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

[Saelune]

Whether they like it or not, when you are famous, you are a representation of whatever you are. And honestly, I DO think being famous means you owe more to the community. Not that I think anything people do in your name is your fault (such as kids looking up to bad role models that clearly should not or are not trying to be such) but who you are and what you do with that has bigger effects than people may realize. Plus we need better transgender representation besides Bruce Jenner since he is a shitty person (Yes, I am being intentionally disrespectful to his identity since he is a bigot and thus a hypocrite).

What about say, Obama? While he cannot hide his ethnicity the way LGBT people can hide their gender/sexuality, would it be ok if he could? If he was say, ashamed of being black? Now all black Americans know they can be president, at least as far as their race is concerned. May seem silly but any young trans people who want to be major film makers now have 2 examples of such.

Maybe I should also make mention that I'm transgendered myself and know the feeling of being the center of unwanted attention for what I am. I know its hard and stressful, but I don't have a fanbase to fall back on. Just got myself. Id love more celebrities I respected that I could look at and feel like I'm not so strange.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Well the biggest drivers of suicide amongst trans folk are: The inability to transition, especially medically. Losing the support of friends and families. Losing one's job and/or being evicted from their homes for being trans, this is also paired with the fact that in most of the US trans folk can also be denied housing and employment opportunities for being trans.

In all honesty being outed as trans has a serious tendency to destroy people's entire lives, even more so than being outed as gay, or lesbian can do that. People who are open to lesbian and gay folk often do not extend that same acceptance, or even tolerance for trans folk. Suicide might not be a valid reaction to being outed as trans, but for many it's the only option they're left with. Just look at the pressure this year alone in US state level bathroom bills, designed to put trans folk in danger by putting us in the wrong bathroom.

Yes, all of those things are horrible, but they don't justify suicide. They're killing someone's brother or sister. They're killing someone's child. Move away, cut off your family, live a lie, or scream and yell. Don't kill yourself. If you feel any of those things justify self homicide, then seek medical attention immediately.

 

[Saelune]

Well the biggest drivers of suicide amongst trans folk are: The inability to transition, especially medically. Losing the support of friends and families. Losing one's job and/or being evicted from their homes for being trans, this is also paired with the fact that in most of the US trans folk can also be denied housing and employment opportunities for being trans.

In all honesty being outed as trans has a serious tendency to destroy people's entire lives, even more so than being outed as gay, or lesbian can do that. People who are open to lesbian and gay folk often do not extend that same acceptance, or even tolerance for trans folk. Suicide might not be a valid reaction to being outed as trans, but for many it's the only option they're left with. Just look at the pressure this year alone in US state level bathroom bills, designed to put trans folk in danger by putting us in the wrong bathroom.

Yes, all of those things are horrible, but they don't justify suicide. They're killing someone's brother or sister. They're killing someone's child. Move away, cut off your family, live a lie, or scream and yell. Don't kill yourself. If you feel any of those things justify self homicide, then seek medical attention immediately.

You criticize suicide for "killing ones family" but suggest cutting said family off as a better alternative? Unless you are a parent with kids to be responsible for, suicide is kind of a persons own right to choose to do or not do. Not that its ever the best result, but its not really other's place to say who has the right to end their own life. Better off just trying to be helpful and considerate to people at risk rather than harshly judging their decision if it gets too much.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

You criticize suicide for "killing ones family" but suggest cutting said family off as a better alternative? Unless you are a parent with kids to be responsible for, suicide is kind of a persons own right to choose to do or not do. Not that its ever the best result, but its not really other's place to say who has the right to end their own life. Better off just trying to be helpful and considerate to people at risk rather than harshly judging their decision if it gets too much.

Yes, I do suggest shutting out your family as a better alternative. Your family might come around one day. If you kill yourself, you'll have no idea if they will or not. Also, your family is over. Done. I've seen it happen. Suicide tears people apart in ways you can't imagine. My life was drastically altered when someone I barely knew committed suicide.

