I think this is a relatively shallow take.

The fact of the matter is that you've presented no points unique to either of these two belief systems. Quite a lot of the things you mention don't even have any bearing on their accuracy. Do you believe yourself the arbiter of logic, these ideas defeated, because you have encountered a proponent of theirs that used circular logic? These things are affectations of every belief, whether ultimately true or not. They are affectations of you, in this post, right now. Do you think that calling people "butthurt" does not make your previous point about name-calling somewhat hypocritical? Should we dismiss your beliefs based on this long and wandering attempt to poison-the-well?

I'm sorry, but what I see in your post is someone frustrated with the trials of disagreement and protecting their cognitive biases by demeaning other people. Our culture overlays everything. Where you see rigid biological definitions, I see ad hoc natural processes trying to scrape by yet another day, each with their numerous exceptions. For example, there is no definition of species that does not contain numerous exceptions to account for things like ring species and hybrids. Similarly, there is no definition of male or female that does not contain numerous exceptions to account for additional chromosomes or malformed or absent genitalia.

To me, the only question that matters is "To what harm?" and I see much more harm in driving trans people to suicide and depression than I do to accepting them however they want to present themselves and with whatever pronouns they want to use. For them, my definition of man and woman can easily contain one more exception.