Poll: Gender recognition offence

[Rosiv]

Its not that I disagree with you, but I have always seen Evilthecat argue that gender is propogated by social factors only.

Only in the sense that that is definitively correct. If something were not "propagated by social factors only" but rather by the hormonal processes of sex differentiation, it would not be gender, it would be sex. The shape of a person's genitals, for example is not propagated by social factors only, so when we talk about the shape of a person's genitals we are describing their sex, specifically their morphological sex (which may not conform with their gonadal sex).

I will admit that I find the notion that complex patterns of human behaviour or detailed cognitive processes like thoughts and desires are predetermined by what kind of cells predominate in a person's gonads is kind of laughable. Anything which relies on substances within the body possessing seemingly magical properties or being able to produce extremely complex structures from incredibly simple coding causes my cynicism glands to start firing. But I have always said that once the mechanism for biological determination of sex typed behaviours can be demonstrated in its entirety, once it moves beyond simply "this behaviour exists, therefore biology" then I will freely admit my mistake in this regard.

Well to be honest I do not really understand your response. I do not mean it in a rhetorical sense,; maybe I am tired from final exams, but Are you saying that since gender is observed as behavior, that we should treat it under the study of sociology, and not biology, for biology would deal with "tangibles"?

I just don't know why we would exclude biology from the table of disscussion, I mean there is research being done in the field of gender and biology. I would like to assume it is all not flawed, maybe it is. Shouldnt a topic only be not studied when someone does not ask the question? (Or funds the study of the question i guess...)Neuroscience I guess would be that werid mix of biology and psychology, so I don't know if they have domain in studying gender in your thoughts.

When someone states that biology is the sole cause of anything, I would be skeptical as well. I mean social factors can affect biology, and we know ones biology can influence behaviors. Am I making a slippery slope argument or something? Or a generalization? Sorry for the ramble, I just wasn't sure I would have time to respond.

 

[01189998819991197253]

Having read this thread in its entirety, I think this new study would be well suited to it.

http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2015/11/brains-men-and-women-aren-t-really-different-study-finds

In the mid-19th century, researchers claimed they could tell the sex of an individual just by looking at their disembodied brain. But a new study finds that human brains do not fit neatly into ?male? and ?female? categories. Indeed, all of our brains seem to share a patchwork of forms; some that are more common in males, others that are more common in females, and some that are common to both. The findings could change how scientists study the brain and even how society defines gender.

For the purposes of this debate, it might be worth accepting how little we understand the brain and stop talking about "male and female brains". It's bullshit, and known to be bullshit for a while. It might also be good to stop pretending that humans are not what we obviously are, and that's more continuum than discrete when it comes to a lot of things. Most things perhaps.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Well, you are reducing an extremely complex thing down to a binary question, which is virtually never justified. We do know highly complex social behaviors can be instinctual, we have frequently observed such outside of humanity, and we have no real reason to suppose humans are special.

Actually, when it comes to cognition, we absolutely do have reason to suppose that humans are special. Not completely special, sure. Other animals with exceptionally high intelligence share many of our qualities, but there is still an order of magnitude difference between humans and all other animals.

We have instinctive behaviours. They are present in us from birth, although we grow out of most of them as we age. When you press your finger against a newborn infant's palm it will grip. That is an instinct. When you put something against its mouth it will suckle. That is an instinct. Crying to indicate distress is an instinct. These are simple, predictable responses to stimuli.

Even more complex "instincts" in animals are relatively simple. Spiders will spin beautiful and complex webs, but the webs will always be the same pattern because they are created by a simple, predictable sequence of behaviours common to all spiders of that species.

When people allege that extremely complex social behaviours, like role distribution or identity formation, are "instinctive", they are relying on a popular misuse of the term "instinctive" to describe any deep seated behaviour pattern. I might feel that I "instinctively shudder" when my ex enters the room, or a homophobe might feel "instinctively disgusted" by the thought of touching a person of the same sex. These are not real instincts, merely deep seated or strongly expressed reactions which are felt to be outside of the conscious control of the person experiencing them them. There is no convincing mechanism to explain how these things might be produced instinctively, just as there is no convincing mechanism to explain why role distribution or identity formation might be produced instinctively. They are too complex, and lack the predictability of actual instinctive behaviours.

I just don't know why we would exclude biology from the table of disscussion, I mean there is research being done in the field of gender and biology.

No, there is research being done in the field of sex and biology. Anything primarily related to biology is sex, the term "gender" refers specifically to the social dimensions of sex.

