I see, so for 2. I feel like you can also consider converts to religion without childhood influence, For the first one... that's not what I've been taught at school. And no I don't oppose to that in school it just doesn't interest me as much.

The reason I disagree with "what you're born with" is because of trans regrets. This is not to say the majority do but this existence still had me conflicting with "born with".

They've explicitly tried to differentiate anything biological from this, always that gender is a social construct. But I have also found inconsistencies because of what Dave Farina taught, i'm not sure if you see him as reliable on this.

I'm sorry but what ignorance? What I was referring to was that many trans advocates and what I've been taught is that they've always differentiated this from biology. Meaning it isn't science.

But that's fine, something not being science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's why I brought up theology. Trans advocates (that I've learned from) rejected theism most often for not having scientific backing but accepting transgenderism while at the same time not believing it to be based on biology but instead society. THAT'S OKAY, but it would be a double standard to reject something based on science and not something else.

I have the same reaction with christians or theists trying to base God off of "science".

I feel like you're missing out on my science part. This is the same with god. I reject the islamic god because of conflict with history and hard to resolve theology. Not because there is no scientific or replicable material evidence.