Unexpected News: The Wachowski Sisters! Second Wachowski Sibling Comes Out As Trans.

[ThatOtherGirl]

snip

You are right, racism is insidious and can be incredibly subtle. But I was more talking the blatant type of racist statements people make that are the sort of things you take as warning signs, like saying "Now, I'm not racist, but he's tall and black so I naturally assumed he is good at basket ball."

 

[Silvanus]

My main point being don't be so quick to label people if they're not being outright hostile because its not good behavior. Expand first, insult later because the latter gets used as lazy stonewalling all the time.

This is (on the face of it) logical, but it's still the tone argument. It occurs to me that if somebody is going to change their stance on social issues on the basis of somebody's tone, then they were never really much of an ally to begin with.

 

[elvor0]

I pointed you in that direction for expansion on my point. My main point being don't be so quick to label people if they're not being outright hostile because its not good behavior. Expand first, insult later because the latter gets used as lazy stonewalling all the time.

Except I have no interest in that point whatsoever, so there's no point in bringing it up to me. That kind of makes it worse. You cut down relevant points of my post to proseltyse to me on how I should read up on someone I don't like's comments on a topic I couldn't really care less about right now.

And my point still remains that you were wrong about "cold, hard scientific facts."

But since you ignored the parts of my post that actually dealt with your question, I get the impression you don't care. This is furthered when you start telling me to pay attention to an argument about a point I'm not taking up. I couldn't actually give a shit if he's being malicious or not. He's being harmful. He could think he's the greatest trans ally ever or the next Stalin, and it doesn't matter because it's still harmful. When called out on that, he has insisted that the experts are wrong and he is right. And you went in and declared cold, hard facts on a topic you admit you don't know about.

But instead of engaging me on that point, I'm supposed to talk about the presumed hostility of someone else. Unless I'm somehow responsible for Kyuubi's reactions, then this really doesn't concern me.

My main point, the part that you snipped out was that this is a harmful practice. By the way, the poster in question has been informed of this and plans to do it anyway and has even taken shots at the "regressive left" over it. My secondary point was that you were factually wrong to state cold hard facts on a subject you admittedly don't understand.
Otherwise, do me a favour and don't try and drag me into your conversation with Kyuubi. The fact that we are both transwomen is about the only commonality we have, and this is not enough to mean I share her opinions.

Don't try and make it look like I'm lumping you together. You were another poster of whom I knew nothing about until this very sentence. I am not psychic, I don't know anything about whatever your dispute is with Kyuubi. I pointed you in the direction of stuff that DOES cover what you spoke about that I snipped to save myself time and the forum space. If you want to take umbrage at that, that's your problem. Instead of being civil, you got the arse on with /me/ referring you to where I had /already/ discussed the points you made and started sulking because I didn't have the foreknowledge that you and Kyuubi have some sort of dispute.

I didn't know that the other dude has beeing a stereotypical anti leftist because as far as I'm aware, he did that after I started talking to Kyuubi and I've only been reading the posts I've been quoted in. I haven't been reading the thread as a whole past my post. Clearly that guy /does/ have a problem with transgender people and is quite likely to be a bigot.

Basically, don't take the stonewalling lazy mans route unless they /clearly/ display those points. You were talking about it being harmful to have those attitudes regarding trans people in regards to genetics and you're right, but I was talking it in the sense that is better to educate than label. Ignorance is not the same as hatred/bigotry and shouldn't be treated the same. I've learned quite a bit in this thread that I didn't know before out of ignorance because people took the time to contest my points with proper, civil explanation. And that's great, I'm better for knowing these things.

And yeah...you are right that I was wrong about the "cold hard science". That's besides the point because I've already admitted that I was wrong. It was my opening sentence to your quote.

 

[McElroy]

I was more talking the blatant type of racist statements people make that are the sort of things you take as warning signs, like saying "Now, I'm not racist, but he's tall and black so I naturally assumed he is good at basket ball."

