That's the same except it's closer to the "ground" in terms of abstraction (DNA is the bird's eye view here).
You can't self-identify yourself as being of a certain profession because you first have to do it. I cannot declare "I am a nuclear scientist now, and you must address me as doctor", and then expect people to actually do it without questioning the veracity of the claim. Self-identifying as a species doesn't work because of DNA, self-ID as a sex doesn't work because of DNA, and self-ID of a profession doesn't work because it's based on knowledge, skill, and credentials (etc).
> You can't self-identify yourself as being of a certain profession
That's true, but there are identities where self-identity does make sense. Religious identity would be a good example. I think it's best to think of feelings-based gender identities as akin to religious identities. They don't replace the category of sex, but they are valid in their own right.
100%. Lawyers such as Candice Jackson believe that applying religious freedom laws to gender identity is the clearest path out of this mess. The true believers should get no more and no fewer rights than anyone else. It's important that law also protects "gender atheists", and their right to not believe or be forced to use the newspeak of the believers.
You can't self-identify yourself as being of a certain profession because you first have to do it. I cannot declare "I am a nuclear scientist now, and you must address me as doctor", and then expect people to actually do it without questioning the veracity of the claim. Self-identifying as a species doesn't work because of DNA, self-ID as a sex doesn't work because of DNA, and self-ID of a profession doesn't work because it's based on knowledge, skill, and credentials (etc).