They/Them She/Her He/Him - as you will

[Metaphor]

Lindsay Graham would like a word.

I don't know who that is, but my sentiment is the same. You have no obligation to call gay men 'straight'. You have no obligation to do violence to your own mind and participate in somebody else's fantasies.

 

[Metaphor]

Letting people do to their own body as adults,

Excuse me? I am all for that. As soon as you turn 18, you can do whatever you want to your own body. Indeed, although what some adults do to their bodies does not appeal to me personally, it is none of my business.

Before that, I don't want adults mutilating the genitals of babies, or children, or adolescents. It's not that hard to not mutilate genitals. What you do is this: you don't mutilate them. I've gone my entire life without mutilating genitals.

And, no matter what you do to your own body, you have no right to make demands of my body. You have no right to demand I utter your prayers and repeat your catechism. I do not believe in your gender gods and I shall not pledge my faith to them.

and not playing some facile game where we pretend that everyone can or should reproduce or that not reproducing means not having a meaningful experience as a parent?

[removed]

I have never told anyone to reproduce or not reproduce. I have said it is appalling that anybody would sterilise a child and take that choice away from them, in the imagined service of gender deities.

 

[Metaphor]

But you know what gay men never demanded of straight people? We never demanded that you look at us and call us 'straight'.

Lindsay Graham would like a word.

Also, many of folks do rightly demand that people not call them gay in public.

The consequences of being outed for not being straight can be deadly.

The same goes for not being "cis".

You should see somebody about this fantasy you have that nobody knows the sex of somebody without participating in an occult ritual that unearths magickally cloaked secrets.

I go out in public all the time, and I am unmistakably a man. I would still be unmistakably a man no matter what I did to disguise it. And it is not a crime for people to notice.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

OMFG!
You poor thing.

Sorry to be sarcastic, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I only know of two episodes of "enforcement" concerning gendering on this forum, and both were when it was TFT. Maybe I just don't know about the enforcement concerning "false and unwarranted accusations of misgendering all around".

No, you are not sorry to be sarcastic - unfortunately, because you ought to, as it is so out of place.

But I will try to continue despite the hostility.

Maybe you know about issues that I am unaware of, but more plausible explanations for your post exist. Maybe having your personal genderizing norms challenged by others seems like an attack. I dunno.

No, the attacks come in several forms: some are easy to find in this thread and the other one: gross misrepresentations of what I said, false and unwarranted accusations, etc., either in this thread or the other one.

It gets worse than that, though, because the Woke have all the power in some social circles, and unfortunately I cannot escape them.

But that aside, challenged? Think about it. What is the challenge? Is it a demand that I lie? Or is it a demand that I changed my vocabulary and stop talking about some properties that I intuitively (and instinctively, or close enough) distinguish - namely, that of being a NW-man or a NW-woman -, and instead talk of something else?

Imagine this: suppose that Religion X becomes dominant, and its enforcers that people change the way in which they use the words 'unhealthy', 'healthy', 'ill', etc., so that obesity is not an unhealthy condition/illness under the new language, or keep using the words to mean the same as before, but lie and claim that obesity is not unhealthy, but just another body shape (they might even demand that the term 'obesity' be abandoned in favor of 'big people' or something like that).

Now, there are different levels of enforcing, and this one is not as bad as others could be - like using actual physical force. This one is limited to things like online bullying, getting people fired, and - for now - only attempting to pass laws that would turn it to actual physical force. But the attacks against dissenters are increasingly powerful.

Would you understand why people would want to keep talking about illness, health, unhealthy conditions, etc., rather than some other property they do not care about?
Well, usually humans want to use words that pick out the property they care about - like illness, health, unhealthy conditions -, not some property that has little to do with it but which has, say, a 99% overlap or something. And it's particularly bad when the demand comes together with false and unwarranted accusations, enforcement, etc., even if in a milder way than physical force.

Now, it would usually be impolite to tell an obese person that they are ill, unhealthy, etc. However:

1. That is not always so. In particular, it is not so in a debate forum where matters for which this is relevant are debated.
2. There would be no obligation to not identify obesity as an unhealthy condition in blogs, forums, etc.

Now, it could be argued that obese people would feel bad if others say their condition is an illness - they can say it's who they are, their identity, etc. (note: you can look up something like this, though apparently fringe for the time being).

Here's another interesting aspect. A person's attitudes towards this subject are also social cues. As a reasonably competent adult I figure things out about other people based on a ton of different things. I use the term "cues".

