Boys Can Have Periods Too!

[mican333]

"Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones."

So we have established there are TWO sexes (that some are born both or neither doesn't change this).

To be a trans boy by definition means you are NOT a boy (though you identify as one), the criteria that you want to use to differentiate boys from girls doesn't change anything!

When did you become king of the definitions?

I, and the school, are free to consider a person a "boy" due to their gender identity and if you want to say "Nuh-uh" go ahead.

If you want to give me a good reason why I can't or should not, do so.

And I have provided no contradictions in my position. I recognize two distinct sexes in both birth sex and gender identity and have never argued that one has both of either at the same time (I suppose there hermaphrodites but that's not part of the discussion).

I find it contradictory to say that certain boys aren't boys if one is trans boy, then they are boys. If a trans boy is not a boy, then he should not be referred to as a trans boy.

[Belthazor]

When did you become king of the definitions?

I was using your source and argument.

If you have a rebuttal to my last post please post it.

---------- Post added at 11:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 AM ----------

I, and the school, are free to consider a person a "boy" due to their gender identity......

No argument there, you are free to consider anything you like as truth.


https://www.webmd.com/sex/features/t...hat-it-means#1
"What It Means to Be Transgender
Assigning someone's sex is based on biology -- chromosomes, anatomy, and hormones. But a person's gender identity -- the inner sense of being male, female, or both -- doesn't always match their biology."

Half of human biology can have a period, the other half can not. That half is commonly referred to as male (in the Op's case "boy") but changing the term doesn't change reality. Again, per your source:
"Either of the two sexes (male and female)"

There are two sexes, one can and one can not have a period.

Talk of biology of any other animal on earth and male/female is pretty clear. Talk of human's specifically and all of a sudden "it's so complex". It's not.
Trans boy can have a period
Boy can't.

[mican333]

I was using your source and argument.

I never used a source nor argument that indicated that trans boys are not boys.

If you are going to say otherwise, please show me where I provided something to that effect.

If you have a rebuttal to my last post please post it.

My rebuttal is that you have not provided anything that supports that trans boys are not boys and therefore there is no reason that I can't hold that they are boys.

No argument there, you are free to consider anything you like as truth.

And so are you. If you have an argument that shows that my view is incorrect, please provide it.

[Belthazor]

I never used a source nor argument that indicated that trans boys are not boys.

I believe your point is a trans person is someone who's gender doesn't match their sex assigned at birth (or similar).
Your source says there are two sexes.

(You were responding while I was typing, you may have missed the last of post 122).

---------- Post added at 12:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 AM ----------

If you have an argument that shows that my view is incorrect, please provide it.

Done.

Unless you have a rebut, I am moving on

[mican333]

There are two sexes, one can and one can not have a period.

Talk of biology of any other animal on earth and male/female is pretty clear. Talk of human's specifically and all of a sudden "it's so complex". It's not.

I don't think it's complicated at all. People of the female birth sex can have periods. And transgendered boys are of the female birth sex so they are boys who can have periods.

so cisgendered females can have periods and transgendered boys can have periods. It's not complicated at all.

Trans boy can have a period
Boy can't.

You are simply making a semantic argument and CHOOSING to define "boy" based on their birth sex instead of their gender. I am CHOOSING to define a "boy" based on his gender identity.

I'm not saying you can't make the choice you made.

But everyone else, including me, is free to make a different choice.

If you are going to argue that I can't do that, please provide an argument that is based on something other than your choice to do differently.

---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:09 PM ----------

I believe your point is a trans person is someone who's gender doesn't match their sex assigned at birth (or similar).
Your source says there are two sexes.

Right. There are two sexes and two gender identities.

And I hold that whether one should be considered a boy or a girl is based on their gender identity instead of their birth sex.

Done.

Unless you have a rebut, I am moving on

I have yet to hear any coherent argument about why I cannot consider someone who has the male gender but female sex to be a "boy". As far as I can tell, your reasoning does not rise above "because I say so".

And I have a pretty simple real-world application.

Again, I know a transgendered boy. I refer to him as male in all conversation unless the specific issue of his birth sex is the topic (he was born with the female sex). But I call him by his masculine name, use male pronouns, and generally refer to him as a male in all aspects barring very specific circumstances where his birth sex is relevant. And unless someone can give me a good reason to NOT refer to him as a male, I have amply justified calling him, and all transgendered boys a "boy".

So can you give a reason why I can't or shouldn't do that? If not, then I have supported that there's nothing particularly wrong with calling transgendered boys "boys".

[Belthazor]

so cisgendered females can have periods and transgendered boys can have periods. It's not complicated at all.

Yes and that is all that can!

Which is what I have been saying for how many posts???

---------- Post added at 04:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:08 PM ----------

So can you give a reason why I can't or shouldn't do that? If not, then I have supported that there's nothing particularly wrong with calling transgendered boys "boys".

I have not argued anything like this, ever....

Call your friend/s whatever you are all comfortable with for sure!

[mican333]

Yes and that is all that can!

Which is what I have been saying for how many posts???

I didn't say you haven't been saying that. I'm challenging your assertion that people find this complicated.

I have not argued anything like this, ever....

Call your friend/s whatever you are all comfortable with for sure!

Well, I'm referring to your statement that boys can't have periods.

I consider my transgender male friend to be boys and they can have periods. So your statement about boys not having periods is not something I agree with nor is it something that I have any particular reason to agree with so that position of yours is rejected. It's really just your opinion.

[Belthazor]

I didn't say you haven't been saying that. I'm challenging your assertion that people find this complicated.

Well it is the point of the thread and why I posted in the thread as well...

