[smc]

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.

What you state with such certainty in the quote above belies a complete lack of understanding of what it means to have "rights." A person's right to something is meaningless without actuation of that right. Further, a right is an absolute; otherwise, it is also meaningless.

If you make it okay for someone to "see things differently" in that context, you are taking away the right.

Imagine if all the anti-discrimination laws that grew out of the civil rights movement in the United States were not enforced simply because the person who denied a black man entry into his restaurant said to that man, "Sure, the law says I can't deny any person the the right to eat here, but I don't consider blacks to be people, so I don't have to serve you. Sorry, but I just see things differently."

You may laugh at my analogy, but it is precisely the basis upon which blacks in the United States were denied rights for a very, very long time.

Originally Posted by littletwink

They can say "I will not respond to comments seeking to strip me of MY self-determined gender", but they cannot prohibit a person from thinking whatever it is they want to.

Now, let's extend your logic further with the analogy. As I understand it, the black man denied entry to the restaurant should simply not respond? After all, the restaurant owner, by your account, has an equal right to disbelieve that blacks are people.

Originally Posted by littletwink

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you're saying that there are only 2 distinct genders and I could not disagree more with the assertion that everyone fits into 1 of only 2 possible boxes.

I said absolutely nothing about how many distinct genders there are in my response. Your last statement is completely irrelevant to my point.