Having been depressed and miserable for very long periods of time, I do find a place to judge. It may be unfair because I'm not in the same place as people who commit suicide, but I don't care. Suicide is not an answer.

(Maybe in Jack Kevorkian-esque situations where remaining life is going to be short and incredibly painful, then maybe, when it's a decision people come to collectively with their friends and family and a doctor performs in a guaranteed painless manner. Being trans or gay is not that situation.)

 

[Saelune]

You criticize suicide for "killing ones family" but suggest cutting said family off as a better alternative? Unless you are a parent with kids to be responsible for, suicide is kind of a persons own right to choose to do or not do. Not that its ever the best result, but its not really other's place to say who has the right to end their own life. Better off just trying to be helpful and considerate to people at risk rather than harshly judging their decision if it gets too much.

Yes, I do suggest shutting out your family as a better alternative. Your family might come around one day. If you kill yourself, you'll have no idea if they will or not. Also, your family is over. Done. I've seen it happen. Suicide tears people apart in ways you can't imagine. My life was drastically altered when someone I barely knew committed suicide.

Having been depressed and miserable for very long periods of time, I do find a place to judge. It may be unfair because I'm not in the same place as people who commit suicide, but I don't care. Suicide is not an answer.

(Maybe in Jack Kevorkian-esque situations where remaining life is going to be short and incredibly painful, then maybe, when it's a decision people come to collectively with their friends and family and a doctor performs in a guaranteed painless manner. Being trans or gay is not that situation.)

And how did it effect you if you barely knew them?
I still hold that people have the right to their own life and desire to end it or not. Better effort spent helping people not feel that way.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Whether they like it or not, when you are famous, you are a representation of whatever you are. And honestly, I DO think being famous means you owe more to the community. Not that I think anything people do in your name is your fault (such as kids looking up to bad role models that clearly should not or are not trying to be such) but who you are and what you do with that has bigger effects than people may realize. Plus we need better transgender representation besides Bruce Jenner since he is a shitty person (Yes, I am being intentionally disrespectful to his identity since he is a bigot and thus a hypocrite).

The thing here is, just because someone does something that makes them famous, does not mean that people are free to meddle in their personal lives, at all. People do have the right to keep their personal lives, well just that, personal. Just because someone did something that makes them notable isn't an excuse to invade their personal lives, by extension they're not obligated to share personal information if they don't want to. Now we do need better trans representation than Caitlyn Jenner, but that doesn't automatically mean another trans person has to step up against their will either. It's massively unethical, unfair, and shows a total lack of empathy to make someone's uncomfortable personal issues public just because they're famous. That applies double if such a desire comes from a place of politics, because then you're throwing a person under the bus so that they can fulfill your own political objectives. Again any trans celebrity does not owe it to the community to be public about their identity, to serve as an activist, or to be an example for others. It's a choice, we should be perfectly fine with people not wanting to take on that burden, even if they are an out, or closeted trans celebrity.

A side note, in spite of Caitlyn being a bigoted self serving idiot, I'm not going to disrespect her identity. If we can dismiss each other's identities out of hand in such a way, that's gives anti-trans bigots validation in them doing the same thing to all of us. Hell a good example of why this is wrong is a recent trans pageant winner in Scotland was stripped of her title for wearing boxers and a t-shirt. One of the most important parts of trans acceptance is getting past the idea of what makes someone "trans enough. This sort of divisiveness feeds the double standards used to invalidate us, which this Robot Hugs comic illustrates perfectly. [http://www.robot-hugs.com/double-standards/]

What about say, Obama? While he cannot hide his ethnicity the way LGBT people can hide their gender/sexuality, would it be ok if he could? If he was say, ashamed of being black? Now all black Americans know they can be president, at least as far as their race is concerned. May seem silly but any young trans people who want to be major film makers now have 2 examples of such.

