I said why I asked the question. If we're going to talk about it I have to understand your views on things, and I didn't have much to go off of. I had a long post explaining mine, so you kinda understand my views already.
My questions point out the hypocrisy in your stance. Why do you choose to ignore the feelings and self image of those that are transracial, but not those that are transgender. You're telling me if she said she was a black man, you'd only correct her by saying "You're not black".
Your statement to me was it sounded like i think it's too much of a headache to respect CERTAIN GROUPS the way they want to be respected. But I'm consistent. It sounds like it's you that's picking and choosing which trans- group you want to respect.
Is Malik ignorant too? I think he was uneasy calling himself a heterosexual man at one point? Is everyone uneasy or is the group confusing? It's LGBTQ but go around calling people (Q)ueer and see what happens to you. Or the non-binary request of being called them/they when talking about one person. That's not even how the English language works man. But that's not confusing? I'm just ignorant?
1. I'm not telling you that I'd correct Rachel D. and say 'You're not black'. I dunno where you got that from. I wouldn't say shit to her. If she wants to refer to herself as black, she's welcome to do that.
2. It's never too much of a 'headache' to respect any group the way they want to be respected. So I dunno why it sounds to you like that is the case. If I choose to refer to one person one way, despite how they identify and don't use that same reasoning with another group...it's for a reason, rather than me feeling like it's too much of a headache. Here's the reason, in plain English, so there's no misunderstanding: being African-American is binary. You are or you aren't, but it's very definition. If that definition changes, I'll adjust my thinking. Sex isn't binary. By it's very definition. Now, we can debate based on that if you want to, but that's my REASON.
I used 'headache' because YOU used that word in your description. And you still didn't address what I said about how your statements came off. I addressed your comments about how mine came off.
3. Yes, Malik is ignorant too. Lol. The fuck? Being ignorant just means that you don't have knowledge about certain things. He had no problem referring to himself as a heterosexual male. He had the same problem CTG had - using the proper language to describe certain things. You really can't get a more classic example of 'ignorant' than a person literally admitted they don't know a certain thing.
4. I've never heard of any queer person being upset at being referred to as a queer. the only time I'v ever heard any of them have an issue is when its said in a disrespectful way. I think we can ALL agree that you can make ANYTHING disrespectful depending on how we package it, you know?
5. You can't seriously be sitting here trying to mount a defense based on the rules of the English language. We all bastardize the English language on this very forum all day long. Stop it. I respect most of your points, even if I don't agree with them. But that one is just intellectually dishonest, B.
