I don't think you understood a word I said. For example, I spoke of intersex people identified as a specific sex as misidentified, and then explicitly said that isn't what "trans" is, so you wrote a lecture about how that idea of trans (that I specifically said wasn't trans) is wrong. And then immediately after accusing me of constructing a strawman that I very specifically didn't, you unleashed a significantly bigger strawman about what bigotry you assume I actually think in spite of my words being right in front of you saying the opposite.
Well to borrow your own phrasing: I don't think you understood a word I said. I did not give you the rundown of cis and trans because you alluded to the intersex. I did so because you tried to redefine the opposing position as only existing the context of misidentification and nothing else. Specifically that second paragraph of yours, wherein you say - and I quote - "But I really think most of you are just still applying an inverted double standard: if a doctor can misidentify a persons sex based on a shallow assessment of physical characteristics, why would you then consider changing those physical characteristics to be a sex change? If the current standards can be right or wrong, and you take the exact inverse position, you've still taken a position that can be right or wrong." You misrepresented the opposing position as claiming that SRS happens because the doctors got the sex wrong and then tried to pull a gotcha presenting the position as inherently contradictory, down to suggesting that if we actually believed that we wouldn't call it a sex change. Hence my explaining how badly you bastardized the basic concepts.
Now, I will concede that I perhaps chose my phrasing poorly when I described your apparent position as thinking of the intersex "as what trans
should be", as that is indeed easy to read as implying that you think intersex are trans rather than my intent that you thought of intersex as a valid application of SRS and the trans as an invalid application. But this certainly is not something that you "said the opposite" on. Point of fact that's rooted in the final bit of the first paragraph: "if trans people were just those whose overall physical biology was misidentified at birth due to mismatched or ambiguous genitalia, it wouldn't even be an argument. Go for it". Tell me, how is that not conveying that if the trans instead intersex you would have no bones about it?
Hell, considering the whole of your post, it's not difficult to read that as a passive aggressive insinuation of motte-and-bailey tactics, implying that we retreat to pretending it's all about intersex when challenged on trans. So, as such, I further feel obliged to point out that I first invoked the intersex purely to illustrate why the "it's all down to chromosomes" angle is patently bullshit. As an analogy, think of it in the same vein as if...what would be a good example...as if I were pointing out that creationists' efforts to get "equal time" in the biology classroom and "letting the kids decide for themselves" is demanding a different standard in biology than in any other science class; eg, we don't offer "equal time" to alchemy or the classical elements in chemistry.
Same principle here: I invoked the intersex because they neatly demonstrate how
we don't typically even look at chromosomes unless a complication is noticed, often more than a decade later. Nor do we look at them and say "oh, they aren't male/female enough" because of of chromosomes, infertility, or even atypical genetalia. Rather we shrug it off as "close enough" based on their general morphology. This stands in stark contrast to how transphobes try to justify their petty prejudice by insisting that those same traits preclude trans from that same "close enough" judgment. I invoked the intersex as a point of
contrast to illustrate that.
Now, if you don't think that the above is reflective of your intended meaning, then by all means, clarify your position. But the fact that you find my characterization unflattering does not in and of itself mean that I have misrepresented you. And on that note:
Nor did I say anyone did anything for the 'wrong' reasons (nice scare quotes...). If you've read my posts in the past, which you obviously have but just made up bits to fill in the blanks you didn't understand, you'd have seen that I don't question the motives of those transitioning, but rather the role and response of society around them. When society is bullying children into gender stereotypes and then drugging them if they don't fit cleanly enough, that's not a problem of the motives of those transitioning.
...That's a distinction without difference and does not dispute my point at all. You claim not be questioning the motive, but then in the same breath explain that you believe it's done for the sake of conforming with societal pressures. That is to say, you
question the motive and say that they're transitioning for the wrong reasons ("bullied into it" as you phrase it) as a matter of course. Never mind that the same line demonstrates my point that you do not understand this topic.
You're directly invoking a common "well-meaning" trans stereotype: that the transgender are just confused and not only should we reject their self-identification, we should instead patronizingly insist that we know their nature better than they themselves do. Moreover, it insists that the only reason that they believe otherwise is because people/society didn't insist hard enough that they weren't trans (you know, despite trans being one of the most heavily stigmatized demographics in the world). Point of fact, this is probably the single most common stereotype for the demographic. "They aren't
really trans, they're just confusing the fact that they don't line up with gender stereotypes with being a different gender!" "Oh, they just think they must be a different sex simply because they have some stereotypically masculine/feminine interests!" "Oh, pish posh, clearly what they really need is affirmation from one such as I that they
really are the gender they were assigned at birth! This is
clearly just a phase, after all, and society's to blame" ...It doesn't work that way (indeed, it's the central premise of the junk science that is conversion therapy), and it's an incredibly arrogant train of thought to boot.
For illustrative purposes, let's switch to sexuality for a moment and imagine that someone was trying to tell you that you were
really attracted to a sex that you've never expressed interest in. Shot in the dark: I'm assuming you're straight and quite comfortable in that knowledge. If so, imagine that this person is trying to convince you that you're actually gay. Not bi, flat out gay. They're saying you're lying both to others and yourself whenever you express interest in the sex you are attracted to and insist that you're
really only interested in the one you claim
not to be attracted to. If you aren't straight, just adapt the scenario so that the basic principle applies. The specifics don't really matter, just that the argument is that you've deluded yourself into embracing a different sexuality because societal stereotypes have convinced you that you can't
really be the sexuality you claim. Basically this person is arguing that you're so deep in the closet that you're convinced you can see the castles of Narnia.
Now tell me, would this random arrogant ninny, who doesn't know you from Adam, actually know
your sexuality better than
you do? I should hope that you would find that scenario positively laughable. But here's the thing: your argument - that these people were bullied into being trans and just needed affirmation that they were just confused and it was all society's fault that they deluded themselves into thinking they were trans because they "don't fit cleanly enough" - is the gender identity equivalent.
