Transgender Philosophy (Questions, Ideology)

[Enkidu]

Why is it that any time a trans person does anything without explaining their entire life's history, they are doing it only to further their ideals? Is it so hard to believe maybe they are just living their lives the same as everyone else?

"Anything"? I think I specifically mentioned the exact circumstance I was talking about.

[Vandalhart]

With the studies showing that there is danger to transgender individuals, I can see why they would want to keep it a little under wraps. When it comes to personal safety and possibly being attacked or worse it makes sense why it'd be something a person would be hesitant to bring up. I never actually thought about it that way, but that's likely because I would never attack someone because of it.

This is where I think if I ever had to return to the dating world, I'd go through a dating site. It just seems like it would have a few ways of protecting an individual from entering situations where unknowns like this could be a problem.

[Blubbartron]

Okay, but really, if you are not willing to use the appropriate terminology, can you please leave this thread? I do not think it is too much to ask to show a little respect for the way people wish to be referred to.

I'm sorry if my use of grammatically correct language is offensive to you, and the majority of the LGBT people, but being offended doesn't make it incorrect. I'm not doing it to piss you off. I use the gender pronouns that people wish to be referred to as, and have since the beginning of being exposed to trans people. I'm not trying to be a dick, but telling me to gtfo if I don't use the EXACT phrasing that you're ok with is kind of being dickish. Especially when what you're suggesting is grammatically incorrect. Maybe chill out a bit?

Have some reading on grammar, from an equal rights activist. http://www.paulinepark.com/2011/03/g...transgendered/

[BaneTheBrawler]

Chill out for a bit.

[BaneTheBrawler]

All right. I wanted to give you folks time to cool off, and I'm not entirely sure it's been long enough, but I've got shit to do tomorrow evening and I want you to have a chance at discussing this before then. Whether I need to lock it before I leave is up to you.

This is NOT a license to simply resume where you left off. English is a living language. The linguistic mechanics/grammar of "transgender" and its variants are not pertinent to this discussion. If you can offer a social reason why one of those variants is acceptable and another is not, I might consider that on-topic.

Keep it civil, keep it calm. You are a leaf on the wind.

[Cream Soda]

If you don't understand why it could be traumatic for a man to discover that a woman he is with was born male, perhaps you have a disconnect with reality.

Pissed, I can understand. Traumatized? eh. I'd just put my pants back on and leave. You meaning to tell me you've never seen a penis before?

[NynJa]

i can see a macho alpha male who figures "i get all these bitches their pussy be gettin wet when i walk near em and i can smell em getting turned on" could be kinda traumatized in the sense they couldnt discern a she from a he?

Im sure most people here havent actually met a fully passable transgender without prior knowledge.

[Cream Soda]

Obviously wasn't as alpha as he thought if he can get his panties tied up in a bunch like that, lol

[thetruepandagod]

With trigger warnings being needed because words are setting off ptsd it isn't a huge stretch to assume seein a chick with a dick might mess with some folk.

[Cream Soda]

I guess I watch too much animu, lol

[Xantavia]

Not quite the same, but you should ask yourself how you would react to any other undesirable surprises you might encounter when the pants come off. Say a pound of metal because they love piercings, or they don't do any kind of landscaping. Ignore it, leave, or find another activity that doesn't include the genitals.

[Gredival]

TL;DR Posting resumes under the condition that people focus on relevant topics and stop beating the dead horse issue of what pronouns and adjectives to use to describe transgender people.

-----------

The main problem with this thread has been that various posters of both sides are occupying echo chambers. The argumentative clash has been minimal because it isn't really a clash of different reasoning; it's two sides presenting value arguments for their side, without comparing how they interact.

At the risk of setting off the flame war that Bane was trying to avoid, I'm going to try bring some old posts up and I'll play devil's advocate for both sides to show where this disconnect is happening. Hopefully this permits us to recenter the discussion in a way that it can move forward substantively rather than two sides preaching to deaf ears.

Colloquially it certainly depends on who they are talking too. It's absurd to believe that a transgendered person talking to a random male wouldn't understand that he probably has no interest in her after finding out she is a male (whether or not an operation took place). And that's the crux of the matter. Personally I would say a transgendered person should always explain their situation to someone they're interested in prior to anything more then casual conversation. It's both deviant and insincere otherwise.

