I suspect you may have been giving more than "biological facts" or bringing them up in a way that was intended to shut down someone else's expression.

Basic facts are very unlikely to be considered hateful if shared respectfully and with good reason.

I think insisting calling someone male, when they identify as female is indeed already considered hate speech by some people. I think even by some organisations. (but since I try to stay away from such issues, I don't have a example at hand)

I would consider this "rude", but not hate speech.

It's denying someone the right to assert their identity.

It's like insisting on referring to someone from Tibet as Chinese.

Denying would imply for me, activly supressing someones identity.

Merley saying it, is rude and offensive, but just another opinion and should maybe not put in the same bag, as hate speech, with the usual association of violence.

"It's like insisting on referring to someone from Tibet as Chinese. "

And this is the same. Someone saying it, is just a opinion and when the chinese government mandates it, than this is called political oppression and not hate speech.

Actively refusing to recognise them is suppression.

I'm not saying it's hate speech, I'm trying to help you understand why it's so far beyond "rude" that some people may react with strong emotions and feel further dismissed when your write off their objections using "biological fact."

What is your definition of rudeness then?

Rude is more like telling someone their tie is unfasihonable or taking the last slice of cake without asking.

What you're describing is to me borderline violence, as it's denying someone with a recognised medical condition (gender dysphoria) something that can help ease their distress (gender affirmation).

"Rude is more like telling someone their tie is unfasihonable"

People can also strongly bind their identity to their clothing. There are lots of ways to hurt other people feelings, but hate speech is just on another level for me (and this thread was primarily about hate speech)

I don't think gender dysphoria is an adopted identity in the same way as an interest in fashion, and neither does the medical community. But we can leave it here, it's all off the topic as you say. Another time perhaps.

(Well, the main topic of this thread was surely something else than gender identity and it is a flagged thread already anyway. I just wanted to make clear that I was especially arguing about hate speech.)

And I don't say, it is the same, but I don't talk about people who have merely "an interest in fashion". But people who really bind their identity towards it. That can be indeed fancy art clothing, or scenic cloths, like punks or goths dress or furry people. Saying they don't dress right, is a straight attack towards their identity.

Still, I would consider this rude and ignorant, but not hate speech.

That's fair enough. For me the difference is that if you don't like someone's clothes then you're still allowing them to wear them, but if you deny someone's gender or nationality which rely on outside recognition to feel real then you are actually limiting their expression of their self-perception.

Just to add as well: We're living through a time when the suicide rate of people with gender dysphoria is climbing and climbing because of difficulties in having their gender affirmed by the people around them.

I'll be first to defend people's right to dress as they will, especially in the case of women being forced to cover themselves (from burkhas to anti-toplessness laws), but the level of seriousness between being a goth and being a certain gender is currently worlds apart.

What is special about identity, that when someone asserts their identity is X then it is uniquely wrong for someone else to disagree? Is identity not just another fact about the world, about which reasonable people can have different opinions?