You already pointed out why this is apples and oranges actually, Obama cannot hide his African parentage. A bigger difference is that society no longer tells ethnic minorities they're abominations, which is something that still happens to GSM folk. A lot of GSM folk are ashamed of who they are because society tells them to be ashamed, because society actively demonizes us. In such an environment it's not right to ask someone to be a role model if they feel they can't handle the strain, or the danger that being a role model currently requires.

Maybe I should also make mention that I'm transgendered myself and know the feeling of being the center of unwanted attention for what I am. I know its hard and stressful, but I don't have a fanbase to fall back on. Just got myself. Id love more celebrities I respected that I could look at and feel like I'm not so strange.

I'm fairly certain any trans person whose out to anyone knows what that situation feels like, myself included. Still it might be a bit premature to say that people like the Wachowski sisters have their fan base to fall back on, when a lot of fans vehemently screamed about a sense of betrayal when Lana came out. As much as we both want celebrities to look up to who share our situation, because of the difficulty of being trans, I'm not going to demand them to be out if they're not willing to be. This Robot Hugs illustrates coming out and why some people have a harder time doing it than others. [http://www.robot-hugs.com/closets/] We have to respect the journeys that our GSM fellows are taking, they're not always the same, and if we don't respect them now, then we can't expect cis and hetero folk to respect them in the future.

Well the biggest drivers of suicide amongst trans folk are: The inability to transition, especially medically. Losing the support of friends and families. Losing one's job and/or being evicted from their homes for being trans, this is also paired with the fact that in most of the US trans folk can also be denied housing and employment opportunities for being trans.

In all honesty being outed as trans has a serious tendency to destroy people's entire lives, even more so than being outed as gay, or lesbian can do that. People who are open to lesbian and gay folk often do not extend that same acceptance, or even tolerance for trans folk. Suicide might not be a valid reaction to being outed as trans, but for many it's the only option they're left with. Just look at the pressure this year alone in US state level bathroom bills, designed to put trans folk in danger by putting us in the wrong bathroom.

Yes, all of those things are horrible, but they don't justify suicide. They're killing someone's brother or sister. They're killing someone's child. Move away, cut off your family, live a lie, or scream and yell. Don't kill yourself. If you feel any of those things justify self homicide, then seek medical attention immediately.

I didn't say they justified suicide, what I said is for many suicide can become their only option. Worse still, don't try to guilt people for feeling suicidal, that's not helpful at all, you don't make someone on the verge of taking their own life feel even worse! Also here's a cute one, a lot of trans folk get inappropriate treatment by the medical system, if not just being out right rejected, even if they seek help for a suicidal mental state. Trust me on one thing, living a lie is a fate worse than death for GSM, it's living in your own personal hell, where you can never have even the slightest happiness. Never, ever, EVER suggest that a trans, gay, bi, or etc person should do something like that, that's the best way to drive them into suicide.

You criticize suicide for "killing ones family" but suggest cutting said family off as a better alternative? Unless you are a parent with kids to be responsible for, suicide is kind of a persons own right to choose to do or not do. Not that its ever the best result, but its not really other's place to say who has the right to end their own life. Better off just trying to be helpful and considerate to people at risk rather than harshly judging their decision if it gets too much.

I agree, as I just said, making someone feel even worse isn't going to prevent them from thinking about, attempting to, or successfully committing suicide. In fact that's probably the best way to make those things happen.

 

[Saelune]

I'm not good enough messing with the quote coding, so I'm gonna not try.

I should point out the difference between have to and should. Obviously no one has to do anything. They don't have to take on the responsibility of being an LGBT celebrity, but I think they should. It bothers me when people in moments of being able to help don't. Maybe you see it as people invading their home, I see it as people standing back while someone bullies another person. I'm not asking them to march in parades, or start a LGBT advocate group or anything. I'm just asking that they be honest. Something I think everyone should strive to be, but especially when simply being honest can help people even if its not directly obvious.

