Vanessa, I actually appreciate your existence.
When I study history, biology, sociology, and philosophy, I am not necessarily preoccupied with transgenderism as a phenomenon in and of itself. But you (and others) have sort of forced me to envelope and swallow it.
As I think about it, your position makes sense.
It sort of has to be the case that someone who thinks that transgenderism is 'real' or 'good' must also think that biology is 'bad'. Doesn't it?
Biology, the logic of the biome, is completely antithetical to several presuppositions about sociology and philosophy and religion. Transgenderism, being almost purely sociological and philosophical and religious, practically must reject the biological, mustn't it? We see this repeated in so many ways in the current climate of both academia and church.
So in order to remain logically consistent with ones-self, one in your position cannot accept biology as a thing.
------
You and I do not split on anything deeper than this I don't think. You've shown me some picture of a feminine male and my immediate thought is, "Yeah, he succeeds as a female in society, but has he delivered his male gametes to a female's gametes?"
Sociologically and Philosophically and even Politically, I have no problem with the existence of that blonde 'man-girl' thing that you posted that supposedly received 'hormone therapy' before it reached puberty. But Biologically speaking, that thing is a complete failure of an organism and has relinquished all methods of perpetuating its DNA.
In a biological sense, it is a failed organism.
----
As a Liberal (capital L) it is not my place to tell you that you cannot do what you want as an adult. But as a biologically minded person, I also happen to know that what you are doing is completely nonsensical in a biological sense and I must insist that you not press your nonsense onto children.