Is the popular transgender view of gender scientific?

It seems to me that the current transgender supporting idea of gender among gender studies types cannot in principle be supported by any empirical science; for science requires a hypothesis which can be tested, the results of which can then be shared in the scientific community through the peer review.

Now this all requires that there to be a common language among those engaging in the science, the terms used have to mean at least roughly the same thing to all the scientists, so that they are on the same page, sharing the same conventions in using (and ideally, defining) the terms, so that they can even make sense of the hypotheses and test results, so as to review them and potentially try to replicate the results should the motivation, time, resources, and opportunity to do so arise. This common language is supposed to be the overarching 'theory' from which the hypothesis is formed, and in terms of which the test is made and communicated; and it is part of the job of the theoretical sciences to work out such a language, which is (so far as possible) consistent with past data, but which is also able to produce empirically falsifiable hypotheses, so that they may be tested and the results talked about, and so that progress in empirical knowledge may be made.

The issue however, is that the current 'theory' of gender, isn't. i.e. it's not really a theory, but an anti-theory; for if you were to ask what 'gender' is, you're 'ideally' going to get an answer something like "the social construct regarding masculinity and feminity" (though sometimes you'll get something more like 'gender is how a person identifies') if you ask what masculinity and femininity are, you're apt to get something like the attributes, roles, and behaviors typically associated with men and women respectively; and if you then ask 'what is a man?' and 'what is a woman', you'll get the answer something roughly like 'whatever the person using the term wants it to mean'.

The issue with this is that a social construct, by definition, is something constructed 'by society' i.e. not just this or that individual, but by a 'group' of people i.e. it is the result of human interaction, and as such is something that has currency among 'more than one person', but the issue of the current way of defining it is that the meaning of the term is always relativized to the individual, and as such 'is not a social construct', so that as the term is presently used, it's incoherent; gender is a social construct that is also not a social construct, at the same time and in the same sense. This is, of course, incoherent; in turn making present gender theory internally incoherent.

Worse still, by deferring the meaning of the term to the individual using it, the current (anti-)theorists show that they don't actually have a conventional meaning amongst themselves i.e. 'they do not personally mean anything by the term'; and yet, if they were to go and collect 'empirical data' said data would for them be 'absolutely meaningless' because they would have absolutely no theory in terms of which to make sense of it, they would have no common language to say whether or not the data they are dealing with confirms or denies the hypotheses produced from their theory; because (lacking a theory) 'there are no such hypotheses' and so their view 'cannot in principle' be supported by the empirical data.

So sure, they can collect all sorts of data, the sort of data common to the social sciences; they can ask individual people and groups of people various survey questions involving the vernacular gender terminology and they can get a variety of answers and find statistical correlations within those answers, they can make studies of particular cases of people and so track individual people through their life to see how they adjust psychologically to various treatments and such like (i.e. make case studies), and they can collect that data and likewise find other statistical correlations and characteristics by examining it; but the issue here is that 'without a working theory' the data is 'meaningless' (for one of the functions of a theory is to make sense of data, to offer an 'explanation' for it, so that it can be wrapped up into a coherent whole and talked about under the aegis of that whole; this cannot be done here) and cannot so cannot coherently be said to 'support' the current gender views.

In other words, no matter how much data these (anti)theorists gather, they can never make any claims about men and women in general, never make any claims about 'gender' in general, because 'as they use the term', there is absolutely nothing 'general' or even 'specific' about gender, gender is absolutely and completely 'particular', absolutely and completely 'individual, absolutely and complete 'subjective', so much so that no one besides the person using the term can know what they mean; and of course, included in that 'no one' is going to be 'the gender studies community itself'.

As such, the current gender view cannot 'in principle' be supported by the science, but is in fact 'anti-scientific' because empirical science 'requires theory', theoretical science is a prerequisite to coherent experimental and applied science; since the whole point of experimental science is to 'test theories' and the whole point of applied sciences is to 'apply theories'; you can't 'test' data, testing is what 'gives' you the data; nor can you 'apply' sheer data, because application involves forming a plan of action and acting on it, and a plan of action requires a language which lets you talk about (and so, form) the end-goal and various subsidiary goals, all the anticipated obstacles, and the means one has by which one can overcome those obstacles and reach said goals; and simply noting certain correlations in recorded data doesn't help with 'any of that' until that data and those correlations are placed within a framework that makes sense of them.

In other words, one's theory gives one a series of 'practical questions' you can ask about the data, such as this: what goals does the data make possible that we wouldn't think possible without hte data? (for data is something actual, and of course, if something is actual, then it's possible; and often, until you've seen something actually happen, you don't even think to imagine it, and so to conceive of it's possibility) What obstacles does the data indicate for these new goals and other goals we may have had (for again, until gaining data, you might not think something is as difficult as you had thought it would be before) How, if at all, can we leverage this data with all other things we know and have i.e. how can we use it as a means to an end?

Since all of these questions are 'about the data' then naturally the 'data itself' can't give you the answer to them, rather, you need an over-arching theory which categorizes the data in various ways and relates those categories ideally to practical every day categories, but barring that, at least relates them to the sorts of practical categories experts in the experimental and applied sciences could use or at least make sense of in their own terms i.e. terms that engineers and such like can make heads or tails of. If they can't make sense of these things, then they can't test them (so as to determine if they're true) and can't even 'try' apply them (so as to determine if they're useful) in which case the data is meaningless to these types, and the theory is useless to either of their goals i.e. the goal of determining the empirical truth of a matter and the goal of 'pretty much anything else', and so such a theory is so useless in it's meaninglessness that it 'may as well be false'