Neurobiological research into differences between men and women is still sexual difference research, because it deals with anatomical/biological differences between men and women. Research into women's shoe buying habits would be gender research, because it deals with social differences between men and women.

Maintaining the distinction is a useful heuristic tool (even if it is flawed in purely epistemological terms) because it helps us to spot when a conclusion does not match the methodology used to produce it. If someone is researching women's shoe buying habits and then claiming to have discovered neurological differences between men and women, something is very wrong there.

 

[Dalrien]

What I'm getting from this thread Is that I should use "Them", "they" or "that" to every single person I meet irregardless of whether or not "normal" people are the incredibly vast majority, on the off-chance that I might accidentally offend an abnormally gendered individual.

Saying "Hey, you" Isn't exactly a remedy for every single social encounter.

Yes, I am using hyberbole.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Seeing as issues of self-perception aren't as immediately perceptible as actually realized transsexual transitions, I don't see where the harm is. If someone looks and acts like a guy, using "him", "Sir" and the like feels like the natural thing to do. If the first thing a hypothetical someone does when I refer to them is jump down my throat for not respecting their non-obvious personal gender policy, then something's clearly wrong.

It's not like we could feasibly wear our preferred pronouns on our sleeves on a continuous basis.

"Hey, look at my snazzy shoulder patch! See how it identifies me as a cis hetero male and please respect that, or else I'll ram my fist down your throat because Tumblr didn't teach me self-restraint!"

 

[Politrukk]

Having read this thread in its entirety, I think this new study would be well suited to it.

http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2015/11/brains-men-and-women-aren-t-really-different-study-finds

In the mid-19th century, researchers claimed they could tell the sex of an individual just by looking at their disembodied brain. But a new study finds that human brains do not fit neatly into ?male? and ?female? categories. Indeed, all of our brains seem to share a patchwork of forms; some that are more common in males, others that are more common in females, and some that are common to both. The findings could change how scientists study the brain and even how society defines gender.

For the purposes of this debate, it might be worth accepting how little we understand the brain and stop talking about "male and female brains". It's bullshit, and known to be bullshit for a while. It might also be good to stop pretending that humans are not what we obviously are, and that's more continuum than discrete when it comes to a lot of things. Most things perhaps.

Male and Female brains are nonsense, Male and Female hormones on the other hand.

 

[The Wooster]

Take your best guess and use pronoun.
Person asks you to use other pronoun.
Use that pronoun if you want to be polite.

Literally that fuckin' easy.

 

[Rosiv]

Spoiler

No, there is research being done in the field of sex and biology. Anything primarily related to biology is sex, the term "gender" refers specifically to the social dimensions of sex.

Neurobiological research into differences between men and women is still sexual difference research, because it deals with anatomical/biological differences between men and women. Research into women's shoe buying habits would be gender research, because it deals with social differences between men and women.

Maintaining the distinction is a useful heuristic tool (even if it is flawed in purely epistemological terms) because it helps us to spot when a conclusion does not match the methodology used to produce it. If someone is researching women's shoe buying habits and then claiming to have discovered neurological differences between men and women, something is very wrong there.

It just seems too big of a claim to say " this is solely in this domain" for any field really. Why be exclusionary?, if it turns to be a area that no longer wants to be questioned, people will just stop funding or doing the research. Until then to total discredit them seems a bit unfair. Yes I know research has to stand on its results(and popularity), but is that not for the peer review process to decide how much quaility ones study has, and not you or I? Although maybe more so you given your academic background.

People are doing the research, and I meant research on gender being influenced by biology, not sex, using your terms I guess. I couldn't find the articles or talk I watched so I can't cite, sorry.

 

[Terminal Blue]

It just seems too big of a claim to say " this is solely in this domain" for any field really. Why be exclusionary?

Well, when it's relevant you don't have to be "exclusionary", but then that wouldn't just mean countenancing the possibility that "gender" is biological, but also the much more coherent possibility that "sex" is social.

Bodies are bodies, but the classification system that makes bodies "male" or "female" is the creation of a purely human field of medical practice. The bodies themselves do not autonomously and independently generate the logic of binary sex, it is imposed upon them through the practices through which we train medical professionals (and ourselves) to interpret those bodies. If we wished, if we arbitrarily chose different priorities on which to classify bodies, if we arbitrarily chose a completely different set of physical differences which "mattered" and ignored those which "matter" now, we could do things very differently.. The bodies would not care, no system of classification will have the slightest impact on them.

