It's A Quote

[Belacqua]

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.

Yes, I think this is crucial. Although I'm not sure how "science" differs from "we." Scientists are people. Anyway, we define things in a certain way, and then we test to see how things match up with our definitions.

Do we know better than the individual how they experience themselves internally?

Currently our method of determining gender is based on this -- the way that an individual experiences himself or herself internally. 

We (the good people, the up-to-date people, not the Dawkins-type bad people) have agreed that this is sufficient to determine a person's gender. Thus our determination is based on an individual's subjective reporting. It is not something we test objectively. 

I agree with you that objective tests are questionable -- not necessary, and maybe not possible. Certainly we can't conduct an anatomical test the way Dawkins thinks we can. 

This is only a problem for people who think that we should only believe what is objectively testable through science. I have maintained all along that there are many things in the world which we hold to be true even in the absence of science-type testing. So I have no trouble with the whole gender thing.