[frittig]

I'll copy a response that I wrote elsewhere.

One issue that a lot of trans supporters don't realize is that similarly to how trans people could be offended when they are referred to by a gender not of their choice, so to could some speakers be offended if they are forced to refer to a person as a gender not of their (the speaker) choice.

This may be easier to understand by using a comparison. When I talk about the Muslim prophet I say Muhammad. However, many Muslims would say Muhammad pbuh (peace be upon him). This isn't that problematic, but let's say they the term was Muhammad ttp (the true prophet). Now I as a non Muslim believer would never use ttp because that would be insulting for whoever I believe in. If SE required that whenever I mention Muhammad that I append ttp, I would refuse as it would be extremely offensive to me.

Similarly by referring to a person with XX chromosomes [1] as she, is offensive to people who believe that genders cannot change. A reasonable compromise would be to let whoever is righting chose what they want, or even allow gender neutral pronouns. But what SE chose to do was to say that people who believe that XY is a guy are wrong and deserve no respect for their beliefs.

[1] someone corrected me and pointed out that there is a rare genetic condition where someone could have XX chromosomes but have many other male characteristics. So I would like to correct myself and say that for certain rare genetic conditions, I wouldn't mind being corrected. But for the vast majority of transgenders who are genetically similar to either males or females the above holds.

[WanderingArbor]

Forgive me, but this is a load of absolute horseshit. There's a gulf of difference between choosing given terminology based on religious belief and choosing terminology based on personal interpretation of scientific text.

Sex and gender aren't the same thing. It boggles my mind how seemingly complicated this is for some people to grasp. There's a substantial corpus of established science and historical research that more or less proves that physiological sex and social gender are not and never have been mutually causal; your argument here is predicated upon the notion that a person's chromosomes are inextricably linked to their gender, which simply isn't true.

In [1], you're literally making the exception that proves the rule here. What do you define as "male characteristics"? Doesn't it seem like that might not be the most rigorous qualifier for determining whether or not somebody falls on one side or another of whatever arbitrary boundary you seem to be defining?

Does it not strike you as a little cruel to suggest that treating a person with a modicum of respect over a social issue that barely (if at all) affects you is as offensive as disrespecting an entire religious viewpoint?

Is it really that hard to understand that in pursuit of whatever maladaptive compromise makes you feel more comfortable in your belief, you're actively harming people who have to constantly struggle to be understood or even recognized in modern society?

Doesn't that feel a little selfish? Like you're missing the point a little?