The mistake here is saying "she is male." This is incorrect for one of two possible reasons, based on whether "male" is being used to refer to sex or to gender

1) Gender: If we are speaking in gender terms, and going with the working definitions of gender established in this thread (as it contrasts with sex) then this hypothetical MtF transgender person is of the female gender, regardless of other factors.

2) Sex: If your argument is that a MtF transgendered person is male based on sex, as defined by having male genitalia, then presumably she would be defined as female if she has had reassignment surgery. However, this wouldn't accord with what you are saying about how it wouldn't matter "whether or not an operation took place."

The only way to argue that it is correct to call this hypothetical MtF transgender person a male rather than a female would be to that both gender and sex are based only off one's assigned sex at birth.

This will be an uphill battle given the copious literature that has already been dropped on this, and I don't think it's a battle you want to fight anyway. So just be mindful in the future to match the pronoun with the desired gender, regardless of assigned sex, operation status, etc.

Whether or not you think it's a big deal, at best imprecision derails the discussion and is distracting. At worst, you are denying someone's right to self-identification and you are being offensive. (Assuming you are a straight male, it's the equivalent of if I randomly stated throughout my posts that I believed you were a closeted homosexual that was in self-denial - it's non-substantive, tangential, and disrespectful)

But she's not a male. She's a female. And saying as much is ignorant.

So you're telling me that even if a transgender woman has undergone gender reassignment surgery and she has a functional vagina that can do everything but procreate, she's under obligation to tell you? Why? Because it's going to fundamentally change the way you view her? If anything, she is under no obligation to tell you that she used to have a penis, only that she cannot reproduce with you just in case that's something you were looking for out of a relationship.

"Deviant" and "insecure?"

Okay, I'm confused about "deviant." How is it deviant? She's being who she is. I really don't understand where you are going with that.

And insecure? Well yeah. Because people like you will be ignorant about it, and call her "male" and "deviant." You'll stop talking to her or giving her a chance. She's under no obligation to tell you either until you're about to get sexual (especially if she has a penis) or when she feels comfortable. Insecure? Yeah, because people still murder transgender people at a high rate, simply out of fear or misunderstanding.

I don't think if you're going on a first date with someone that you have any obligation to tell them jackshit. Maybe it'd be easier to weed out the ones who are going to be shitty about it, but certainly you're under no obligation.

Where Aksannyi gets sidetracked here in the use of male. While wrong, this is not the heart of the argument. The real thing of concern is a person's assigned sex at birth and what impact that has on transgendered persons' personal lives, i.e. what, if any, obligation does transgendered people have to disclose their status as a transgendered person to a potential romantic and/or sexual partner? When is this obligation effective?

Aksannyi is also incorrect in the assessment that the post labels all transgendered persons as deviants and insincere. The argument presented is that it's deviant/insincere to not be honest about one's transgendered status.

Now, the second half of this post is on point, it brings up reasons for why such disclosure is not appropriate - namely, potential violence. This is an on-point rebuttal to the argument that there is an affirmative obligation of disclosure.

And she's not going to tell you "I used to be a man," because she never was one.

I will really never understand the kind of mental gymnastics required to think/say something like this. The entire point of transition is that you literally are outwardly male (assuming MtF going forward for simplicity). There is a point in transition where transgendered people will stop portraying themselves as the sex they were born as, and start portraying themselves as the gender they identify with. They may have never identified as being a "man" (as a gender, not a sex), but they still use the men's restroom to prevent a whole hell of a lot of hassle, from men and women alike, until they permanently transition to female in everyday life.

There's a serious problem with trying to follow this political correctness bible of not hurting feelings. When you start to say things as irrational as "a penis is female genitalia if it belongs to a transgendered woman" you damage your own argument to people who value thinking rationally (e.g. the average male). I personally can't take anyone serious who says such a thing, as its plainly ridiculous.

Seriously? What would you like instead of "male" to vocalize their original sex? Should we get down and dirty with heterogametic? You can't really argue against that one [....] It's like you're so involved with the idea that a transgendered woman should just be accepted as a woman that you forget that it can psychologically traumatic for a cisgender man to find out a romantic interest is not actually a cisgender female.

And here is where the real problem emerges, everyone takes a line that is honestly completely irrelevant to the argument at hand but gets sidetracked by it.