Tall people have an advantage over their shorter peers in basketball. It would be nonsensical to utter that anyway unless all they knew was the person's height and color, and if one uses their eyes they'll obviously see more. Obviously it's easy to go off into blatant racism in these things, but I wouldn't say it's fair that you'd have to double-check yourself for racism if you happened to think a tall person could make a good basketball player.

Also I finally get to tell you I love that avatar, cute and instantly recognizeable.

OT: So does this make the Matrix retroactively less manly? Was it manly at all to begin with? Did you know that Keanu Reeves doesn't know how to run?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Don't even need to go to our TV, friend. Hate crimes on Sikh and the like are up because they supposedly look like Muslims.

Yeah, but apparently this is news to some. The Tavella incident in particular stands out to me because the reported excuse was specifically under the reasons of being perceived as 'Middle Eastern' .... which is an entirely new can of worms.

It's worth noting much of this came up specifically because a poster declared his intent to misgender trans people. Clearly, this is not someone trying and making missteps. This is someone flat out saying you're calling yourself the wrong gender. Though I would again stress that like malice, being a jerk is irrelevant. Regardless of the intent, this is wrong. Christ, even if he was right about sex and gender, even if we ignore the medical/scientific consensus, the psych community agrees that such measures are damaging to us.

Malicious intent, casual transphobia, well-intentioned failure. In any case, it's harmful. And like many other trans individuals, I have been "helped" nearly to death in the past. Keep in mind a good number of people who try and "convert" LGBT people honestly think they're saving us. They're just saving us in contrast to the overwhelming consensus of anyone who knows what they're talking about. I lack a lasso that allows me to make people tell the truth or a mystic stone to give me sight beyond sight, but whether someone is hateful or not is of no concern to me, and I don't think it should be the primary concern for anyone. Whether or not they will continue harmful behaviour is/should be.

I might also note this is one reason why I had a problem with the idea that; "Racism is obvious..." It's not, and the act of othering trans people by pretending you need to literally tweak language to out trans people is inherently dangerous. Not only that but you're robbing trans people of any self-actualized identity. It's the same form of paternalism and open wish to control and dominate the conversation and the status quo, that could be applicable to any action of paternalism.

For starters, the logic is broken, it appeals to Nature ... but both scientific or social examination of the human creature would disprove the notion, and it assumes that trans people deserve to be treated with open contempt regardless of any pursuit of self-actualising. That there needs to be a level of conformity in the dialogue, otherwise trans people are the ones being disingenuous and sneaky ... so either; "be open so we can treat you like shit, or be afraid of ever being outed ... because we'll do that for you."

People don't see themselves as unreasonable agents. They can put on airs of reasonable action, all the while demanding that trans people have no valid control over their life and deserve none. Point is, any form of unreasonable desires for power over another, to dictate their language, their sense of self, and the reality of another's agency to demand that they be treated as people with the right to the experiment of living, isn't always obvious.

In the end, what guarantees the greatest amount of mobility for the self and reduces the most applicable harm is the only moral recourse. We know enough by now that transgender identity is a biological condition, and any appeal to nature argument against that has been contested and disproven in the regards to othering them. Moreover, most the arguments made seem destined to die with the pursuit of technological capacity. Regardless, that won't stop the same arguments cropping up by people wishing to dictate what is another's relationship to being, by limiting their capacity to be seen as a reasonable aspect of the greater social environment.

People seem to forget that liberty is a curse that requires one to promote it for others as much as oneself, but you wouldn't know it by the sound of the rhetoric some people take to telling trans* people what they are from their own broken philosophical paradigm. All the while pretending that "liberty" is at stake when trans* people tell them they're wrong, while they are fundamentally at odds with the idea of liberalism to begin with. That, my friends, is what they call 'privilege' ... the ability to spin rhetoric where in any reasonable expression of the value of human individuality and personal autonomy is ignored. No matter the scientific incorrectness of their diatribes or the lack of wholesomeness of the social wellbeing that their rhetoric entails, and do so while expecting people to simply live with that rhetoric rather than fight back.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

You are right, racism is insidious and can be incredibly subtle. But I was more talking the blatant type of racist statements people make that are the sort of things you take as warning signs, like saying "Now, I'm not racist, but he's tall and black so I naturally assumed he is good at basket ball."