This is why the sex/gender distinction is epistemologically flawed, not because we have failed to consider the possibility that "gender" is biological (indeed, that was the original assumption, we have very much clawed the category of gender from the emerging realization that almost all human behaviour is not biologically determined) but because we have, until very recently, failed to consider the possibility that sex is social.

Again, though, outside of epistemology and ontology, the sex/gender distinction is a useful tool. It is nothing more than that, but it is useful. It's also not in any way exclusionary, since it allows for migration between the two categories. If someone did genuinely discover evidence that all men are "hardwired" to like football and beer, that there is some actual anatomical feature of men's neurology which makes that the case (the "football gland" and the "beer ganglion") then that would become a sexual difference between men and women. Again though, what we couldn't do is to infer that because many men appear (sociologically) to like beer and football the "football gland" and "beer ganglion" must exist. You can see why that is logically unsound, right?

That deliberate sliding between the social and the natural in order to make something easier to "prove" than it actually is remains a problem in sexual difference research to this day, and it's one which the sex/gender distinction rather handily allows us to solve.

 

[Dragonbums]

Despite what tumblr might tell you, it's highly unreasonable the first time around to know if the person your addressing goes by different pronouns. The people getting pissed off about it are unreasonable and looking for a soapbox to rake in the thousands of notes anyway.
However if they explicitly tell you that they want to be referred to by 'X' pronoun, than it's hardly any effort on your part to refer to them by those pronouns.

 

[Akjosch]

The poll doesn't seem any connection to the thread.

The poll is talking about someone's sex. If someone has the physical characteristics of a certain sex (as evidenced by their DNA and hormone levels, for example), it's obviously not wrong to call them being an example of that sex.

The thing is, you generally don't even have this information, and I personally couldn't care less for it unless I'm trying to produce offspring with that specific person (which for any random person you can safely assume I don't).

Then the OP continues to talk about gender instead ...

You're misinterpreting this on purpose?

No, I just don't see how those are connected, for the reasons outlined.

The point is that obviously there is a difference between sex and gender these days, but how can one identify someones gender if they in every way look and approach you as part of the original binary(that is based upon their sex)?

Guess. If you guess wrongly and they care enough, they'll correct you. Accept the correction and move on.

(Biological) sex isn't and never was binary, by the way. To date, besides the XX-female and XY-male sexes (which the vast majority of humans belong to, in roughly equal amounts), we know of a bunch of other sexes in humans. Some examples:

"XY-female", Swyer syndrome. Essentially a failure of producing testosterone during foetal development. Five known subtypes.

"X-female", Turner syndrome. Completely or mostly missing a second X-chromosome. About 1 in 8000 births.

X/XY mosaics (mixed gonadal dysgenesis). Mostly appearing outwardly male, but can run the gamut. Similar to many chimeric people, can live their lives without ever knowing they are genetically atypical.

"XXY-male", Klinefelter syndrome. Outwardly usually not recognisable as atypical. Most common non-binary sex type, occurring in about 1 in 1500 live births.

"XXX-female", Triple X syndrome. Again, most of the time not distinguishable from a "typical" XX-female to the naked eye. About 1 in 2000 live births.

"XYY-male", again not really distinguishable from "normal" males. About 1 in 2000 live births.

 

[Rosiv]

Spoiler

It just seems too big of a claim to say " this is solely in this domain" for any field really. Why be exclusionary?

Well, when it's relevant you don't have to be "exclusionary", but then that wouldn't just mean countenancing the possibility that "gender" is biological, but also the much more coherent possibility that "sex" is social.

Bodies are bodies, but the classification system that makes bodies "male" or "female" is the creation of a purely human field of medical practice. The bodies themselves do not autonomously and independently generate the logic of binary sex, it is imposed upon them through the practices through which we train medical professionals (and ourselves) to interpret those bodies. If we wished, if we arbitrarily chose different priorities on which to classify bodies, if we arbitrarily chose a completely different set of physical differences which "mattered" and ignored those which "matter" now, we could do things very differently.. The bodies would not care, no system of classification will have the slightest impact on them.

This is why the sex/gender distinction is epistemologically flawed, not because we have failed to consider the possibility that "gender" is biological (indeed, that was the original assumption, we have very much clawed the category of gender from the emerging realization that almost all human behaviour is not biologically determined) but because we have, until very recently, failed to consider the possibility that sex is social.