Whether or not she was ever male is not the crux of the argument about disclosure. But Aksannyi is strident is identifying the imprecision because she believes it offensive, then Bulbb and Ekidu get sidetracked for a relevant subject as we once again re-debate the rules about what terms need to be used to describe people and how the entire endeavor is overcompensation.

The fact is, you all aren't too far apart in substance, it's just slight imprecision.

As discussed above, the rule of this thread is to correspond a person's pronoun to their self-identified gender. Insofar as you are alluding to the disparity between sex-at-birth and what they self-identify as, you don't say they are really male you say they were born male.

If you don't want to adhere to these rules of nomenclature, then you have to either 1) argue both gender and sex are based only off one's assigned sex at birth, or 2) argue that pronouns should be based off current sex and that it's logical that transgenders who go through an operation are entitled to pronoun of preference and those who don't are not entitled to that.

Am i the only one who has a hard time taking someone seriously when they say "transgendered woman" and "cisgender man" in the same sentence?

Yes.

You should realize, regardless of how important this issue is, and how important it is to you, most people using slightly imprecise terms here isn't a result of ignorance, isn't about causing offense, etc. it's because it's probably an issue that have very little education about.

As of this post they should be informed at to the standards, but other new participants in the discussion might not be. So again, focus on arguments and don't quibble constantly over imprecision in terminology and use it as a reason to treat someone dismissively. Honestly, you are making people more hostile to your cause than anything by giving them the opportunity to characterize you as a self-righteous social justice warrior.

Unless someone is deliberately doing it to troll (report it), your focus should be engaging in discourse. That will do more to lead to fruitful discussion and education than berating them over using the wrong nomenclature.

Boo hoo?

Sorry, but it's pretty laughable for you to even say that, considering transgender people commit suicide at one of the highest rates, and that violence against transgender people is also very, very high, because of their traumatic experiences dealing with people like you who will not accept them and will continue to hammer home that "well that's what you WERE." If someone is a woman, you call them a woman. It's not that hard. If you have a cognitive disconnect with someone who is transgender so much that you would consider it traumatic to learn that a woman is a woman, then I'm sorry but I'm not exactly feeling sorry for you.

The point isn't that it's "traumatic" to learn "a woman is a woman" it's that many individuals operate under the assumption that their romantic/sexual partners' assigned-sex-at-birth matches their expressed gender.

Being surprised by it can be a shocking for many, and it doesn't have to do with prejudice, disrespect, etc.

Insofar as you want to talk about how the extreme danger of self-harm and violence weighs against any obligation to disclose, that's fair. BUT those factors aren't sufficient to justify outright dismissing the plight of someone who suddenly finds out that their experience in bed is going to be very different than what they expected.

As it would be to the transgender woman who got that far into a start up relationship and get get dropped by potential mate because they saw they had a penis.

That being said, the responsibility is not on one party or another. Communication would have to take place, and I'm getting the idea that it's something that should be brought up instead of just assumed in the future.

Not directly related to your post, but not sure why anyone would want to be with someone who isn't going to accept them for who they are. "If I exclude this information, maybe he'll like me" isn't really a great mindset to walk in with for someone you're trying to be in a relationship with (though if you want a hookup, I guess that works)

These are great posts that everyone ignored because they would rather talk about one side's trauma versus the other. This is why the focus needs to remain on the subject, not just answering the other person on the other side.

I'm having a hard time understanding why some people on this forum seem to be unable or unwilling to distinguish between sex and gender. They are different things, and trying to simplify situations to "that woman has a penis" is ignoring that fact seemingly intentionally. Is it so unusual to think that maybe sexual attraction has two components - sex (biology/genitalia) and gender (appearance/mannerisms)? That seems like the most logically accurate perspective. For instance, I'm attracted to feminine mannerisms and appearance, but if I'm going to make the sexy tiem, I want to be fondling tits and fucking pussy. A transgendered woman who has fully completed transition and is completely passable is attractive to me and I'd be willing to have a relationship with one, but I also have no desire to pass on my genes. To a person who does care about that, it doesn't make them bigoted to not be interested in transgendered females. They simply have their own priorities in mate selection.

This might be more relevant to the sexuality thread, but it seems like one of the issues around here is people expecting transgendered women to be treated exactly the same as cisgendered women for the purposes of relationships. Unfortunately, you just can't expect that to happen. Ever. Trans women and cis women are different, and while that doesn't make trans women sub-human or anything ridiculous like that, it does mean that you don't get to lambaste someone who doesn't prefer that type of person.

