It's A Quote

[GrandizerII]

The answer is whatever scientific tests we consider to be valid for determining who is lying.

The same challenge applies to two people claiming they are autistic, or introverts, or lovers of art.

Also, gender is defined so that it need not always align with biological sex, and this is an appropriate working definition due to what has been both observed and reported more than enough times. So it's a fact that gender does not always align with biological sex, just as genitalia does not always align with biological sex, just as chromosomes do not always align with biological sex.

Right. So Dawkins is old-fashioned and he thinks that gender is determined in the old-fashioned way: genitalia, chromosomes, pelvis shape, etc. 

Paleo rejects this. However, he agrees with Dawkins in thinking that there MUST be a scientific test we can use to answer the question.

Whatever Dawkins has to say about this matter is his personal opinion. Science doesn't decide how things should be defined. We do. Through science, we then conduct studies/experiments to answer questions or test hypotheses partly in light of how we have defined things.

In the case of gender, the current definition (based on decades of observations and reports related to how individuals identify and present themselves) adopted by many academics has been something like a social/socialized expression of sex. This is essential partly due to observations and reports of individuals deviating from the traditional manner of socially expressing what is supposed to be their sex.

So because of how we have defined things, it's a scientific fact that biological sex and gender don't always align even if the correlation is high. If Dawkins (or anyone for that matter) disagrees, then they will have to clarify exactly what they are disagreeing with here?

Do they disagree with the definition of the word "gender"? Ok, fine, but doing away with the definition doesn't do away with what has been observed and reported, and so we still need to account for those.

Do they disagree that people are identifying themselves correctly? Ok, fine, but on what scientific basis are we making these judgements? Do we know better than the individual how they experience themselves internally?

Do they disagree that people are honest regarding how they identify as? Well, that's an overly cynical take, and you may as well question whether someone who claims they have autism or depression (or some other X) is being truthful. Do we just ignore that these people also present themselves socially as such and such, supporting their identity claims?

Do they disagree that we should care about those rare deviations in the first place? Then what's the science supporting that we should not care?

If none of the above, what are they disputing exactly when they insist (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that sex and gender always align?

I think you'll agree that "whatever scientific tests we consider to be valid" is not a very specific answer. Do such tests exist now? Are they something we imagine will exist in the future? What do you suggest?

To determine if someone is lying about anything? Not aware of any scientific measures that does so in an absolute sense, but surveys can be designed to detect deception in some of the answers relative to how the individual answers other questions on the survey.

If you mean only in the context of people claiming to be women, then again, my response remains the same as previously. If there is a scientific test that we can currently employ to detect deception, then we can use that. There's no deeper answer required here, because your question can be reduced to a question about deception perse.

I am more skeptical. I suspect that there is no objective scientific way to determine gender.

Based on your reasoning, it seems like we also don't have an objective scientific way to determine if someone has autism, or depression, or loves sports. But it doesn't mean autism or depression isn't real, or that no one really loves sports.

Suppose you have a committee of scientists who publish the definitive test for determining gender. Then a patient goes in, they do the tests, and the committee says "You're a man." But the patient says "No, I don't care what the tests say, I know I'm a woman." Do we then say that person is mistaken? Or do we believe what the individual says about him/herself?

My immediate response here is: Why do we need these tests at all?

But suppose the test is truly definitive AND valid (in line with criteria widely accepted by all relevant communities), then sure, we'd be forced to say that that person is just wrong. But this is not a realistic hypothetical anyway (or ethical one for that matter).