Again, though, outside of epistemology and ontology, the sex/gender distinction is a useful tool. It is nothing more than that, but it is useful. It's also not in any way exclusionary, since it allows for migration between the two categories. If someone did genuinely discover evidence that all men are "hardwired" to like football and beer, that there is some actual anatomical feature of men's neurology which makes that the case (the "football gland" and the "beer ganglion") then that would become a sexual difference between men and women. Again though, what we couldn't do is to infer that because many men appear (sociologically) to like beer and football the "football gland" and "beer ganglion" must exist. You can see why that is logically unsound, right?

That deliberate sliding between the social and the natural in order to make something easier to "prove" than it actually is remains a problem in sexual difference research to this day, and it's one which the sex/gender distinction rather handily allows us to solve.

Well, when it's relevant you don't have to be "exclusionary", but then that wouldn't just mean countenancing the possibility that "gender" is biological, but also the much more coherent possibility that "sex" is social.

This was the only part I understood enough to be honest, although what determines when something is relevant? I can understand the notion that either gender can be biological influcenced or sex can be socially influenced, and I agree. Both make sense to me, we just have less "good" or research for gender being biologicaly influened.

It's also not in any way exclusionary, since it allows for migration between the two categories.

I guess I am not arguing my point well, sorry. By exclusionary I meant more of what you spoke on above.Not having the possibility that there can be more than one cause of anything seems exclusionary to me, but if we consider that sex can be influenced by social standards, which is has been, why not assume biology can influence social effects?

Again though, what we couldn't do is to infer that because many men appear (sociologically) to like beer and football the "football gland" and "beer ganglion" must exist. You can see why that is logically unsound, right?

Well to be honest I don't read/view a lot of papers or research from biology regarding gender. Therefore I don't know if they make claims like the one above. As long as their claim was not as strong as the claim above, I would not see the "logical unsoundness" of it. But I am fuzzy on these philosophy terms, so what it means to be "unsound" is not very clear to me.

 

[celeritas]

A lot of people here claiming that people who 'misgender' others deliberately are being dicks. It's not true. One person's perception of reality doesn't supercede another's right to view it differently - it's strange that we've become accustomed to shaming people who refuse to view reality under certain terms.

While I fully support any individual's desire to express themselves however they chose and to be able do so without fear of stigmatisation, I think that current trends in transgender discussion are actually an obstacle to this - I think it's doing a lot of harm.

 

[happyninja42]

A lot of people here claiming that people who 'misgender' others deliberately are being dicks. It's not true. One person's perception of reality doesn't supercede another's right to view it differently - it's strange that we've become accustomed to shaming people who refuse to view reality under certain terms.

While I fully support any individual's desire to express themselves however they chose and to be able do so without fear of stigmatisation, I think that current trends in transgender discussion are actually an obstacle to this - I think it's doing a lot of harm.

Like most things in life, it depends on context. For example, if I refused to call you by your name that you were given, and instead decided to just call you "Pug Fucker" (not implying you actually engage in intercourse with small canines, just giving what I thought was a funny example), sure, by your statement, I am totally within my rights to do so. And you are correct, I am under no direct obligation to view reality as you do, and there really isn't anything anyone can do to stop me from doing so. To me, you are Pug Fucker....but I am also being a dick at the same time.

There are 2 scenarios that seem to most commonly pop up in this specific thread, and depending on which one is being referred to, the answer (I think) varies.

Scenario 1:
Trans person is mis-gendered by someone they have just met, and is a total stranger, and the trans persons outward gender identifiers might be contrary to their preferred gender, or a mix, and thus confusing at first glance In these examples, most people (from the posts I've read) feel that if there is a mistake made in the proper pronoun to be used, that it's likely not intentional, and is simply a mistake, one that can be easily corrected, and hopefully, no longer be an issue during the social interaction. And that if the trans person reacts in a strongly negative way, calling out the person for their mistake, making a scene about it, and other typical social outrage examples (not exclusive to trans people), then they are being unreasonable. Nothing wrong with them taking time to correct the issue, that's a different thing. But at least do it politely.

Scenario 2:
Trans person is mis-gendered by someone that is already aware of their gender preference, and refuses to acknowledge that preference, intentionally calling them by the incorrect gender. In these examples, again most people (from what I've seen), feel that the fault is with the person intentionally mis-representing the trans person. They are being rude on purpose, refusing to acknowledge the other person as they wish to be seen. This isn't a trans specific type of thing, and can happen in other forms of social interaction. Seeing a woman who is a stripper for example, as nothing but a sex object, and refusing to acknowledge her as anything else when talking to her, even after she asks you to do otherwise. That's just the first example that came to mind, but you get the idea.

