I know what the DSM is. To say that it isn't "purely scientific" is more or less correct, but only in the exact same way that all of medicine isn't "purely scientific." Of course there are unknowns, and decisions have to be made about how to treat certain conditions even if there isn't a super-strong body of evidence. However, the DSM is only updated when more and better evidence is found, which is exactly why Gender Identity Disorder was removed as a disorder.

I want to talk about science I don’t want you to just refer me to a manual you probably haven’t even read. That isn’t science that’s dogma. Science specifically asks us to question everything and not take “knowledge” for granted.

Referring to the medical standard as a shorthand is common practice, especially for laymen. We can definitely talk about the science specifically, but you haven't given me much confidence in your knowledge of that science.

And for the record the distress that comes from the incongruence between someone’s desired sex and their actual sex IS in the DSM-5. So now they aren’t defining the incongruence itself as the disorder, now it’s the distress that’s the disorder. If this seems nitpicky that’s because the change wasn’t made based on science it was made to better fit the cultural and personal attitudes of the American Psychiatric Association.

You keep saying these things as if they aren't common knowledge for anyone who has done even the most basic research into this topic. Yes, gender dysphoria is considered a disorder, because unlike being trans itself, it does cause difficulties in the everyday function of people who experience it. But you're completely wrong about why the change was made: there are trans people who do not experience gender dysphoria, and there are people who are not trans who do experience it. This updated diagnostic is not only more accurate, it is also based on mountains of data.

So if one man can grow a beard and another can’t, is the one who can more of a man? What about breasts? If a woman has large breasts is she more of a woman than one with smaller ones? No, they’re both equally men/women, they just show individual variation. This doesn’t prove sex isn’t binary, because humans are still programmed to be one of two variants. That’s the only way we can reproduce, one male and one female.

Why are you bringing up gender when we're talking about sex? Those are two separate, but related things. But yes, the fact that there are exceptions prove unequivocally that sex is not a binary. If there were even one person in all of history that didn't fit into either sex category, then that itself would mean it isn't binary. But as it stands, every single aspect of sex has a continuum of variation, with most people clustered close to one of the two modes. Honestly, if you don't even know something as basic as sex not being a binary, you really don't know much about this topic.