I mean, there is such a thing as reality, and it exists regardless of your observing it; we can agree on this much, I'm sure?

Not really in this case because the label given to these people is socially constructed. It's not 'reality' that they are or are not their proclaimed gender, just as it's not reality that they are or are not pretty. Saying that there is some objective reality of their prettiness or ugliness doesn't make much sense either way, in the same way.

It's my opinion that the words man and woman should refer to the biological sex, not the person's desired sex/gender, so I use the words in that way. Obviously some people feel strongly about using the words in the opposite way. That's okay, but I'm just not going to use them that way. Neither of us have a stronger claim to "observable reality", but I think I at least have a stronger claim to historical/traditional normalcy.

>It's my opinion that the words man and woman should refer to the biological sex, not the person's desired sex/gender, so I use the words in that way. Obviously some people feel strongly about using the words in the opposite way.

And it's other people's opinion that the word "bigot" refers to people who call transgender women men.

>but I think I at least have a stronger claim to historical/traditional normalcy.

Why on earth would you think appeal to tradition gives your opinion any legitimacy.

History is full of backwards thinking that seems insane in retrospect.

> And it's other people's opinion that the word "bigot" refers to people who call transgender women men.

That's fine, people can call me that if they want to

> History is full of backwards thinking that seems insane in retrospect.

Sure, and I'm not saying historicity makes me right, just that I didn't pull the opinion out of thin air like it's a crackpot theory; most people in the world today and throughout history agreed with me. I have essentially 0 Agreeableness in the big 5 so any argument about social pressure in present decade USA doesn't sway my opinion.

Historicity makes you wrong, too. Trans people have been culturally recognized for as long as there has been civilization. You didn't pull your crackpot opinion out of thin air, it was spoon fed to you.

But they are men. Specifically, they are men who call themselves women.

Perhaps instead of accusing people of being bigots, you should reconsider your ludicrous and sexist belief that "woman" is nothing more than an identity for men to appropriate as they please.

Of course there's a reality you can observe. Lets look at these two factually true observations:

Person 1 sees someone who looks like and identifies as a man. They see a man.

Person 2 sees someone who has a vagina, can bear a child, and was born a woman. They see a woman.

My point was that you can arrive at different conclusions from observing reality by ignoring or arguing away the points that refute you.

You didn't even acknowledge my point of it being the same arguments used by transphobes.

Of course, it's easy to use, because your side is "obviously right". All you have to do is look at "reality".