Absolutely, but the methodology of paternalism, whereby one demands undue power from you as if it were a reasonable cost of one's self-expression and being, is still entrenched by the same mechanics that let people put up signs saying 'No coloureds'. "I'm not racist, but..." is a pretty effective way of identifying a racist, yeah. But there are so many expressions of; "I'm not [x], but [insert comment here]..." arguments to out trans people as a social mechanism of language, and other unreasonable extensions of a paternalist attempt to control another person or group of people.

There's nothing wrong with examining why Black athletes may indeed be more proficient in certain social activities. But when you pretend that difference means a guarantee of normality for the experiment of living for Black people, then you have a problem... and that is often not as blatant as merely hearing; "I'm not racist, but..."

But specifically, on the social isolation and denial of rightful power and access to the marketplace as an equal that came with US public accomodation laws. How often do you think the 'religious freedom' for profit industries is going to encroach on basic human rights of the mobility of one's self and their capital if approved nationwide? By pretending that people deserve to be denied regardless of any real concerns of social and physical risk in the environment ... where would you rate that? We're right back to the idea of 'No coloureds' ... same arguments, same stupidity, same maladjusted concepts of liberty, but put a playful spin on it and the voting populace seem to lap it up.

Very insidious indeed.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

I was more talking the blatant type of racist statements people make that are the sort of things you take as warning signs, like saying "Now, I'm not racist, but he's tall and black so I naturally assumed he is good at basket ball."

Tall people have an advantage over their shorter peers in basketball. It would be nonsensical to utter that anyway unless all they knew was the person's height and color, and if one uses their eyes they'll obviously see more. Obviously it's easy to go off into blatant racism in these things, but I wouldn't say it's fair that you'd have to double-check yourself for racism if you happened to think a tall person could make a good basketball player.

Also I finally get to tell you I love that avatar, cute and instantly recognizeable.

OT: So does this make the Matrix retroactively less manly? Was it manly at all to begin with? Did you know that Keanu Reeves doesn't know how to run?

No, you don't understand, that was a direct quote. Said in a staff meeting, yesterday, by my boss. My boss literally said "He is tall and black" as for why he assumed this guy was good at basketball. Black was equally important to his assumption as tall. Actually, it might have been more important, because the whole subject of basketball only came up because he was talking about this black client.

Also, thanks about the avatar. I like it a lot! Though I might ask my wife to make some Gwendolyn fanart for me soon and use that instead.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

-snip-

I don't think there's is any direct dispute between me and Something Amyss, we just kinda don't get along with each other. Though for my part I think that's a lot to do with my own tendency to go off half cocked when angry, paired with my often poor ability to express myself clearly in text. The former is my phenomenal temper(fulfilling the stereotype of the Irish part of my bloodline), the latter is because I'm dyslexic. At any rate Amyss has me on her ignore list, which makes quoting me extremely difficult, because she either has to take me off ignore, or has to manually code the quotes. Which I can understand her not wanting to do in either case.

What I find upsetting is being a point of contention to argue about between two other forumites. That's uncomfortably in between a rock and a hard place. >.<

I was more talking the blatant type of racist statements people make that are the sort of things you take as warning signs, like saying "Now, I'm not racist, but he's tall and black so I naturally assumed he is good at basket ball."

Tall people have an advantage over their shorter peers in basketball. It would be nonsensical to utter that anyway unless all they knew was the person's height and color, and if one uses their eyes they'll obviously see more. Obviously it's easy to go off into blatant racism in these things, but I wouldn't say it's fair that you'd have to double-check yourself for racism if you happened to think a tall person could make a good basketball player.

Also I finally get to tell you I love that avatar, cute and instantly recognizeable.

I think you might have missed the point a little. A lot of people instantly assume some people are better at sports because those people happen to be black, this is especially true when it comes to basketball. @ThatOtherGirl didn't need to use the tall part, it just kind of confused the point when it gets right down to it. A lot of insecure racists use the sports prowess that black people develop, often to attempt to get sports scholarships for college later in life, as an excuse to slam black people.