Yes, but sometimes people believe they're reading cues correctly, whereas they are just making false and unwarranted negative assessments of out-group members.

A person who expresses the opinion that what matters more is another person's sex than their gender, the cue I take from that is that they view other humans as objects. A human body is an object, it will have a sex. A person is not only their body, they're vastly more. Sometimes that includes quirkiness like transsexuals.

And now you started it. No, you actually continued. The above is so wrong. Where do I start? Well, I'll start defending myself. But along the way, I'm going to make a number of decisive points. I hope you at least see some of them.

First, when did I say sex matters more to me than gender? And what do you mean by gender? And when did I ever say that no mental properties went into the meaning of 'man' or 'woman'? I explicitly said that that was a matter for further discussion and explained why.

But let me tell you a couple of things: humans, like chimps, cats, dogs, horses, dolphins, bears, whales, rats, mice, etc., instinctively distinguish between females and males of their species: if they failed to do so, mating would be a challenge. There are different ways in which humans (and others, but I will stick to humans) do that, but for example, there are plenty of cues that do not require looking at the sexual organs. Those cues are fallible, but they usually got it right.

Compare: humans, like like chimps, cats, dogs, horses, dolphins, bears, whales, rats, mice, etc., instinctively tell illness from non-illness. There are different ways in which humans (and others, but I will stick to humans) do that, but as before, there are plenty of cues, though not infallible ones.

Now, as humas have language, they tend to have words that pick some of the properties they instinctively care about. If say bears evolved into something with language, they would have words that pick properties (smart) bears instinctively care about.

Here we need to be a bit careful with 'care about'. For example, you may in a usual sense not care whether the car in front of your house is blue or red. But to a point, you (or some part of your brain anyway) care about color classification, and classifies objects in that manner.

So, anyway, back to sex. You will find that in nearly all languages - not just NW-English -, there is a classification of people in men and women (or words translated usually as such, and with the same or almost the same meaning). Just as there is a classification in conditions as illnesses or not illnesses, healthy or unhealthy, etc., or 'red', 'blue', 'green', etc. It's a matter for empirical studies how much of a diversity there is in those classifications across languages, but even when there is (e.g., there is some variation in color language; I would argue not so in illness), what you have is a classificatory system that closely match human intuitions.

Now, it is true that humans care also in general about minds, so that it might be that the concepts of 'man' and 'woman' in NW-English or in nearly all languages incorporate some mental properties too. Or it might not be. Again, it's a matter for further discussion, and we can talk about it - but of course, it is not actually discussed: the 'conversation' consists in misrepresentations + condemnation of dissenters.

However, what I am saying is that even if it includes some mental properties, it is not the mental properties that would make this person a man, or not a woman. The point is that a human person who has:

​

1. A vagina, uterus, ovaries, etc.​

​

2. A mind that has formed experienced having a vagina, uterus, ovaries, etc., all throughout their lives and,​

​

3. A mind that has never experienced having a penis, testicles, etc.​

​

is a NW-woman, and is not a NW-man, even if, say, she preferred to play with trucks rather than dolls as a kid, or finds human females sexually attractive but not males, or have some other male-like mental properties. The same applies to other languages, by the way. Now, we might discuss what happens if 1. obtains, but not 2. or 3.: if evil scientists put my brain in a female rest of the body, am I a man or a woman, in NW-English? Interesting questions, but not really the point here, as these are not the cases at hand.

Second, you say "A person is not only their body, they're vastly more.". As there are no souls or similar, if I take that as face value, that is surely false. But sure, there are mental and non-mental properties. And of course, it is a very big mistake on your part to reckon that those of us who disagree with you somehow view other humans as objects. Why would you think that? You just condemned those who disagree with you, in a big way. But why? Have you not seen them care about people's minds? Do you really think they would care about the things in these threads if they treated others as objects?

I mean, seriously? Why are they fighting back against the Woke? Why do you think they care about whether "Penn teammate speaks out against transgender swimmer Lia Thomas"? How is that treating people as objects? If they treated people as objects, they would not care about the situation of the objects consisting in the team mates of Lia Thomas. They surely would not care if those were P-zombies. It is so obvious that it's disappointing that I have to point this out. But it's all over the place, in this thread and others. No, people who disagree with you on this matter do not view other humans as objects. It's not good to demonize them and not see that. Furthermore, even if they believe that the man/woman classification does not involve any mental properties (aside for those required to be human of course, but I mean the distinction), that is a theory about the meaning of the words that does not remotely involve viewing humans as objects (oh, and there are classifications of people that clearly do not involve mental properties, like 'blonde', 'blue-eyed', 'brunette', etc.; using them or believing those classifications do not involve mental properties also is not an indication that a person views other humans as objects).