Sex and gender are distinguished, or have been in this thread (and its predecessor). The problem is arising because people aren't conforming to a norm regarding what terminology you use for transgender people whose sex and gender do not conform.

The rule of thumb in the thread is (until disproven by argument as I've outlined above) to conform descriptions of people to their self-identified gender. Insofar as it's necessary you can reference the fact someone has a different assigned-sex-at-birth etc.

The rest of this post is relevant to discussion. Men may no longer find a transgender woman attractive once they find out she male genitalia. You can say it's close-minded, you can say it's unlearned. But this is an issue of attraction and sexual compatibility. If the knowledge destroys the chemistry, it does.

And this is not an issue of rights. A transgender woman does not have the right to a relationship with a partner who would have otherwise found her compatible had her assigned sex at birth been female. Lord knows that plenty of people have probably willing ended relationships over things far more minor.

So again, the question is, is there an obligation to disclose, and if there is, what rules (how, when, etc.) govern that disclosure. Given that one side is only risk time and feelings, and the other side faces potential violence, the balance seems to heavily favor the transgender person.

However it would be presumptuous at this point to say that, in the name of the rights of transgender people being equal, that they don't get to disclose. This has as much cause to be a legitimate deal-breaker as money, kids, etc.

Why is it that any time a trans person does anything without explaining their entire life's history, they are doing it only to further their ideals? Is it so hard to believe maybe they are just living their lives the same as everyone else?

This is not responsive to his point. He said "I have no problem with trans people being safe and determining whether or not someone would be receptive to their circumstance, but again there's no need for it to go beyond casual conversation. In my opinion the onus is on the trans person to approach the topic as they make up such a small percentage of the population; it's simply absurd to expect every cis person to approach the subject."

Nothing in that post states that there is an obligation for every trans person to explain their entire life history in every situation. He's stated that, in a very specific context of potential romantic/sexual encounters, the onus is on the trans person to tell those who should be informed, that they are trans.

Okay, but really, if you are not willing to use the appropriate terminology, can you please leave this thread? I do not think it is too much to ask to show a little respect for the way people wish to be referred to.

I'm sorry if my use of grammatically correct language is offensive to you, and the majority of the LGBT people, but being offended doesn't make it incorrect. I'm not doing it to piss you off. I use the gender pronouns that people wish to be referred to as, and have since the beginning of being exposed to trans people. I'm not trying to be a dick, but telling me to gtfo if I don't use the EXACT phrasing that you're ok with is kind of being dickish. Especially when what you're suggesting is grammatically incorrect. Maybe chill out a bit?

Have some reading on grammar, from an equal rights activist. http://www.paulinepark.com/2011/03/g...transgendered/

I'm going to make people aware of what I said about this thread in the feedback thread so they understand what are the proper limits for discussion here regarding terminology.

Discourse is NOT and SHOULD NEVER be shut down just because some posters feel uncomfortable, disrespected, etc.

All users are all expected to adhere to the rules, which include treating others with a certain level of decorum (in this forum in particular). However, so long as the rules are obeyed, a poster with "thin skin" or a "soft skull" doesn't get to call a time-out or eject people because they are taking personal offense. The onus is on them to exit the discussion if they dislike how they are being treated when that treatment is within the rules.

There's a fine line here. A person is not going to be infracted or otherwise ejected from a conversation if they have legitimate disagreement, regardless of how that disagreement offends someone. However, shitposting and trolling (disagreeing just to piss the other side off or offend someone) will definitely earn timeouts.

....

[I]f a person comes forth with an argument that pronouns should based on the subject's biological sex (i.e. your assigned sex at birth until surgery) and they defend that argument, at that point they have the right to write their posts to that interpretation. I don't care who gets offended by the person's "incorrect" usage of he vs. she at this point. But if they get challenged on their viewpoint, and they have to resort to "Well that's just my opinion man" as a defense, then they are going to be expected to conform their posts' pronouns properly.

.... [I]n the first situation, it's a disagreement about proper semantics as it relates to the their of the topic of discussion. It's a core point of debate as to whether trans individuals are entitled to the pronouns of choice as part of equal rights. How posts are written and how people are addressed in this forum is a small part of that. But in the second situation they are just incorrectly using pronouns as an ad hominem.