As for Jenner, I don't show respect for those who don't give it. Plus its honestly me just going for the obvious low blow against someone I really do not like.

 

[WolfThomas]

Still what are the odds both of them would be? Then again, what are the odds they'd both be successful film makers? Funny old world, ain't it?

Considering it has happened. 100%.

But that's being facetious I know what you mean. What the odds any pair of brothers brothers, or sisters will be both trans and filmmakers. Probably low. But the thing is with enough of a sample size these things happen. That's the thing with statistics.

Fixed that slight error for you, hopefully so people won't make a big deal over it. It's unwise to give a singular gender to a group of people who may be either gender. Also you refer to people in the way in which they identify, even if you're talking about a them past-tense in time before they transitioned. Trans women are always women, trans men are always men, etc... It's also kinda important to remember that there are trans men as well as trans women. Not trying to be mean, or a smart-ass here either, just clearing this up before someone gets angry over it.

Yeah I fixed that. I got distracted by the statistics to notice that.

 

[Saelune]

Plus we need better transgender representation besides Bruce Jenner since he is a shitty person (Yes, I am being intentionally disrespectful to his identity since he is a bigot and thus a hypocrite).

Please don't. Invalidating one person's gender identity is as bad whoever they may be. The whole point of the notion of human rights and human decency is that these are ways you should treat people no matter how abhorrable they or their actions may be. Frankly, I can't think of a more fundamental human right than having your own name. To not have your name is to have your very individuality negated. Believe me, I hate Caitlyn Jenner just as much as the next trans person but she's as human as you or I.

I took a Human Rights course in college that tried to hammer that point in. I get the idea, but I don't 100% feel the same. It mostly came up when they learned I was pro death-penalty. "How can I condemn someone for murder by killing them?". Simple: The "victim" here is a murderer. The one being killed isn't an innocent bystander or family member, but a convicted murderer, so them saying its just as bad didn't exactly stick. Don't take this as me saying Jenner (probably the best mid point cause I refuse to use their preffered name, so I will go neutral) is as bad as a murderer, because they aren't, but if they wont respect gay people, which they as far as I am aware now is, why should I respect anything they want? And names aren't that important, but your real point is individuality. I've had many names and monikers, but I've always usually been me.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I'm not good enough messing with the quote coding, so I'm gonna not try.

Spoiler: Here's a quickie lesson in forum code for quoting

Actually there are two ways of doing this. I use something this method: taking the provided

[QUOTE=Saelune]

from the very beginning of the quote process then adding the end code:

[/QUOTE]

and putting at the end of the part I want to split off. You can leave out the link to the prior post by keeping the

[quote]

but omitting the ="username" and post="post ID number". Though keep in mind that you need

[/quote]

part at the end of the part of text you want to quote, also the actual functions are case sensitive so if you use

[quote]

the end code needs to be

[/quote]

For instance to get this:

I'm not good enough messing with the quote coding, so I'm gonna not try.

The code string should look like this:

[QUOTE=Saelune]

I'm not good enough messing with the quote coding, so I'm gonna not try.

[/QUOTE]

The other method is easier: if you just want to break down later parts of a post with out attribute take

[/quote]

and put it after the first break point where you want to inject your own text. Then after that pair off

[quote]

and

[/quote]

around parts of text you want to establish that your quoting. Remeber you only need one these;

[/quote]

at the end of the text body for every one of these;

[quote]

, or on like this;

[QUOTE=Saelune]

Finally to cover the unattributed and unlinked quote which looks like this:

I'm not good enough messing with the quote coding, so I'm gonna not try.

You'd input a string that looks like this:

[quote]

I'm not good enough messing with the quote coding, so I'm gonna not try.

[/quote]

Hope that helps.

