The amount of inferences and insinuations you draw is a perfect example of why the Chatham House Rule is needed. I wonder how biologists discuss the issue if one hypothesis is outright forbidden. Note also that Ketanji Brown Jackson evaded the question when asked in a hearing.
Biologists would be the first one to correctly determine your sentence was not a biological hypotheses, but a political statement meant to declare your allegiance against trans rights and trans people.
They would consequently treat it exactly the way people in this thread do - with assumption that you have ideological and political goals against that group of people.
I used a made up but analogous example to see how the anti-trans rhetoric is intrinsically closed up to discussion.
It is a group of people deciding unilaterally what other people are without room for any alternatives. Say what you want against trans people, but at least they only identify themselves and ask to be allowed to exist.
Do you want to make an argument about bathrooms or sports whatever? Fine. But don't start it by de facto invalidating their existence, because that eliminates any room for a productive conversation.
They do it just fine. People who show up with crank hypotheses that are repeatedly rejected by evidence are not outright forbidden but generally not super popular.
