"Prestige" TV, I think, is defined by a specific form of story telling which pays careful attention to integrate every element towards a theme or idea, rather than just putting together an engaging story. Strictly speaking, they don't necessary have to be good either (as perhaps exemplified by The Newsroom) to qualify…

Which is… claiming that the given gender identity is reinforcing stereotypes, such that we ought to reject it. The claim is outright stated in your initial post:

No, it isn't. You claimed that their gender identity was illegitimate, as it mere presence implies that people of a given gender must have a certain characteristic.

This doesn't make sense, for there is no discintion between an individual's gender identity and (part of) their core identity. They are the same thing. Any instance of identity is a description, a category, of where an individual belongs.

Trans* is an umbrella term for anyone who does't fit into normal gender identity, so it doesn't just include trans people who feel their body is different, but anyone who has a "different" gender.

If you make the mistake of using language which suggests your given gender category applies to everyone else, yes. This is not necessary.

I wasn't saying that it would be, in terms of knowing what words to use when you meet someone new, at all.

I am actually rather surprised by this suggestion. The relationship of such pronouns is extremely clear: something which is important to the identity of the person (e.g. bunnies for bun/bunner/bunself).

I'll give an example. Let's consider an individual's identity: someone who is a "normal" women. What do we need to give this person legal protection? All we need is a law specifying that any individual who is a "normal" women has a protection form of legal protection.

Ehh… I'm extremely wary of a comment like this because, for every instance of someone having a silly obsession about terms, there are many instances of people being fucking jerks and deliberately dismissing the identities of others.

But that argument doesn't make sense. At the point where they are supposedly "not committed," when they have become "soccer parents," they have an entirely different identity.

For sure, but such a concern missing the point here. Those who feel out of place in gender category because of social expectations aren't actually running such a campaign with their identity. They are just trying to be recognised in a way which feels comfortable.

You are seriously trying to make this point after claiming that gender identity can only be a matter of a person having or identifying with"male" of "female" physiology?

Lots of people do not have the same name. Each instance of a given name refers only to one individual. If my name was "idiotking," someone using that name to talk about me would not talk about you. And vice versa.

Really? Are you not the one, in arguing that their identities during college were "fake" and illegitimate, suggesting that they must essentially be "soccer parents?"

All uses of category are individual descriptors. The point of a category is it is a set to which an individual or individuals belong.

That's a different question. If you are talking about a status class, a legally recognised group with protections, then you have shifted away from the question of someone's gender identity. You are, instead, talking about what categories are protected under the law.

For sure: language always means what it means. If someone is using those terms, that language, it has a meaning.

Only if you (or the person you are talking to) isn't paying attention to what the given language means. If you (or the person you rare talking to) trying to define the meaning of language outside how it is used.

You could, yes. You would just be using a different language.