Now it's not racist to say: "Black people who grow up in the inner city tend to be most familiar with basketball as a sport, because they're often from poor areas that don't have parks, or recreation centers that have facilities for other sports." Which is true, for most field sports like baseball, soccer, rugby, and American football, require large specially set up grassy fields, which you don't find a lot of in the inner city. Where if you have an empty paved lot, you can cram one, or more basketball courts into just by putting up hoops and painting the pavement. Also I've never seen a community recreation center that doesn't have a basketball court in it's gymnasium, but those with pools often have the pool closed, due to a lack of funding, which prevents them from affording to maintain their pool. Which as a consequence also puts water sports, like water polo, out of reach if that's the only pool you have access to within walking distance. It's also true that most inner city black people tend to be impoverished as well, which means they often can't travel to a park with a football field, baseball diamond, or etc...

What is racist is: "Oh yeah I met [insert person's name], I bet he's good at basketball, because you know he's black and black people are automatically good at basketball." That's sort of the point that @ThatOtherGirl was trying to make.

OT: So does this make the Matrix retroactively less manly? Was it manly at all to begin with? Did you know that Keanu Reeves doesn't know how to run?

I'm not sure what you mean by "manly" here, seems a bit sexist to classify The Matrix manly just because it's a really neat pulpy science fiction action film series... Though if you look at the original The Matrix film closely, you can kinda see that there are a lot of elements that have transgender related subtext to them. Which can be gendered both ways, the whole thing with The Matrix is about transition from a fantasy world to accepting one's actual self in the real world.

Also Keanu Reeves doesn't know how to run? That's pretty finny.

 

[McElroy]

What is racist is: "Oh yeah I met [insert person's name], I bet he's good at basketball, because you know he's black and black people are automatically good at basketball." That's sort of the point that @ThatOtherGirl was trying to make.

Yes, it was the context that wasn't clear at first. I got tangled a bit on the wording.

OT: So does this make the Matrix retroactively less manly? Was it manly at all to begin with? Did you know that Keanu Reeves doesn't know how to run?

I'm not sure what you mean by "manly" here, seems a bit sexist to classify The Matrix manly just because it's a really neat pulpy science fiction action film series... Though if you look at the original The Matrix film closely, you can kinda see that there are a lot of elements that have transgender related subtext to them. Which can be gendered both ways, the whole thing with The Matrix is about transition from a fantasy world to accepting one's actual self in the real world.

Also Keanu Reeves doesn't know how to run? That's pretty finny.

Not too long ago I came a across a heated argument about the philosophy in the Matrix films in YouTube comments. And being YouTube comments it was mostly just two people talking past and insulting each other. Also be prepared, I'm now going to explain the joke: the Matrix is indeed retroactively less manly, because there are fewer men in the credits. And the tangent to Keanu's running style was just something to make it all even less serious. Though even if you got it you would've replied, which is fine. I kinda have that habit too, elaborating on topics even if the other person is mostly joking - especially face-to-face, where you don't really stop to think.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Snip for everything that was said

Wow, dude. Seriously? To what benefit is there to hold your view? What harm is there in changing it?

Now what harm is there in holding it?

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah, but apparently this is news to some. The Tavella incident in particular stands out to me because the reported excuse was specifically under the reasons of being perceived as 'Middle Eastern' .... which is an entirely new can of worms.

I kind of wonder, though, how often they don't know.

I mean, I hear the things people say when they think they're in safe company. Because I am very obviously a straight white dude and will be fine when they start complaining about black people or queers or whatever.

I have actually heard the term "******-lover" used unironically in this decade. More than once.

It seems to me there's a sizeable chunk of people who are absolutely aware of their racism/sexism/whatever, but don't like the social stigma that goes along with it. I don't like being called racist, but I don't see a problem with thinking blacks are inferior, or something to that effect. You see it a lot more brazenly with LGBT groups, mind, but it still is an issue with racial miunorities. And most obvious when it comes to Islam, which really seems to mean "Arabs." Which means "anyone who looks Arab."