To me, the opinion that the sex of an object is more real than the gender of a human being, is a social cue. It tells me a lot about the holder of the opinion. It's not especially flattering, it implies primitive ethics and world views.

And you do that again, demonizing away. But you are the one doing that, and failing to read all the other cues that ought to show you that you are picture a comic-book-villain caricature of your opponents.

It implies other things. Do you think that white people treating black people as social equals is "polite fiction"?

And you do it again, demonizing away. But purely for example, if I say 'Blacks are not inferior to to Whites' I make a true statement, whereas if I say 'trans men are men', I make a false statement in NW-English. Furthermore, the former statement would be sincere on my part, the latter insincere.

This is an internet forum. I don't claim to know anyone well, I'm just going by the cues provided by little black marks on my phone.

No, you're not just going by those cues. It was obvious in pretty much all of their threads that they do not remotely view other humans as objects. You're just assuming very bad things of those who disagree with you. Unfortunately, in my experience the vast majority of people in online debates do just that: essentially demonize the opponent. Perhaps, a lack of direct visual or auditory cues - we just read text in the posts - makes humans more prone to this kind of demonization; I don't know, but it's an interesting matter for future psychology research, given how ubiquitous this sort of debate has become. Even so, it is possible not to behave in that manner.

 

[Jarhyn]

But you know what gay men never demanded of straight people? We never demanded that you look at us and call us 'straight'.

Lindsay Graham would like a word.

Also, many of folks do rightly demand that people not call them gay in public.

The consequences of being outed for not being straight can be deadly.

The same goes for not being "cis".

You should see somebody about this fantasy you have that nobody knows the sex of somebody without participating in an occult ritual that unearths magickally cloaked secrets.

I go out in public all the time, and I am unmistakably a man. I would still be unmistakably a man no matter what I did to disguise it. And it is not a crime for people to notice.

It is a crime for people to notice black people "are different" (they are not in any meaningful way) and to treat them differently for it in particular contexts, and always a violation of social decorum otherwise, and a very good reason to be ejected with great prejudice from any private place of civility.

It is a crime for people to notice black people "are different" (they are not in any meaningful way) and to treat them differently for it in particular contexts, and always a violation of social decorum otherwise, and a very good reason to be ejected with great prejudice from any private place of civility.

I can substitute "woman" or "man", and this IS the law, the foundation of the law in the US in fact: that people shall have the equal protection of the law without respect to sex. Maybe you don't have that in Australia?

It seems you are not representing my views very accurately

It is not compulsion to ask people to be civil surrounding the privacy of others, even if the geometry of secondary sex characteristics are hard to actually keep private.

Politeness is much about not bringing up obvious but unimportant things.

We have all these situations where something can be obvious, and where we aren't supposed to allow it to affect how we speak or talk or act.

This is one of those things.

Maybe you are "obviously" gay.

Maybe you are not.

People aren't supposed to treat you different either way.

There is one form situation, exactly one, where this changes: when they consent to it.

 

[ZiprHead]

You can change your name because your name is a legal and social construct. You can't change your sex because you are a mammal. And you can't - in a secular society - compel the prayers of the infidels.

You are comparing asking someone to not kick and scream and deny giving people as what they ask for (when you give that freely to half of everyone free of any other real information) to compelling prayer.

Compelling me to use pronouns that do not accord with reality but accord with your gender cult is compelling prayer.

Interesting concept. So can I call gay guys buttfuckers and cocksuckers without issue?

Of course you can; I'm not the boss of you, nor would I want the State to punish you for doing so.

But I think if you feel the need to do that, why? Are you doing it to be mean? Why do you need to call gay men anything other than men, out of interest?

I don't feel that need.

Now you answer the same question with trans people the subject.

But you know what gay men never demanded of straight people? We never demanded that you look at us and call us 'straight'.

There's plenty of gay people who are not "out". You do know that, right?

 

[blastula]

We never demanded that you look at us and call us 'straight'.

Gays have demanded (rightfully) that their committed relationships be considered marriages, contrary to a lot of people saying they're not real marriages by definition.