You are absolutely correct that there isn't anything requiring the person to use the gender pronouns that the trans person prefers, but in doing so, they are acting rudely by social norms. Not just trans social norms, but social norms in general. Hence my Pug Fucker example. To refuse to speak to someone using the name/title/whatever that they prefer, is considered rude, pretty much anywhere.

 

[celeritas]

Scenario 2:
Trans person is mis-gendered by someone that is already aware of their gender preference, and refuses to acknowledge that preference, intentionally calling them by the incorrect gender. In these examples, again most people (from what I've seen), feel that the fault is with the person intentionally mis-representing the trans person. They are being rude on purpose, refusing to acknowledge the other person as they wish to be seen .

I think this is most telling part - depending on what you specifically mean by "acknowledge". If I'm perfectly happy to refer to someone as their preferred name: Sally, Rob, Ashley, whatever monika they go by, but that doesn't require me to accept that they have transitioned gender. In the case of M>F, I can still refer to that person by their preferred name while still maintaining that I consider them, by definition, a man.

My view isn't an insult to them, or a question of manners, simply my view on things (a view I can support and defend if they're interested in engaging me on the subject). Being an atheist who takes a very dim view of religion I can still wish my Muslim co-worker "Eid Mubarak" in the same manner.

Social pressures want to now reclassify people who refuse to accept certain views of reality as 'bigots' or simply 'dicks' - I don't think this is right. A reasoned argument is not automatically an insult simply because you don't like the conclusion.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Social pressures want to now reclassify people who refuse to accept certain views of reality as 'bigots' or simply 'dicks' - I don't think this is right. A reasoned argument is not automatically an insult simply because you don't like the conclusion.

The problem being that a reasoned argument in this case is entirely about invalidating another person. I have never seen biological essentialist views successfully defended as anything but transphobic behavior, purely on the grounds of refusing another person.

If you want to talk "reality", if you misgender a trans woman in a public place, that is very likely to lead to said trans woman being violently attacked. You can't control the choices others make, or their actions, but you can control your own. To put it bluntly; being outed as a trans person puts said trans person in danger of being assaulted, period, misgendering a trans person is outing them. So for reality and the idea of respect, the only correct thing you can do is not expose a trans person that you know is trans to unnecessary danger. Refusal to use pronouns is generally seen as suspect language here, which I've always experienced as leading to that person eventually being misgendered. No matter what you believe to be correct, misgendering is still outing a trans person and outing a trans person against their will is never right.

Edit:

Also refusing to refer to someone by preferred gender pronouns is dehumanizing behavior. Add to that the mental anguish it causes the person you're refusing to correctly gender. It's just an awful thing for one person to intentionally do to another, no matter how you try to justify the behavior. It's always about intentional invalidation of a trans person as a person.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I don't honestly believe anyone truly transgender could possibly be offended, the glory of being offended by anything and everything is a privilege of those who declare themselves transwhatever because it makes them a special little snowflake. Trans is the new emo which was the new goth ad nauseum.

Yeah, because people like to choose to be in a class that puts them at a far higher risk of being assaulted, raped, and murdered. You know because people like having that dark gremlin in their head, called gender dysphoria, which constantly assaults ones psyche, until transition. Then gender dysphoria will still pop up and ruin your day. Sure people like to go through that so they can then get verbally assaulted by people actively refuse to understand. This exact same thing was said about people choosing to be gay, it was just as much bullshit there as it is here.

 

[happyninja42]

My view isn't an insult to them, or a question of manners, simply my view on things (a view I can support and defend if they're interested in engaging me on the subject). Being an atheist who takes a very dim view of religion I can still wish my Muslim co-worker "Eid Mubarak" in the same manner.

Except these aren't proper comparisons. To use your atheist/religious example, deciding to call a trans person by the other gender pronoun, isn't like you using an Islamic phrase to your Muslim friend. It's like going up to him and saying "Merry Christmas", knowing fully well he doesn't follow that tradition, after he specifically asked you "Please don't wish me Merry Christmas, you know that's not my faith." It's an intentional disregard of their wishes on something that is in fact, a fairly minor issue for you.