I should point out the difference between have to and should. Obviously no one has to do anything. They don't have to take on the responsibility of being an LGBT celebrity, but I think they should. It bothers me when people in moments of being able to help don't. Maybe you see it as people invading their home, I see it as people standing back while someone bullies another person. I'm not asking them to march in parades, or start a LGBT advocate group or anything. I'm just asking that they be honest. Something I think everyone should strive to be, but especially when simply being honest can help people even if its not directly obvious.

Spoiler: Unattributed version trickery

Getting this:

I should point out the difference between have to and should. Obviously no one has to do anything. They don't have to take on the responsibility of being an LGBT celebrity, but I think they should. It bothers me when people in moments of being able to help don't. Maybe you see it as people invading their home, I see it as people standing back while someone bullies another person. I'm not asking them to march in parades, or start a LGBT advocate group or anything. I'm just asking that they be honest. Something I think everyone should strive to be, but especially when simply being honest can help people even if its not directly obvious.

Looks like this in the input box:

[quote]

I should point out the difference between have to and should. Obviously no one has to do anything. They don't have to take on the responsibility of being an LGBT celebrity, but I think they should. It bothers me when people in moments of being able to help don't. Maybe you see it as people invading their home, I see it as people standing back while someone bullies another person. I'm not asking them to march in parades, or start a LGBT advocate group or anything. I'm just asking that they be honest. Something I think everyone should strive to be, but especially when simply being honest can help people even if its not directly obvious.

[/quote]

Anyways, forum code magic aside... I don't see it as someone's home being invaded, I see it as making a unreasonable and unfair request, or at worst demand, of someone. Even though it can help other people, at the same time being out as trans as a celebrity can potentially reap horrific effects for someone personally and professionally. The whole point of coming out that it requires preparation and building courage. On the personal side, someone can get disowned by their own family and kicked out of their home for coming out as trans, this is something you need time to prepare for. Coming out publicly as a publicly recognizable figure, like as a politician, celebrity, etc... That's going to draw attacks, especially from vehement critics who reject trans folk out of hand, the ones who already made up their minds that we're invalid as human beings and they're not going to change that stance. Coming out either way has consequences, often times nasty ones. Lilly Wachowski did come out, though it was against her will and she wasn't ready, but she had to be ready because another publication was going to negatively out her, she had to do something before they did that.

There are so many consequences for coming out that really, honesty isn't always the best policy. Trans folk being outed either by themselves, or by others, is one of the things that leads to the assaults, rapes, and homicides we're often victims of. It also leads to alienation from friends and family in most cases. So we do have to be understanding of the other person's situation.

As for Jenner, I don't show respect for those who don't give it. Plus its honestly me just going for the obvious low blow against someone I really do not like.

The thing here is, one trans person rejecting another trans person's identity is probably the single worst thing most trans folk can do to the community. The consequences for it is that it validates the views the transphobes who'd like to murder us hold. I loathe Caitlyn Jenner and everything on trans issues she says, but at least she's learning, if slowly, and it's still can't justify ignoring her identity. Ignoring her identity is what transphobes who want all of us to have no legal rights do, so we can't sink to their level.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Since I avoid tabloids on general principle, I am somewhat confused. The Wachowskis, I read there were 3 of them; 2 male, 1 female. Is it now 2 female, 1 male. Or are there only two of them, who are both female now?

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Since I avoid tabloids on general principle, I am somewhat confused. The Wachowskis, I read there were 3 of them; 2 male, 1 female. Is it now 2 female, 1 male. Or are there only two of them, who are both female now?

Ugh I hate dead naming, but I have to do this now: There are actually four siblings, Laura and Julie who I believe aren't in the film industry. But they apparently are assigned female at birth, and are cisgender. Lilly Wachowski, who was formerly Andy Wachowski, just came out as a trans woman, like her sister Lana Wachowski. As far as I know, Julie and Laura Wachowski are cisgender women. Lilly and Lana Wachowski however are trans women.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

four siblings

Did not know there were four, I thought that there were only three. So they would be the Wachowski Sisters now then.

