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.