In fact, your religious example is a perfect example of how to actually speak to a trans. You might not internally agree with her identifying as a she, and in your head, you think "Nope, you're a dude" but you would still say "She, and maam" when talking to her. Because that's exactly what you just described with your Muslim friend. You don't agree with his worldview, but you were still courteous enough to use the terms that he likes. If someone decided to call you a bigot for thinking that, I would disagree with them. You are free to disagree with their opinion on the matter, but that doesn't mean you have to be an ass about it. If you behave in a way that is respectful to their life and how they wish to live it, then think whatever you want.

Social pressures want to now reclassify people who refuse to accept certain views of reality as 'bigots' or simply 'dicks' - I don't think this is right. A reasoned argument is not automatically an insult simply because you don't like the conclusion.

You are correct, a reasoned argument is not automatically an insult. But "please refer to me as Ms. Jones, not Mr. Jones" isn't a "reasoned argument" it's a personal request from one person to another to be identified in the way they prefer. It's no different from any other social request "Actually it's Doctor Jones, not Mr. Jones" for example. Or "Senator Fluffykins, not Mr. Fluffykins" for another. There isn't anything to "debate" in that social interaction. There is speaking to the other party in a way they wish, or not. One choice is polite, the other isn't.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I don't honestly believe anyone truly transgender could possibly be offended, the glory of being offended by anything and everything is a privilege of those who declare themselves transwhatever because it makes them a special little snowflake. Trans is the new emo which was the new goth ad nauseum.

Yeah, because people like to choose to be in a class that puts them at a far higher risk of being assaulted, raped, and murdered. You know because people like having that dark gremlin in their head, called gender dysphoria, which constantly assaults ones psyche, until transition. Then gender dysphoria will still pop up and ruin your day. Sure people like to go through that so they can then get verbally assaulted by people actively refuse to understand. This exact same thing was said about people choosing to be gay, it was just as much bullshit there as it is here.

Gosh I'm sorry you're right. Wow but it sure gives you a lot to talk about doesn't it?

If by a lot to talk about, you mean near consistent invasions of my anatomy, when it's none of their business. Something cis people never have to deal with. Refusing to use preferred pronouns if just for the safety of not being outed provides just makes everything worse. Because being misgendered sucks, being outed against one's will really sucks, especially when one "passes". The best I can hope for after being outed is to get some really awful looks, have complete stranger start treating me really weird, if not shunning children away like I'm a leper. That's the best, the worst I've ever gotten are nasty comments, I'm extremely lucky because I've never been assaulted physically for being trans. So yeah, trans folk get mad and offended when you misgender us. It ruins our whole day inside and out.

 

[celeritas]

The problem being that a reasoned argument in this case is entirely about invalidating another person. I have never seen biological essentialist views successfully defended as anything but transphobic behavior, purely on the grounds of refusing another person.

I don't have the power to validate or invalidate another person - nor should it be encumbent upon me to offer that validation. Their status as a man or woman for me is dependent solely on biology - not because I'm a pedant, but because I don't believe people should be defined by the circumstances of their birth. Being a 'man' or a 'woman' shouldn't be an impediment to self expression (though it often is, for both men and women). Implying that you can't be 'yourself' because of your gender is anathama to this belief and by transitioning your actually reinforcing those stereotypes, not challenging them. I can't support that.

If you want to talk "reality", if you misgender a trans woman in a public place, that is very likely to lead to said trans woman being violently attacked.

This isn't an axiom and even if it was it's not a rational argument - it's emotional blackmail, an appeal to terrible consequences should I refuse to do as I'm asked. It denies an individual their independence of thought or expression through duress. It is, at base, a form of psychological bullying.

Edit:

Also refusing to refer to someone by preferred gender pronouns is dehumanizing behavior. Add to that the mental anguish it causes the person you're refusing to correctly gender. It's just an awful thing for one person to intentionally do to another, no matter how you try to justify the behavior. It's always about intentional invalidation of a trans person as a person.

Again, I don't have the power to validate on invalidate other human beings. This reliance on external validation is at odds with the eternal message of empowerment which is self acceptance. Saying, in the words of Lady Gaga, "I'm born this way!". Is the trans message really "I was born wrong, but don't worry I'm fixed now - do you approve?"

And again, this is just an appeal to consequences: you're trying to make out that I'm a terrible human being for holding to a view point of my own; for maintaining that biology is, while boring, objectively immutable and that the real goal should be about changing society's outdated view of gender and not forcing people to undergo painful, expensive and life-changing surgery in order to conform to it.

One of these solutions has lasting, pratical benefits which help everyone (by empowering everyone to feel free in their personal expression), the other helps a small minority, in the short term to better fit into a binary system that is niether workable nor humane.