 

[Dizchu]

Maybe this will finally convince people that there is a strong genetic aspect to transgenderism? Ahh who am I kidding, they're still gonna spout the same "it's a mental illness" bullshit. (Fun fact though, my older brother has displayed a few "transgender" tendencies like experimenting with gender expression and identity, many of which I display to a much stronger degree)

Also this sounds like typical Daily Mail behaviour. It wasn't long ago that they outed a transgender teacher and eventually pressured her into suicide. The paper is written by scum to satiate the paranoid delusions of the populace.

Yes, I do suggest shutting out your family as a better alternative. Your family might come around one day. If you kill yourself, you'll have no idea if they will or not. Also, your family is over. Done. I've seen it happen. Suicide tears people apart in ways you can't imagine. My life was drastically altered when someone I barely knew committed suicide.

You're saying this as if suicide is a logical conclusion. As someone who has frequent suicidal thoughts, I can say for certain that I have very little control over those thoughts. One of my best friends committed suicide half a year ago, and you know what? It's not his fault that he was driven to such an extreme.

Stop thinking selfishly, if someone you knew committed suicide that's not your problem. They didn't do something bad to you, they did something bad to themselves. If that had a negative impact on you then you have my condolences, but this sounds an awful lot like Hillary Clinton claiming that women are the primary victims of war because their male loved ones are the ones that get slaughtered on the battlefield.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Maybe this will finally convince people that there is a strong genetic aspect to transgenderism? Ahh who am I kidding, they're still gonna spout the same "it's a mental illness" bullshit.

I don't think it is mental illness, but I don't think whether or not it's genetic makes any difference. I think quite a few mental illnesses are genetic.

It wouldn't make much sense if transgenderism wasn't genetic, in any case. The alternative to nature would be nurture, and a universal environment being present in all cultures throughout history causing the phenomena when it's such a relatively rare thing doesn't seem likely.

Well single factor causes are rather, weak, because there are lots of people who carry genes associated with lots of different things that they don't express. At the same time there are lots of people who express things that have genetic causes, but don't have the linked genes for those conditions. A lot of people who show socialization that is linked to a certain result as an adult often aren't what that socialization, while the reverse of that is also often true.

That's the problem with the concept of Nature versus Nurture arguments. They demand a single answer for complex conditions, said conditions are much more likely to be caused by a variety of contributing factors. Heck even when all those factors are present to make someone cis, or trans, or gay, or straight, whatever, many people despite showing all the factors for one, or the, fall into the opposite group. That variance is a consequence of lifeforms being as complicated as humans are.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

...I liked Jupiter Ascending...

(Ok, it was a horribly paced mess of a film with a plot that made literally no sense but fuck it, I'm just glad it exists.)

Hey, at least it makes for a pretty decent drinking game, and there's so much WTF stuff just to laugh at in the movie its existence is justified by those two factors alone.

OT: Good on her I guess. Hopefully this won't diminish their drive of being the insane villagers of Hollywood.

 

[Lightknight]

Sure, the more I hear about the publication the less I like. But all we know from the interaction is that a guy wanted to interview her and get her word on the whole thing. Unless this is the same guy that spun previous stories then I really don't know. Do good articles ever come out of the publication? For a paper that's around 100 years it'd almost have to have something relevant. But that's me being presumptive that length of time surviving equates to some degree of quality. Unless you read it regularly, then maybe the only times you hear about what another publication did will be negative? I don't recall ever reading an article about another publication doing something good.

I do actually read it regularly, as a result of knowing somebody who takes it (yet doesn't agree with it most of the time). Fair articles have come out of it, but never on issues of sexuality or gender identity.

Are we perhaps preemptively discarding this as potentially a positive article? We don't know who the reporter was so we really don't know if it was a person who has been writing the previous hit pieces or not. But again, waiting to actually interview the person before before publishing is not standard practice when you're just going to run a hit piece. I mean, again, you could totally be right here and these guys were just going to blast them while seeming legit, but you don't go through the effort of interviewing the person beforehand.