 

[Jarhyn]

We never demanded that you look at us and call us 'straight'.

Gays have demanded (rightfully) that their committed relationships be considered marriages, contrary to a lot of people saying they're not real marriages by definition.

So, this is true. And I agree that people should call them marriages but not that "they must" except with regards to acting as servitor of a publicly licensed business interest, and then narrowly: only as the servitor to others' commissioned speech.

Interesting enough, then and even today I do not agree that anyone actually have the right to demand someone call their union a "marriage" legally.

I argued that legally, a neutral, culturally sterile term should be used: that the law ought cease calling any of them "marriages" of marriage is religious, and religious freedom and all that.

I keep telling Metaphor that they don't have to say words they don't believe in. There are words that can be said without belief.

"They/them/their".

 

[TomC]

We never demanded that you look at us and call us 'straight'.

Gays have demanded (rightfully) that their committed relationships be considered marriages, contrary to a lot of people saying they're not real marriages by definition.

And once again, we're back to people using words that seem simple, but aren't.

"Marriage" means different things to different people. To me, it's main meaning is "two competent adults form a mutually supportive, permanent, and exclusive, relationship". As a gay man, I stopped caring about the authority of church and state to define my relationships a long time ago.

Ironically, had religious folks not fought so hard to prevent the secular state from issuing civil unions to gay couples decades ago, they could have kept the word marriage for themselves. The rest of us could have had civil unions, back in the 70s. They could keep the word marriage for themselves.
But that wasn't good enough for them, so here we are in the 21st century with gay marriage rights the law of the land.

Ironic, to be charitable about it.
Tom

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Gays have demanded (rightfully) that their committed relationships be considered marriages, contrary to a lot of people saying they're not real marriages by definition.

That does not seem to be how that debate went.

Some gay people demanded that they be allowed to marry. They did not demand that their relationships - that is, the ones that they had before gay marriage was allowed - be called 'marriage'. Well, perhaps some gay people did so, but that was not the main claim as I recall it.

Some other people replied that the concept of 'marriage' in English (and the same for other languages) was such that a same-sex relationship could not be a marriage, even if laws called it so. What can I say? It seems to me that:

1. Gay relationships before gay marriage were allowed in the US were in fact not marriages, in the usual sense of the words in English. But if I'm mistaken and there was one common usage under which they were, then that would not make the statements of people who say that they were not marriages mistaken. Maybe the people saying they were marriages and the people saying they were just speaking past each other.

2. Gay relationships after gay marriages were allowed in the US (or in some of the states at first) were/are marriages in the usual sense of the words in English, provided that they actually get married in a legal fashion. That seems to be how the term 'marriage' behaves in English, at least in one of its common usages. I do not know whether there is a sense of 'marriage' common enough under which same-sex marriages are not marriages. If there is one and many conservatives usually use 'marriage' in that fashion, then those conservatives and the people who disagree with them are speaking past each other on the matter.

But the above does not affect any of the points I've been making with regards to the terms 'man', 'woman', etc., and regarding accusations of misgendering.

 

[Metaphor]

I can substitute "woman" or "man", and this IS the law, the foundation of the law in the US in fact: that people shall have the equal protection of the law without respect to sex. Maybe you don't have that in Australia?

I have less than no idea what it is you mean. People everywhere know whether somebody they are interacting with or talking to is a man or a woman, and it is not a 'crime' to notice it or treat that person differently based on that knowledge in almost every conceivable situation. It's illegal for the government (in most circumstances) to treat you differently because of your sex, but that isn't what we are talking about.

We have all these situations where something can be obvious, and where we aren't supposed to allow it to affect how we speak or talk or act.

We aren't supposed to react to obvious things? Are you fucking kidding?

This is one of those things.

Maybe you are "obviously" gay.

Maybe you are not.

People aren't supposed to treat you different either way.

Jarhyn, do you live on earth? I'm serious here. I don't know what kind of circles you move in or what kind of company you keep, but your list of 'supposed to's does not accord with anybody's reality, including your own.

Everybody who is not blind notices my male and imposing physical presence as soon as they see me. There's nothing on earth they could do to not notice.

Some people probably know I'm gay if I have a brief interaction with them. Other people are probably clueless. All of this is irrelevant. People are going to treat me differently because I'm male and not female, and people are going to treat me differently (or at least think of me differently) because I'm gay and not straight. This is normal human interaction done by normal humans.

