Sounds like the penis plays are bit more crucial of a role there than the beard, though, since you said you'd call a biological female with a beard, "she". It sounds like something other than the beard, is your deciding factor. And then you said you respect the transgender community and that if they don't have a beard, you'll call them "she". So it sounds like even the penis might not be the deciding factor.
So I don't think you invalidated anything. I just continue to see inconsistency.
Like, if a man dresses up as a woman, you'll call that character a she. But if that man dresses up as a bearded woman (a type of woman that does exist), then you refuse to call that character a she, even though you'd call an actual bearded woman, a she. It's not too important in this case because the person is a crossdressing man rather than a transgender woman, so pronouns probably wouldn't offend the person. But logically, it's a contradiction.
This seems to be why he does this- to mess with people, to sort of bring out the logical inconsistencies people have, to create goofy conversations like this one. Gender and sex are areas where a lot of people seem to assign arbitrary "rules" to things but then as soon as those rules start being compared, it turns out that they don't actually make much sense. The problem with making up rules in the first place is that they become messy if they aren't 100% applicable. So as a general "rule", women don't have beards, except when they do.
An interesting fact, according to articles I've read, is that for transgender people that access hormones and all that, it has historically been a problem if a trans woman was attracted to females, or if she was noticeably "butch" in personality, or basically in any way not stereotypically feminine enough. Even though women can be lesbian, and women can be tomboys, a person who was assigned male at birth that had a gender identity as a woman and was trying to access hormones to feminize her body, would be held to a stricter standard of what constitutes feminine, as part of the decision to let her access hormones or not. As a result, many would lie about their sexual orientation or act in certain ways, to convince their hetero-normative doctor or therapist to let them access hormones. Holding people to different standard is a form of inconsistency.
How can it be synonymous with masculine identity if some women with feminine identities, have beards? This part here is as plain as one of those formal logic questions on a logic test.
If you were being precise about word choice, it would be something like, "capability of growing a beard is rather strongly correlated with masculine identity".
I didn't say it's gender normative. I said that the inconsistency is odd. That you'd call a woman with a beard a she, and you'd call a transgender woman or a crossdressing man a she, but not a transgender woman or a crossdressing man with a beard a she? Those people can be women, but they can't be bearded women, even though bearded women do exist?
As far as disorders go, what constitutes a disorder is somewhat subjective and somewhat objective. Certain hair growth on women is usually associated with abnormal hormone levels, although there are other reasons. Sometimes it's a harmful reason, while other times, it's harmless other than potentially causing psychological distress. (Like, I'd certainly have distress if I began growing a beard, as many women would.)
But if for example a woman has a beard and is healthy and she is cool with having that beard, is that necessarily a disorder? We can objectively say it's rare, but we can only subjectively label it as a disorder, in that case. I knew a girl in high school that had quite a bit of facial hair. There are ways to temporarily and permanently remove hair, but instead she just sort of rocked it as it was. So without knowing medical details, I certainly wouldn't call her form of expression a disorder.
Yes, but it's not synonymous.