Even the KKK takes umbrage at the notion they might be racist.


I might also note this is one reason why I had a problem with the idea that; "Racism is obvious..." It's not, and the act of othering trans people by pretending you need to literally tweak language to out trans people is inherently dangerous. Not only that but you're robbing trans people of any self-actualized identity. It's the same form of paternalism and open wish to control and dominate the conversation and the status quo, that could be applicable to any action of paternalism.[/quote]

Indeed, most people are self-aware enough to not be overtly racist at least in public.

It would probably be actually easier to navigate life while trans if every bigot wore their bigotry on their sleeve. At least I wouldn't have to worry about which of my friends, family members, etc. were ticking time bombs--I'd know who to keep an eye on. But even people who might do you harm often keep their malice sub rosa.

In any case, the people who tend to say that -isms are obvious are the ones who are in the best position to be completely oblivious.

In the end, what guarantees the greatest amount of mobility for the self and reduces the most applicable harm is the only moral recourse. We know enough by now that transgender identity is a biological condition, and any appeal to nature argument against that has been contested and disproven in the regards to othering them. Moreover, most the arguments made seem destined to die with the pursuit of technological capacity. Regardless, that won't stop the same arguments cropping up by people wishing to dictate what is another's relationship to being, by limiting their capacity to be seen as a reasonable aspect of the greater social environment.

Or from citing science. Even though "science" isn't on their side. Just claiming it is enough. I mean, look, it's not me that hates you, it's science. Science says you're wrong to feel this way and need to be corrected properly. Which I guess gets into the whole paternalism concept you're talking about, as not treating me like a woman is totally for my own good.

People seem to forget that liberty is a curse that requires one to promote it for others as much as oneself, but you wouldn't know it by the sound of the rhetoric some people take to telling trans* people what they are from their own broken philosophical paradigm. All the while pretending that "liberty" is at stake when trans* people tell them they're wrong, while they are fundamentally at odds with the idea of liberalism to begin with. That, my friends, is what they call 'privilege' ... the ability to spin rhetoric where in any reasonable expression of the value of human individuality and personal autonomy is ignored. No matter the scientific incorrectness of their diatribes or the lack of wholesomeness of the social wellbeing that their rhetoric entails, and do so while expecting people to simply live with that rhetoric rather than fight back.

Worse, when we do fight back, demand the sort of treatment others expect, it's because we're the real bigots.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

I don't know for certain of course, it's an assumption based on his appearance, name, pronouns used and the news that he has now chosen to adopt a female identity.

Then what you keep representing as objective facts is nothing but a bundle of prejudices based on superficial observations that you can't possibly verify except with another assumption, this one outcome-determinative based on a begging the question fallacy.

You are technically correct - the best kind of correct.
Still, it is a reasonable approximation to assume that he is a man given the context - otherwise assuming a female identity wouldn't make him a trans.

You're consistent appeals to facts and objectivity. Though if you'd like to limit it to just your belief about chromosomes that's not much better. When was the last time you checked someone's chromosomes? Your own chromosomes? When have you ever asked someone what their chromosomes were before you decided whether they were a man or a woman, or even thought about doing so? Do you think the doctor checked your chromosomes when you were born before telling your parents whether you were a boy or a girl?

And, finally, is anyone without the exact chromosomal makeup of XY not a man regardless of everything else?

No, there is no need to check the chromosomes - before or after someone is born the exam of the genitalia is enough to determine sex. What's your point?

None of this is exactly relevant to trans people the world over who you apparently think should deny their identity for some greater good, despite not actually showing what greater good is achieved. That you subsumed your identity for the sake of your family is only a greater good in your personal worldview of a (I'm guessing heteronormative) family being worth more than acknowledging your own identity.