Here's a scenario. A woman travelling alone on public transport after dark would probably be slightly apprehensive if I got off at the same stop as she did and headed in the same direction. She would be apprehensive because I am male and she does not know me. If she knew I was gay, she would probably be less apprehensive. She is not morally wrong for thinking any of these things.

There is one form situation, exactly one, where this changes: when they consent to it.

Ludicrous. People are treated differently all the time based on their physical characteristics and they didn't consent to it.

Ever described a suspect to police? I have. I described him as best as I remember. I didn't even reveal to the police that I did not know the man's gender identity. I just used 'he' without even having asked the suspect's pronouns.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't feel that need.

Now you answer the same question with trans people the subject.

Would I call trans people in general cocksuckers and buttfuckers?

No, it doesn't make sense to do so and no, using those terms for trans people in general would be using them specifically to be slurs.

There's plenty of gay people who are not "out". You do know that, right?

Right...so what, exactly?

Are you trying to build an analogy? That when adult human males dress as women and go out in public, I'm outing them by noticing they are male?

 

[Metaphor]

Gays have demanded (rightfully) that their committed relationships be considered marriages, contrary to a lot of people saying they're not real marriages by definition.

Right...so, what, exactly?

If you are saying "the State should not discriminate against people by sex" I entirely agree and it's the #1 reason the State ought never have restricted the benefits of marriage to people who chose opposite-sex partners.

 

[Metaphor]

I keep telling Metaphor that they don't have to say words they don't believe in. There are words that can be said without belief.

"They/them/their".

Compelling speech is worse than restricting it, but restricting my speech is still autocrat behaviour. But of course you are wrong anyway: using 'they' when you know the sex of the person you are talking about has a meaning that is different from using 'they' when you don't know the sex.

But also, your response is a dishonest one. Trans activists do not say "use 'they' if you don't like someone's preferred pronouns". No, trans activists say "you must use somebody's preferred pronouns, you cannot substitute them".

 

[Metaphor]

Ironically, had religious folks not fought so hard to prevent the secular state from issuing civil unions to gay couples decades ago, they could have kept the word marriage for themselves. The rest of us could have had civil unions, back in the 70s. They could keep the word marriage for themselves.

Unless 'civil union' had accorded all the exact same legal rights that getting married entails at every level of government, that would still have been unacceptable discrimination by the State.

 

[TomC]

Ironically, had religious folks not fought so hard to prevent the secular state from issuing civil unions to gay couples decades ago, they could have kept the word marriage for themselves. The rest of us could have had civil unions, back in the 70s. They could keep the word marriage for themselves.

Unless 'civil union' had accorded all the exact same legal rights that getting married entails at every level of government, that would still have been unacceptable discrimination by the State.

It was. That was the whole point.
The same legal rights.
No more, no less, the exact same legal rights.

Nothing about the church or any of that. No religious rights, if a church refused to accept our relationship they were under no compulsion. The churches could even keep their special tax status.

Heck, churches could also keep their special rights while refusing to accept interracial marriages. They could refuse to accept the marriage of people who had been "living in sin". There's no end to what churches can decide for themselves, while remaining tax freeloaders. Because this is a Christian Nation.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

I keep telling Metaphor that they don't have to say words they don't believe in. There are words that can be said without belief.

"They/them/their".

Compelling speech is worse than restricting it, but restricting my speech is still autocrat behaviour. But of course you are wrong anyway: using 'they' when you know the sex of the person you are talking about has a meaning that is different from using 'they' when you don't know the sex.

But also, your response is a dishonest one. Trans activists do not say "use 'they' if you don't like someone's preferred pronouns". No, trans activists say "you must use somebody's preferred pronouns, you cannot substitute them".

I'm the most vocal trans activist on this thread.

I am the disproof of your claim.

Your claim was disproved in the post you were arguing against with that claim!

As to what it means:

It means you are willing to publicly declare private and unimportant information when you fail to use neutral pronouns while under belief that the pronoun being requested is misplaced. That you have expressed a willingness to out people.

 

[Metaphor]

I keep telling Metaphor that they don't have to say words they don't believe in. There are words that can be said without belief.

"They/them/their".

Compelling speech is worse than restricting it, but restricting my speech is still autocrat behaviour. But of course you are wrong anyway: using 'they' when you know the sex of the person you are talking about has a meaning that is different from using 'they' when you don't know the sex.

But also, your response is a dishonest one. Trans activists do not say "use 'they' if you don't like someone's preferred pronouns". No, trans activists say "you must use somebody's preferred pronouns, you cannot substitute them".