So, if anyone wants to argue why people should be addressed by pronouns and terms other than those of their choosing, they need to be doing so in the context of a consistent and reasoned argument.

Specifically, that means more than simply arguing that sex (meaning sex organs) determine pronoun/classification. The decisive argument that was consistently unanswered on this point is that a man, who self identifies as a man, who loses male genitalia as a result of an accident, is presumably still a man. If you accept that this man without genitalia still has a right to be called a man, despite having sex organs that classify him neither as a man or a woman, then you must accept that pronouns/classification is gender based, not sex based.

If you can make such an argument, have at it. Otherwise, the current prevailing argument in the thread is that gender identification, regardless of consistency of assigned sex at birth, appropriately determines the pronouns and classification we should use when discussing a trans-individual.

[Blubbartron]

So, if anyone wants to argue why people should be addressed by pronouns and terms other than those of their choosing, they need to be doing so in the context of a consistent and reasoned argument.

Specifically, that means more than simply arguing that sex (meaning sex organs) determine pronoun/classification. The decisive argument that was consistently unanswered on this point is that a man, who self identifies as a man, who loses male genitalia as a result of an accident, is presumably still a man. If you accept that this man without genitalia still has a right to be called a man, despite having sex organs that classify him neither as a man or a woman, then you must accept that pronouns/classification is gender based, not sex based.

If you can make such an argument, have at it. Otherwise, the current prevailing argument in the thread is that gender identification, regardless of consistency of assigned sex at birth, appropriately determines the pronouns and classification we should use when discussing a trans-individual.

Was anyone making that argument? Serious question. I'm kind of getting the impression that you are interpreting my posts as intentionally mis-identifying trans people (e.g. if I were to refer to hey as a "he", which she is not). Our discussion was about the use of transgendered vs. transgender.

I did some more reading on the subject, and I can see that the current argument often likens it to how we stopped referring to black people as "colored" people. Supposedly the -ed suffix makes it sound as if it were something that was actively done to them, as opposed to simply being born that way. The way they handled it in that case was to change the current preferred language to "people of color". Cool, that works for me, and is grammatically correct. If we were to apply the same concept to transgendered people, it would be "people of transgender". I could work with that too. I can understand the argument because I made a very similar argument about the irrationality of "assigned (fe)male at birth" (it's not assigned by any person or thing, it simply is reality). But to me, saying "transgender people" is as grammatically retarded as saying "color people".

Hopefully that clears it up. I really don't want to reignite that discussion, but I also didn't want to get lumped in with the dickwads that intentionally misuse gender pronouns, because I never have.

[Gredival]

Was anyone making that argument? Serious question. I'm kind of getting the impression that you are interpreting my posts as intentionally mis-identifying trans people (e.g. if I were to refer to hey as a "he", which she is not).

No, I'm merely presenting the conditions under which someone could, if they wanted to, object to adherence to the rules of thumb we are setting down regarding how to reference to transgender people. This is because I don't want to simply set some rule down given that there is potential for legitimate disagreement and debate, but at the same time, this has been pretty well settled so far and it only detracts from moving forward with discussion. Therefore I wanted to give very precise conditions under which this subject could be broached.

It was not meant to single you out or to insinuate that you had done so (however there are individuals who have previously done this).

The transgender vs transgendered discussion doesn't concern me at all. Insofar as someone presents me with good reasoning to use one term over the other, I could be swayed. I'm specifically trying to cut off further discussion about whether X, a MtF transgender who currently presents and self-identifies as a woman, should be described as male or female. For the purposes of this thread, we are using gender, not sex or assigned-sex-at-birth, to choose pronouns/classifications. But I also don't want to get derailed every time a new poster comes into the discussion and makes a mistake.

[Eurell]

because in many states, it's still legal to murder someone in which "trans fear" counts as a defense, meaning you were freaked out enough to want to kill someone.

Way late I know, but this statement seems to have been ignored. I just want to point out, thats its not true. Being allowed to use it as a defense does not make it legal. Noone has ever claimed gay or trans fear as their defense and not been convicted for that crime eventually. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have not been able to find one case where someone "legally" murdered a trans person, or used this defense got off.

[Kuya]

That was a very fine post. Thank you Gredival.

[Aksannyi]

Way late I know, but this statement seems to have been ignored. I just want to point out, thats its not true. Being allowed to use it as a defense does not make it legal. Noone has ever claimed gay or trans fear as their defense and not been convicted for that crime eventually. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have not been able to find one case where someone "legally" murdered a trans person, or used this defense got off.

