OK, so now you’re not being a troll. You are making an argument rather than just being an asshole yourself. I’m happy to respond to an argument.
I have to tell you, however, your reading comprehension seems to be low. Did you read where I wrote this?
Now, if this person who looks very much like a woman, wearing a dress no less, tells me they are actually a man, I will refer to them as they wish. It certainly doesn’t hurt anyone for me to be polite and respectful.
We should all have the expectation that strangers will treat us with respect. If someone makes a mistake or intentionally uses the wrong pronoun, we can ask, request or appeal for them to be respectful. If they don’t, then no respect should be expected toward them in return.
Where I draw the line is when someone tells me what I am allowed to say or not to say within the confines of the existing free speech laws (e.g. I am not allowed to yell “fire” in a crowded theater). The demand to control how I address them is already disrespectful of me, and they should not expect respect in return.
This doesn’t apply just to pronouns. It applies to anything. If you think you have the right to control my speech, then I have to make a demonstration that you don’t. If you just expect me to speak in a certain way, I will be as courteous as the next guy.
It is actually not trans-people’s pronouns I am worried about. It is all the others who might demand the same right over what I am allowed to say to them or about them.
I support essentially all the points made in the article. It was only this part I had any objection to:
If someone says they are a man and they’re wearing full Victorian dress with hoops in their skirt and lips as red as blood, you use he/him to refer to them. If someone says they are a woman and they’ve got a Thrasher hoodie and a beard and a shaved head, you use she/her to refer to them.
Firstly, the speaker decides what he says, not the listener. Merely inserting the word “should” would make all the difference in this paragraph.
Secondly, the illustration is a fantasy. People, including lots of trans-people, find this absurd. Some outspoken examples would be Blair White or Rose of Dawn. And it includes all the trans people I know, and that includes family members and many very close friends. We would all be happy to use any pronoun that someone asks us to within reason. But, we are also going to find it rather strange that one wants to be called one thing while working to present as the other thing. That is the global culture of gender and it is not going to change. Nevertheless, why not be conciliatory to the individual?
In my analysis, this is simply the author’s view of what they think a wonderful world would be like. And, that’s fine. It is not a widely held desire for all trans people. I’m just pointing out how unrealistic it is. In fact, it is not only unrealistic, but it is also counter-productive to demand or insist on it if our goal is to promote the acceptance of trans people. This sort of militant tenor is hurting, not helping.
The rest of the article was fine. The author responded to my comment and seemed to understand my point.
For me, everyone’s free speech rights are more important than a trans-person’s perceived rights to make me use a particular pronoun. It is a courtesy for me to do so, just like when I use Madame or Sir with a cis person.
I see you have a beard, so I would initially use male pronouns and you should not be offended by it. All the trans people I know would initially use a male pronoun also. If you ASK me to use a different pronoun, I am happy to. If you tell me I have to, I won’t and ask you what you are going to do about it. It would be the same if some rude cis man demanded I refer to him by Sir. As soon as he thinks he gets to decide how I refer to him, then I won’t use that reference. It is a game of dominance that and I won’t play.
I’m also not the one being edgelord. The reality is that my view is more mainstream. The author is edgelord and I am appreciative of practically all that was said, except this about controlled speech and the expectation that the 99.99 percent conform their culture to the .01 percent. You’re in such a bubble you’ve got things reversed.
So, I support your right to call me an asshole while you demand the right to control what I can say.
Now, I hope you will read this carefully and tell me specifically why you object to any point I made, rather than attack me because you don’t comprehend what I wrote.
And, also please learn about the rhetorical use of “the devil's advocate”.