I'm the most vocal trans activist on this thread.

I am the disproof of your claim.

No, you are not disproof of my claim. Nothing you utter could possibly be disproof. I did not say you in particular, I said trans activists.

Your claim was disproved in the post you were arguing against with that claim!

As to what it means:

It means you are willing to publicly declare private and unimportant information when you fail to use neutral pronouns while under belief that the pronoun being requested is misplaced. That you have expressed a willingness to out people.

There is nothing private about observing somebody's sex by looking at them while they are in public.

Your continual fantasy that people who observe sex and use the appropriate pronoun for that sex is 'outing' somebody is ludicrous and tiresome. Stop it. Stop pretending that observing somebody and using the appropriately-sexed pronoun for them is 'outing' them. Every single time I go out of my house people observe me and they observe that I am male, and they are not outing me by referring to me as 'he'.

Just stop with this nonsense.

 

[Jarhyn]

I keep telling Metaphor that they don't have to say words they don't believe in. There are words that can be said without belief.

"They/them/their".

Compelling speech is worse than restricting it, but restricting my speech is still autocrat behaviour. But of course you are wrong anyway: using 'they' when you know the sex of the person you are talking about has a meaning that is different from using 'they' when you don't know the sex.

But also, your response is a dishonest one. Trans activists do not say "use 'they' if you don't like someone's preferred pronouns". No, trans activists say "you must use somebody's preferred pronouns, you cannot substitute them".

I'm the most vocal trans activist on this thread.

I am the disproof of your claim.

No, you are not disproof of my claim. Nothing you utter could possibly be disproof. I did not say you in particular, I said trans activists.

Then you show us these here, then!

I am disproof that "trans activists" think this. No trans person I know acts like this and they are all activists, some for trans folks, some for wider causes.

You are smearing people, of which I am one.

You have a deep burden to prove a class given ample evidence of those who do not stand where you claim they do, and no evidence of trans activists that do think that way.

Your claim was disproved in the post you were arguing against with that claim!

As to what it means:

It means you are willing to publicly declare private and unimportant information when you fail to use neutral pronouns while under belief that the pronoun being requested is misplaced. That you have expressed a willingness to out people.

There is nothing private about observing somebody's sex by looking at them while they are in public.

Indeed, it is a violation of privacy!

It is a violation of someone's privacy to assume their history, past, culture, just by looking at the shape of their eyes or the color of their skin, and then say such things as you assume.

It is a violation of someone's privacy to assume elements of character from voice, mannerisms, or how someone holds their hands, and then say such things as you assume.

Your continual fantasy that people who observe sex and use the appropriate pronoun for that sex is 'outing' somebody is ludicrous and tiresome. Stop it. Stop pretending that observing somebody and using the appropriately-sexed pronoun for them is 'outing' them. Every single time I go out of my house people observe me and they observe that I am male, and they are not outing me by referring to me as 'he'.

Just stop with this nonsense.

I hope it is so tiresome as that you quit attempting to argue impotently against it.

There is nothing appropriate about abusing language to abuse humans.

You wish to publicly wield language in a way that reveals things about others they would hold as private namely the shape of their genitals.

People do not out you, in general, by calling you "he" because you are "out" as "he". Cis people tend to have that luxury of not having to deal with being outed.

You can whinge and moan as much as you want. I have offered my arguments and will continue to do so for as long as they stand.

The worst thing about public outings of trans people, especially with their clear derision to the very concept of someone's Identity, is that they double as clarion calls for mobbing and group attacks.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't feel that need.

Now you answer the same question with trans people the subject.

Would I call trans people in general cocksuckers and buttfuckers?

No, it doesn't make sense to do so and no, using those terms for trans people in general would be using them specifically to be slurs.

That's not the question I wanted you to answer and I think you know so, so your dodge is quite a tell.

Here is the question you asked of me and I answered:

But I think if you feel the need to do that, why? Are you doing it to be mean? Why do you need to call gay men anything other than men, out of interest?

I answered then I said: Now you answer the same question with trans people the subject.

Care to take a shot at it without the bullshit this time?

There's plenty of gay people who are not "out". You do know that, right?

Right...so what, exactly?

Are you trying to build an analogy? That when adult human males dress as women and go out in public, I'm outing them by noticing they are male?

You said no gay men want to be called straight. Obviously this is wrong because there are plenty of gay men that are not out and want to be thought of as straight.