally preferred by those who are "male" or "female" - which can differ significantly between cultures.  Consider for example that a majority of Russian doctors are women because it is perceived there are being a "womens job" (incidentally, they also get paid a lot lot less than many other countries, for some reason) whilst in most of the English speaking world the stereotypical Doctor is seen as a man, to the point where the concept of Female Doctors actually being a thing is foreign in many places.  The actual existence of gender isn't the thing that's socially constructed, its the roles that we as a society split between the genders that is; and that's why a person can argue both for the abolition of gender roles and for the existence of trans people.  Add to that the earlier evidence that I've cited that shows that allowing transgender people to transition is beneficial and the lack of such evidence (or really any serious academic study) into the transracial thing and I think that demonstrates a clear difference.

With race though; the science is that there are no real significant differences between two people of different races and our conception of race is entirely a social construct.  There's nothing deterministic about the cultural differences between people of different ethnicities, its something that's entirely a human creation.  Consider for example a person that's adopted by a family made of a different race to them (the typical example is a black child adopted by an all white family: you could make a claim that such people are culturally white due to their background and upbringing (I read something written by a former adoptee about the challenges of having to balance being both a black person with the discrimination that still happens and having grown up as a normal, accepted part of a white family, alas I can't find it anymore - they regretted not being able to have links to their families culture though).  I'm not an expert on the subject of race and the ways that racial identities are constructed though; you'd have to talk to someone who knew something about that side of sociology or anthropology to get a clear statement.

There's a good piece here from a very trustworthy source about the differences between the transgender and transracial stuff that I'd recommend having a look at.  I hope that all makes sense; its a very complex area that is really rather hard to get your head around if its totally new to you.

genderanalysis.net  is not exactly a "very trustworthy"  source for objective information.  It would be like me citing a webpage from the Family Research Council.

Naturally - although note that they've cited most of their claims, which improves the quality of a source.  Biased sources are not always objectively BAD sources; provided that the quality of the evidence that they provide and the sources that they use are quality sources.  Besides, that argument is one that I agree with, and she makes the case in a much better way that I ever could.

Its also notably better than any of the sources that you've provided...

no, its not.

You can stomp your feet and keep saying "NO!", but it won't make you right.

Do you seriously think genderanalysis.net  is a good source for impartial info on transgenderism? Its ok, you can admit when you are wrong.  Clinging to that stupid point just makes you look stupid.

But, um, that's exactly what you're doing. IceAgeComing had the patience to explain at length why genderanalysis.net might be biased, but cites good sources inside the article, and before that, I recall him explaining why your sources don't hold water. But his arguments fell on deaf ears.