Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecily
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Deliberately using the pronouns as an insult on a trans person who is really trying their best to get away from their old gender role / presentation does legitimately piss me off. I don't think you're necessarily trying to do that, although that's how I took it initially. And I honestly don't think Henry Rollins in a wig is trying her best, either. That person is representing trans people in the worst possible light both in appearance and behavior.
|
I draw the line pretty clearly. If someone legally changes their name I'll call them that name when I learn their name.
Pronouns are about perception, when you see someone you apply a gendered identity to that person regardless of how they identify themselves and to force someone to go against their natural instinctual identifiers when addressing someone is invasive at best.
Lets compare it to gays and religious folk.
There are a plethora of memes out there that will say "when is the last time a gay came to your door to try to convert you?" and those memes are 100% spot on.
Gay people simply existing as homosexuals does not effect anyone in any single way. What they do in their bedroom or at a gay club/bar is their own business.
Religious folk on the other hand have every right to practice their religion without state interference, when they practice it at home or in a church it doesn't adversely effect anyone.
So far pretty even.
Now lets compare that to how they behave in public.
Gay pride parade: They want rights, they want to celebrate, they want to be accepted. They aren't forcing anyone to do anything, its just a gay bar outdoors, to put it crudely.
Religious proselytizers: They will go to your home and try to shame you for not worshiping their god. They will stand in public and try to use fear to bribe you with 'salvation' to follow their belief system. These practices are categorically invasive.
Now we see the difference, its how they interact with others when it comes to their identity. Gays want to simply be allowed to exist, the religious want you to conform to their belief system.
Now if you get approached by a religious person and refuse to conform, regardless of the reaction of the proselytizer in question, are you branded a hateful person? Are you considered a bigot? Or are you simply an individual not allowing others to force you to change how you live?
Why then is it so different when someone whom all five of your senses tells you is a specific gender wants you to address them in an unnatural manner? Is it simply because they are a protected class? If so, that's honestly not a 'good' reason is it? If it's for tolerance and acceptance and all of those other buzzwords, is it not hypocritical to decide not to apply it to the proselytizer?
I'm sorry, but here in the real world my rights don't end where someone else's feelings begin, if I'm uncomfortable calling an obviously biological male "she" I'm not gonna do it, and you're an asshole if you are going to try to shame me into doing so.
Just my 2cp.