This one is easy - neither. The term "science" has gone through semantic dilution in a manner similar to how everyone is now an engineer - software engineer, prompt engineer, sanitation engineer.
Falsifiability is one of the key distinguishing characteristics of a proper science, as famously propounded by Karl Popper.
"Gender identities" not only can not be falsified, they should not be falsified, because that would amount to transphobia; denying the existence of someone's felt and lived gender identity is the definition of transphobia.
Since they cannot be falsified, nor even directly observed, measured, nor quantified, they are not scientific notions.
The closest most well-studied analogue to the "gender identity" is the legacy religious notion of "the soul," to which you will see you can ascribe most, if not all, of the same attributes as ascribed to the "gender identity."
Depends on the circumstance, surely? If someone is claiming a "felt and lived" identity to justify an action that infringes on the rights of others, is that not reason enough to deny it?
This one is easy - neither. The term "science" has gone through semantic dilution in a manner similar to how everyone is now an engineer - software engineer, prompt engineer, sanitation engineer.
Falsifiability is one of the key distinguishing characteristics of a proper science, as famously propounded by Karl Popper.
"Gender identities" not only can not be falsified, they should not be falsified, because that would amount to transphobia; denying the existence of someone's felt and lived gender identity is the definition of transphobia.
Since they cannot be falsified, nor even directly observed, measured, nor quantified, they are not scientific notions.
The closest most well-studied analogue to the "gender identity" is the legacy religious notion of "the soul," to which you will see you can ascribe most, if not all, of the same attributes as ascribed to the "gender identity."