I'm not sure that's correct. Why is that their right and by what standard are you establishing this power as an unalienable right?

It's their right because it's their person, and because tremendous harm-- both mental and physical-- can be done if it's not respected.

1. Upon what authority or moral construct do you insist that a person has a right for people to not know things about their person?

2. Mental and Physical harm can be the result of a lot of things. In fact, Lily having to stay in hiding for years could be more harmful than things being put out in the open now. The reporter came to her first and set up an interview appointment. The terminology he used indicated that he didn't have to run the story but if he didn't then it would be some other reporter from another paper with even less scruples. He wasn't wrong, this stuff is hot news right now with people like Caitlin in the spotlight. God knows the trans community could do with a better public face than Jenner (not insulting her face, I'm talking about her anti-LGB (less the T) rhetoric that has got a bunch of people in the LGBT community upset).

That's totally possible, I have literally no experience with the publication so I fully accept my unfortunate position of ignorance on the topic. I just don't see why they would need to interview her if they were just going to run a hit piece anyways. If you know she's transgendered and are just planning a hit piece then why go through the trouble of setting up an interview? I mean, I get that you could be completely right here but the interaction seemed different than what I'd expect.

Well, I'd guess they need some basis for the article, and were quote-mining.

Hell, I might be wrong. This might be a reasonable journalist. The probability is just low.

That's fine, and we won't know unless we see the article. Now that she has come out against them the odds of a positive piece are even lower (I'm assuming the journalist would take offense to her agreeing to a meeting and then publicly humiliating him and perhaps associating him with a former hit piece he may have had nothing to do with).

In any event, Lily doesn't have to hide any more. Silver lining. Not entirely sure why she was hiding to begin with considering her sister having already done so. Perhaps the first sister's experience was particularly rocky?

Plus we need better transgender representation besides Bruce Jenner since he is a shitty person (Yes, I am being intentionally disrespectful to his identity since he is a bigot and thus a hypocrite).

Please don't. Invalidating one person's gender identity is as bad whoever they may be. The whole point of the notion of human rights and human decency is that these are ways you should treat people no matter how abhorrable they or their actions may be. Frankly, I can't think of a more fundamental human right than having your own name. To not have your name is to have your very individuality negated. Believe me, I hate Caitlyn Jenner just as much as the next trans person but she's as human as you or I.

I think the more important point here is that justifying misgendering a trans person for any reason is more a slight against the trans community than it is against the individual. Two wrongs does not make a right and all that. Good response, Mars.

Would be quicker for it to seem normal if famous people who the mainstream public can see and hopefully come to understand would not be so secretive. I can understand wanting it to not become the "focus" of who they are, but not discussing it doesn't help. Its easier for people to have positive examples that humanize it for them. When its just "those people" its easier to hate them.

Sure, it would become more normal if we had more faces to put to the demographic. But when it comes down to the individual you can't say that X person has to take the hit and go public early just because it is another step for the others. Remember, this particular demographic has astoundingly high suicide rates. Putting more responsibility on their plate in the name of "the greater good" is a mistake. At least with the LGB part of the LGBT community you could say that they don't have any kind of disorder so they should just own their identity and be proud of it.

But with the trans community their disorder is their sex not matching their gender (hence why surgery and hormone therapy is an ethical medical response). Anything that emphasizes their condition rather than affirming their gender identity can come at a high psychological cost depending on where the person is in their situation. I understand that even calling the situation a disorder can be offensive but please understand that this only technically applies to individuals' whose body dysphoria is significant enough to significantly impact their well being. The disorder is that their body doesn't match their identity and not the identity itself. As such, it is also possible to be trans without it coming along with a disorder if the dysphoria is not significant enough to incur significant depression and negative life impacts.