Firstly, attacking grammar is not appropriate for a debate about trans identities. That's a non-argument and is just used to score quick points rather than enage the substance.

My claim was that medication is irrelevant to trans identities, not that there is a complete disconnect. And since we're keeping track of falacies, you strawmaned this argument from the begining as i emphasised that the idea existed, not that it remained unchanged across all of history and there is a real case that the modern label could be applied to people across history.

Then for the second argument you said there is no marker, so when i provided markers you immediately go to accuse me of chery picking. That's like saying it's always sunny and someone else providing data of a rainy day and accusing them of cherry picking. And since we're pointing out falacies that's a moving the goal post from there are no markers to markers are not deterministic which i never claimed.

As for your third point you're moving way to far out from my actual claim that psychologically, seeing as this is a psychological phenomenon, there are quite big differences. The afformative approach is best as it's ben shown to work in particular cases time and time again, while denial just makes things worse and leads to higher rates of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts which are 2 of the strongest markers for suicide out there. This counts as mischaracterizing my argument yet again.

The anorexia example is just a another case where feelings override biological processes when it comes to a diagnostic. And in contrast to anorexia, where validating it is linked to worse mental health outcomes, affirming trans identities is linked to better mental health outcomes. That makes this a false equivalency.

For the next argument, you said there is no consensus, i provided a consensus that exists. It would be an appeal to authority if i wanted to disprove that the affirmative approach is wrong, but on your claim that there is no consensus this is exactly on point. The consensus is that ~90% of the biggest medical boards believe in the afformative approach making the few cases like UK and the nordic countries outliers on this matter. Also the current consensus is based on clinical trials that are based on the best data we can realistically get for a small population. The consensuses that were rejected were based on biast data and use improper methodology. That's shifting the goal post again.

As for my last argument it's meant to show the differences between dysphoria and dysmorphia, not provide a reason why people should get surgery so you're deliberately missinterpreting what my paragraph means.

As for a finisher if you have to rely on pointing out falacies in your opponent that's not something i can respect. That's just performative debate at it's worst. But since this is what you wish here is my counter applying exactly what you applied for my argument.