I never said they should, as I cannot know how difficult would it be for someone in such a situation to live and form a family according to their sex of birth. I do however recognize heteronormative sexuality both as positive and necessary for society.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

If you really want to see someone in a severely depressed state, to the point of suicide, go ahead, keep this mindset.
Not everyone who is transgender may want SRS, but it is still no fucking reason to refer someone, who is transgender, by their birthsex.

I honestly think the warning you got was justified, all I see is you being severely disrespectful towards anyone who is transgender. Have some respect for others, and refer them by the pronounce someone prefers, instead of basing it off of someone's genitals.

People like you is what can really push my buttons.

...dude.

The truth is you're transphobic. Your adamant defense of calling someone by their 'birth gender' is blatantly transphobic and incredibly disrespectful, since you're upholding your own - incredibly wrong - opinions over the identities (and scientific realities) of transgendered people.

The only time you should refer to a transgendered person by anything but their desired pronouns is if they aren't out yet and you're in public, or if they are in a situation where being refered to by their desired pronouns would result in bodily harm coming to them. That's it.

Going 'I'll call them their birth gender regardless' isn't the 'truth', it's just straight up transphobia.

You can bare as little ill will as you think you do, but when you refuse to call someone by their preferred gender... you're just being transphobic.

This isn't even a case of people being 'offended' by you... just exasperated over yet-another person with zero understanding of gender refusing to budge from their ill-informed views, even when you have people explaining in detail why what you're doing is fucked up.

Just... come on. Come on. Be better than this.

Both your definition of "respect" involves lying about someone's status as a man or a woman - this is both utterly irrational and unrelated to respect. I will not go out my way to change the definition of words in order to accomodate someone's will to be what they are not; at the same time it is certainly not a hobby of mine to look for trans people and address them by their sex just for the hell of it.

Additionally, I am neither afraid of trans people nor I suffer for mental illnesses related to them - if you want to be taken seriously I would avoid the use of similar politically-correct neologisms.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

Well in most cases when people spout rhetoric that's linked with an active hate movement, they get associated with said hate movement. Adamantly refusing to use correct gender pronouns with trans people, the correct gender pronouns are by consensus based on gender identity and presentation, is how transphobic movements attempt to invalidate trans folk.

And this is a textbook example of both Guilt by Associaton and Argumentum ad Populum. Since are arguing about the definition of a word there is not an ultimately "correct" gender pronoun - it depends on the meaning people give to it.

First of transgender people do not chose to be trans, gender identity is not a choice, we do not chose to have gender dysphoria either. If you've read the DSM-V and paid attention to the section of the DSM-V dealing with Gender Dysphoria, you'd know that it's not a choice. Second the brain is a valid biological system and it's where all of the important parts of human personality, identity, and such are formed. Trans women for example have brains that work on female norms, that's biology. On the other hand reproductive organs contribute nothing to who a person actually is, just how they reproduce. Gendering based on the latter also requires knowing private information about a person that the public is not entitled to. We gender based on how someone presents themselves, so it's still incorrect to suddenly swap pronouns if you find out they have different genitals at birth.

Honest curiosity here - are you saying that it has been found what in a person's body/genes/brain causes gender dysphoria? Last time I checked no conclusive evidence of this had been found. I'm saying this because already before having this discussion I read that some trans people present charateristic of the sex they are not born with, but that applies also to some people who do not have gender disphoria - is this amount statistically significant compared to the incidence of people who present traits of the other gender?

Also, just because an information may not be actually known it doesn't mean that it's wrong to make an assumption about it.

Switching gender pronouns on someone that's trans because you find out they're trans then is disrespectful, it's also dangerous. It's both in no small part because you're outing them publicly against their will, while also invalidating them as a person run by a brain, reducing them to their genitals. Selectively favoring genitals as a means to address someone with gendered pronouns isn't a defensible position for so many reasons.

It's not because I found about they are trans, it's because I learned their gender.
There is a difference between gender and gender identity, one being objective and the other, until proven otherwise, subjective. Nobody wants to prevent the use of pronouns based on the latter, what you are suggesting is that people should not use terms based on the former even when used correctly.
Worse still, you are saying that pronouns based on gender identity should be the ONLY ones being used and should replace the ones based on sex... because some people choose to be offended by them.

