LogFAQs > #980211423

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

They aren't being ostracized for being trans. They're being ostracized for their conduct in the conversation.

"Their conduct in the conversation" being to identify themselves as being trans in response to you failing to realize it. So you're ostracizing them for not hiding their gender identity. Oh look! We're right back at the exact opposite of accepting them and therefore elevating their suicide risk. Funny how you keep trying to dodge that little piece of factual reality instead of trying to come up with a justification for disregarding it.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

https://www.dictionary.com/compare-words/proper%20noun-vs-pronoun

Potato, potato. You'll notice I also used the term "deadnaming" in the discussion leading up to this, which was very deliberate because it all falls under the same umbrella: Accepting the gender identity of trans people includes both getting their name right and getting their gender right whenever using gendered language.

If you really want to be that rigid about it:
"This is my friend Bill, she's really good at soccer."
"She? I'm a guy, dude."
"*To yourself* (Guess I can't expect a quality conversation from Bill, I'd better just avoid her)"

Oh hey that response looks just as stupid this way as in the first version. It's almost like the actual semantics of the situation didn't change at all.

(Side note: this is an example of a situation in which you might use third-person pronouns to refer to somebody who's present, since for some reason you struggled to conceptualize that)