I meant not that murder is legal - just that it's been used successfully as a defense, but that may be an outdated belief (or just misinformation I received once from what I thought was a reputable source). Actually, I'm going to look this up because I want to make sure it's legit ... I believe when I found it that it was legitimate but that was a while ago so let me verify it.

EDIT: Okay, it's Wikipedia (but I generally trust it) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense

Apparently the use of the gay and/or trans panic defense is not illegal in most states, but it has rarely been used successfully. There has been a movement to ban the use of the defense at all.

[Gokku]

Really need niiro up in this bitch, cuz there quest as a trans has been pretty interesting to read even on BG.

[Moss]

Way late I know, but this statement seems to have been ignored. I just want to point out, thats its not true. Being allowed to use it as a defense does not make it legal. Noone has ever claimed gay or trans fear as their defense and not been convicted for that crime eventually. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have not been able to find one case where someone "legally" murdered a trans person, or used this defense got off.

To add to this, are we seeing cases of well-adjusted, normally law-abiding citizens freaking out and becoming homicidal when they discover someone is trans?

I'm often seeing the argument that trans people do not disclose they are trans for fear of being murdered. My curiosity is where (socioeconomically, geographically, and otherwise) this is occurring.

That was a very fine post. Thank you Gredival.

this

That isn't why it would be hard, lol. Part of looking at a person, and my brain saying "woman" is what parts are on them. If a woman undresses and has a dick, I'm not going to recoil because I'm homophobic or I'm thinking "hmm well society has always told if balls touch it's gay..." - it's going to be because I am surprised and no longer attracted to them sexually, because I no longer see them as the sex I am attracted to.

Well, you should get over that, because it is not always the case. And this is quite a transphobic attitude.

Before going any further into this offensive(!) response, I'm just going to ask for a clarification on what I should "get over" and why this is a transphobic attitude.

[hey]

Was anyone making that argument? Serious question. I'm kind of getting the impression that you are interpreting my posts as intentionally mis-identifying trans people (e.g. if I were to refer to hey as a "he", which she is not). Our discussion was about the use of transgendered vs. transgender.

I did some more reading on the subject, and I can see that the current argument often likens it to how we stopped referring to black people as "colored" people. Supposedly the -ed suffix makes it sound as if it were something that was actively done to them, as opposed to simply being born that way. The way they handled it in that case was to change the current preferred language to "people of color". Cool, that works for me, and is grammatically correct. If we were to apply the same concept to transgendered people, it would be "people of transgender". I could work with that too. I can understand the argument because I made a very similar argument about the irrationality of "assigned (fe)male at birth" (it's not assigned by any person or thing, it simply is reality). But to me, saying "transgender people" is as grammatically retarded as saying "color people".

Hopefully that clears it up. I really don't want to reignite that discussion, but I also didn't want to get lumped in with the dickwads that intentionally misuse gender pronouns, because I never have.

Transgender is an adjective, while color is a noun. Transgender person is grammatically correct.

The transgender vs transgendered discussion doesn't concern me at all. Insofar as someone presents me with good reasoning to use one term over the other, I could be swayed. I'm specifically trying to cut off further discussion about whether X, a MtF transgender who currently presents and self-identifies as a woman, should be described as male or female. For the purposes of this thread, we are using gender, not sex or assigned-sex-at-birth, to choose pronouns/classifications. But I also don't want to get derailed every time a new poster comes into the discussion and makes a mistake.

Here is a good reasoning: a large amount of trans people are offended by it.

Maybe i'm crazy, but when i see this in the OP, written by a mod:

you should phrase it respectfully.

I expect people to do so. Using language you know to be considered to be disrespectful by the people you are talking about is something that i would consider to be extremely disrespectful. I understand if someone is simply unaware, they may do it without realizing it is considered disrespectful, and that's okay. But it was explained multiple times, at first calmly, and then when the explanation was ignored, not so calmly. The people doing it have read these posts. They have then decided they don't care about how trans people feel, and it is more important that they speak however they think is "right", regardless of how disrespectful it is. If that is what we consider to be respectful phrasing around here, then i will leave, and you can have fun talking about trans people among 100% cis people, without having to worry about what some dirty tranny thinks.