This entire subject is one of definitions, not about the freedom to behave, act or dress at one's leisure - there is no discussion to be had about what defines a man or a woman.

Except that you're doing something that is a classic tactic of damaging a person on a personal level in society. Having one's gender identity rejected publicly is dangerous because then people out us against our will, which makes us targets for assaults, sexual abuse, and murder. It's also personally damaging, most trans people are rejected their entire lives, you contributing to it is harmful, not helpful and it is a contributing factor to trans suicides. So while we have to contend with other people's expectations, being invalidated deep personal level and endangered publicly is not justifiable.

If there are evil people in the world that want to harm you or others simply based on who you are, shame on them. Goes without saying that I would certainly cooperate and help you or anyone else in not disclosing your identity in public if this could be a problem.
What I will NOT do, however, is lying to you for the sake of making you (or anyone else) feel better. Because this would be actually harmful and could contribute to make _you_ reject yourself.

You say that, but people who do the same things you do also try to erase trans folk by taking our legal rights away... They say the same things you've been saying, they do it to invalidate and harm us, and you saying the same things is part of what gives them sway. Less a slippery slope, more deflecting the concept that adding to harmful attitudes is what supports them. Which in the treatment of women, civil rights, gay rights, and so on is a proven fact. People who do continue to support the structures of prejudice are actively oppressing others, that's why racial segregation actually was allowed for so long, because people backed casual racism.

Not sure who any of this relates to our discussion.

You ignored the existence of people who are intersex, infertile, born without reproductive parts, then you refused to address the point.

I clearly haven't.

You're still using birth sex as a means of invalidating a person's identity. Also, how in the world do you refer to intersex people, who may, or may not have been assigned the correct gender at birth? Besides I default to gendering people how they present, if they tell me they want to be gendered differently, I respect that because it's just the commonly decent thing to do. You're saying common decency is meaningless and that you're going to back systems used to oppress trans and intersex people regardless.

I changed that because you're actively rejecting medicine, psychology, psychiatric, and scientific standards regarding trans people. So you would be switching to using the incorrect pronoun, both by objective consensus and social standards. You'd also be putting any trans person you did this to in danger, if you do it in a public place, because it puts a massive target for violence and abuse on our backs.

Except your stance doesn't represent truth, objectivity, or factual correctness. Your position is in truth a tool used to discredit trans life experiences and justify discriminatory tactics used by cissexist and transphobic people against transgender people. You have no factual, truthful, objective, legal, scientific, medical, psychiatric, or social standards to back you up here. You're using your subjective ideas about gender and sex to justify invalidating trans people, that's what makes it offensive. You've rejected all objective standards and clung purely to your subjective view, so with that I can see we're not going to have any agreement. So I'll just say, have a good life and I hope you realize your subjective prejudice here, for the sake of any trans people you may find your self in a close relationship with.

Now this is complete hogwash. There is no way someone's biology "invalidates" his or her identity. There may be a conflict between the two, I'm aware of this, but being objective about someone's situation is neither lack of respect or whatnot. This as well as forcing your own of terminology is a clearly ideological use of the meaning of words.
You are also projecting a malicious intent in my words simply because you don't like them, which is presumptuous in the first place and irrelevant to my reasoning in the second.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

So chromosomes aren't important then; genitalia is what's important?

Besides that, the point was that for all your constant appeals to how objective and factual you are, almost nothing you've said is anything remotely close to that: it has all been nothing but your personal, unsupported view of gender and sex. And the things you tout as your hard facts are something you have never and likely will never use in your life, that being chromosomes, with your current fallback of "genitalia" being in a similar boat. Unless you go around checking everyone's crotch before deciding whether you'd like to respect their gender identity or decide for them what they are based upon your view of the world that just happens to be opposed by pretty much every expert on the subject.

You can recognize whatever you'd like about society, but that doesn't stop it from just being more of your personal view of things.

A person's sex is relevant and important for society for reasons that should be self-evident, to the point that many countries have it on the ID card. This is not an opinion.