I’m not saying the definitions are delusional at all, just that I disagree with them.

If someone said “a woman is any one who identifies as a woman”- that’s not delusional, though I think it’s incorrect. I would point out flaws I see in the definition, but I wouldn’t consider it delusional.

I’m not saying and have never said that qt is delusional for having different definitions, I’m saying that to me, some concepts within trans ideology could be argued to be delusional.

If someone says “I’m a woman because I’m perceived as one and treated like one” I would disagree, but I can understand the logic behind it and acknowledge that, while sexist, I can understand how someone comes to that conclusion. I’d still debate and point out flaws, but I can understand how someone believes that if they are a male, even if I think females can understand why that doesn’t quite work.

But if someone says “I’m a woman because I identified as a woman and understood what it is to be a woman before transitioning (ive had people explain gender identity that way)”- the idea that you can identify and understand something that is literally the opposite of how you are seen and treated and what you are physically- that’s delusional to me, even taken out of the context of gender identity.

I’m not saying I’d be correct to claim it is, but it would take discussion about why I think it is and why someone else thinks it isn’t to change my mind or prove me wrong, if that makes sense? In that example, we aren’t even debating definitions, we’d be debating whether or not someone can identify as something they have never physically presented as (I’m talking about someone “identifying” as a woman pre transition)

That’s why I’m saying context matters, we shouldn’t just jump to call any and every thing we disagree with delusional, but there can be instances where we think a specific statement, belief, or argument is delusional. It just depends.