Firstly, I don't see merely stating " I am a Scientist, that is my job" is " touting my scientific credentials." I merely used this assertion to rationalize my frustration with my own social group, because I take a scientific routing whereas other people in my social group might not have the same understanding. Besides, I am an Applied Scientist and right now I work with rocket thruster data here in Huntsville, this is not my domain -- my entire direction is not that " you have to be a scientist, oo listen to me I'm a scientist" my direction is " listen to scientists."
What you then proceed to describe is exactly what I said, correlation versus causation.... Which you can quote me saying straight from the article.

" The only thing that's ruled out is that sexual differentiation of reproductive organs and obvious dimorphic physical characteristics completely determines gender." -- so what you're saying is, reproductive organs and physical characteristics are correlated, not caused?

" If we use a bunch of other evidence, then we can refine our understanding, but please don't besmirch science by donning the science-hat and then engaging in extremely sloppy reasoning and/or argumentation." -- you can call any argumentation or reasoning " sloppy", that doesn't make it sloppy. It seems you arguing the same exact point I made in the article is pretty sloppy, but would I say what you said is sloppy? Not necessarily, it is just your thoughts.

Donning the Science hat? I think we should point to established tests and knowledge on any topic to verify ideas, everyone should be " donning the Science hat" and that is my point -- follow the Science.
I think we can get by in this conversation without personal attacks on something that is irrelevant to the point you are making about my actual career. Weird.