I find cross-dressers funnier than believers in the thousands years old universe. For me a man dressed as woman is demonstrably a man, not a woman and vice versa, quite unlike the age of the universe, which is just a good theory (even if I'd been 10000 y.o. myself and claimed not seeing the creation going on somebody could have asserted that the whole universe had been created just a second ago all together with my memories of past 10000 years). I know, this does not make sense to you but it might give you some insight on what other people are thinking.
Anyways, this was just an example of hypocrisy. When you claim to respect feelings it should not have mattered whose feelings you respect. Bringing in the "false" and "true" feelings just underlines the separation between the "good" and "bad" people.
could have asserted that the whole universe had been created just a second ago all together with my memories of past 10000 years
You believe this is a viable defense, and yet don't believe a similar magic force couldn't turn a man dressed as a woman into a woman? You're willing to accept one argument that requires the universe and everything you know about it to be created in a flash instant, but not another argument that only requires the modification of a very small part of that same universe?
It sounds more like you have a priori made your decision and are looking for arguments to support it.
Please, don't put your words into my mouth. I only objected the use of word "demonstrably" in the context of the age of the Universe. I don't believe the universe is any younger than 14B give or take. I don't believe you can demonstrate that age though. I do believe you can demonstrate sex of a human specimen without consulting with the said specimen. I might be wrong on either account but neither is important enough for me to throughly investigate.
I don't see a difference between "I am 10000 years old and the 4000BC-creation theory isn't true" > "You were just created with memories that way!" and "That man dressed as a woman is a man" > "Something is clouding your perception, it is actually a woman!". The first is a statement of something you physically perceive to be true, the second is a rebuttal saying that your perceptions are false in the first place.
It's less about saying what you believe, and more about the weight of evidence you allow for each option. One option allows for the creation of the universe in an instant, the other brooks no supernatural interference.
For the record, male cross-dressers aren't necessarily 'trying to be a woman'. Some just like wearing clothes traditionally worn by women for look or comfort, others get a kick out of doing so because it breaks social norms. Look at Eddie Izzard, who frequently does standup as a cross-dresser, yet never suggests he's a woman nor that he wants to be one. The gay nightclub culture is also full of drag-queens who neither want to be women nor want to have sex with women, and aren't intending to be mistaken for a woman.
I think it's funny to equate cross-dressing with the trans people that the GP was talking about.
Anyways, this was just an example of hypocrisy. When you claim to respect feelings it should not have mattered whose feelings you respect. Bringing in the "false" and "true" feelings just underlines the separation between the "good" and "bad" people.