[smc]

Originally Posted by littletwink

I'm not comfortable with the idea of a person or group telling individuals what they must think or believe. Behavior and actions are separate from thoughts and beliefs, though. Are behaviors and actions usually predicated upon beliefs? Certainly, but while behaviors and actions can be mandated and enforced legally, thoughts and beliefs cannot.

In the case of your shopkeeper, while he may be required to accept black customers, he still has the right to view those customers as non-persons.

You wish to mandate certain language when it comes to discussing the TG community, but language alone is not a guarantee or even a requisite for understanding and understanding is not a guarantee of societal acceptance. As a member of that community myself - albeit part-time, by some definitions - I am not bothered by another person's refusal of my self-identification.

You are saying that the denial of one's gender identity by another is wrong and is offensive and in many cases, that is probably a fair interpretation. However, not every TG individual is offended and I personally do not wish to be placed in that box, nor do I think I should be chastised for my reluctance to conform.

Again, I'm ok with not being recognized as a man or woman (as the case may be!) and several of my TG friends are very much the same. Just because we may be in the minority does not mean we shouldn't be allowed to think or feel this way.

By the same token, I will not demand that a non-TG person acknowledge my gender as a function of acknowledging my personhood. I am not my gender. My depth as a person goes much deeper than that and I feel that getting hung up on my transgenderism would actually cheapen my value as a person.

Other TG persons will feel completely differently - their gender identity and acknowledgment of same is absolutely vital to their everyday existence - and I fully respect their right to feel that way.

What is most notable about your latest response is how you have sought to shift the terrain. Earlier, you wrote:

Originally Posted by littletwink

An individual's right to self-determination is not in any way infringed upon by another individual choosing to see things differently.

When you take up my shopkeeper example, you write that the shopkeeper has a right to view black customers as non-persons, but may still be required to accept black customers.

What good is the shopkeeper's "right" to his belief if it cannot be actuated? Does it transcend the right of the black person to enter his shop? When a dispute erupts, which right should be defended by law? The right of conscience or the right of access?

Rights of conscience are tricky things. They are used by people to deny the obvious truth (blacks are, indeed, persons) and justify the denial of reasonable rights to others for all sorts of reasons.

You write regarding language, and of course you are correct that "language alone is not a guarantee ... for understanding." But you are wrong that language is not a requisite for understanding.

Most important, you write that you are "not bothered by another person's refusal of my self-identification." I suspect that you have not had your rights infringed in the manner of the black person in my example. I would not pretend to know anything about you specifically, but in my experience, those who have never truly felt the lash of outright discrimination are the one's who can most readily cede the pseudo-"right of conscience" to those who wield the lash.