Well, the transgenderers insist upon it. Their argument is, "I'm essentially female, though trapped in a male body." If being "female," though, is not essentially anything, then their plea reduces to nothing.
So in that case, the transgender advocates are the essentialists: I only asked the question of whether or not that was consistent...a fair question.
That's ad homimem, a fallacy...and totally boring. Even were I the most fanatical moralist, it would not suggest whether my morals in this case were right or wrong. That's basic logic.It is only a problem in your mind; a mind hell bent on imposing its moral standards on others.
Meanwhile, the degree of "imposing" over email is certainly minimal. Nobody can "impose" anything here.
But here again are the real questions.
In summary, then: are we essentialists, or not? We cannot be both essentialists and non-essentialists rationally.
Are we sure that biology is more negotiable than psychology, and why would we think so?
Then, how does a man know what "being a woman" is?