---------- Post added at 04:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 PM ----------

I consider my transgender male friend to be boys and they can have periods. So your statement about boys not having periods is not something I agree with nor is it something that I have any particular reason to agree with so that position of yours is rejected. It's really just your opinion.

Yes "you consider", which means YOUR opinion.
My point is based in biology.
It takes a male and female (two different, whatever term you like) to reproduce. One half of the equation can't have a period, one half can.

You invoke gender where it does not belong as it doesn't speak to one's physical nature (anymore, though the historical definition of gender would apply to the Op).

[mican333]

Yes "you consider", which means YOUR opinion.

Right. And your position is based on YOUR opinion.

My point is based in biology.
It takes a male and female (two different, whatever term you like) to reproduce. One half of the equation can't have a period, one half can.

If you are dividing the halves into "those who were born of the male sex" and "those who were born of the female sex", I agree.

If you are dividing the halves into "boys" and "girls" I disagree for I define them based on gender and therefore some "boys" and "girls" have birth sex of the other gender.

Again, I consider and call my trans male friend a "boy" despite being born of the female sex. If it's my opinion that this is right and it's your opinion that this is not right, then it's just a difference of opinion.

You invoke gender where it does not belong as it doesn't speak to one's physical nature (anymore, though the historical definition of gender would apply to the Op).

But then this discussion is not soley about physical nature so I disagree that gender does not belong in this discussion. In fact, it's very relevant to the OP and therefore the entire debate.

[Belthazor]

Right. And your position is based on YOUR opinion.

Negative per below.

---------- Post added at 05:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------

If you are dividing the halves into "those who were born of the male sex" and "those who were born of the female sex", I agree.

Obviously this is the idea the Op is referring to as well as me..

---------- Post added at 05:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 PM ----------

Again, I consider and call my trans male friend a "boy" despite being born of the female sex. If it's my opinion that this is right and it's your opinion that this is not right, then it's just a difference of opinion.

Negative. I never suggested what you should call your friends, other than to say you should all be comfortable with it.

---------- Post added at 05:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 PM ----------

If you are dividing the halves into "boys" and "girls" I disagree for I define them based on gender and therefore some "boys" and "girls" have birth sex of the other gender.

That doesn't relate to the spirit of the Op at all.

---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 PM ----------

But then this discussion is not soley about physical nature so I disagree that gender does not belong in this discussion. In fact, it's very relevant to the OP and therefore the entire debate.

Negative. It pretty much only deals with the physical (being physically able/have the parts to have a period). What "gender a person feels they are" has no standing with this Op.

[mican333]

Negative per below.

I don't see anything you've said below that is not rooted in opinion.

Obviously this is the idea the Op is referring to as well as me..

Sure. The OP is saying that those who have periods should not be called "boys" and you seem to be saying the same.

And again, that seems to be nothing more than an opinion on your part.

And I hold a differing opinion.

Negative. I never suggested what you should call your friends, other than to say you should all be comfortable with it.

You seem to be indicating that I would be incorrect if I called my friend a "boy" since he menstruates.

That doesn't relate to the spirit of the Op at all.

Of course it does. It directly argues against the OP's position, which is the point of the debate.

[Belthazor]

Sure. The OP is saying that those who have periods should not be called "boys" and you seem to be saying the same.
The Op is expressing that males/boys/XY chromosome people/whatever term you like can not have a period.

It isn't the particular term at issue. For like how many times...

---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 PM ----------

You seem to be indicating that I would be incorrect if I called my friend a "boy" since he menstruates.

Once again, negative,

CALL HIM/HER WHATEVER YOU ARE ALL COMFORTABLE WITH!!

---------- Post added at 05:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------

Of course it does. It directly argues against the OP's position, which is the point of the debate.

The op doesn't speak to "what sex a person identifies with".

We are done here,
you agreed a person of male sex can not have a period and that is all the Op or I, are trying to get across.

[mican333]

Once again, negative,

CALL HIM/HER WHATEVER YOU ARE ALL COMFORTABLE WITH!!

I know I have your permission to call him what I want.

The point is your position, as stated, would disagree with my calling my friend a "boy" since he can have a period. You would not get in my way of calling him what I want but you would, in your own opinion, disagree that I have accurately identified my friend as a boy since he can have a period and you have taken the position that "boys can't have periods".

The op doesn't speak to "what sex a person identifies with".

We are done here,
you agreed a person of male sex can not have a period and that is all the Op or I, are trying to get across.

The OP is not titled "Those of the male sex cannot have periods" and I am not challenging your statement that "those of the male sex cannot have periods".

The OP has taken the position that boys cannot have periods and you have said the same thing and I'm saying that your statement is not correct because it is based on nothing more than your OPINION that the term "boys" should not or can not be applied to those born as a physical female.

So if you aren't going to challenge my assertion that your position is ultimately rooted in your opinion, we are done here.

[Belthazor]

I know I have your permission to call him what I want.

The point is your position, as stated, would disagree with my calling my friend a "boy" since he can have a period. You would not get in my way of calling him what I want but you would, in your own opinion, disagree that I have accurately identified my friend as a boy since he can have a period and you have taken the position that "boys can't have periods".





The OP is not titled "Those of the male sex cannot have periods" and I am not challenging your statement that "those of the male sex cannot have periods".

The OP has taken the position that boys cannot have periods and you have said the same thing and I'm saying that your statement is not correct because it is based on nothing more than your OPINION that the term "boys" should not or can not be applied to those born as a physical female.

So if you aren't going to challenge my assertion that your position is ultimately rooted in your opinion, we are done here.

You are a really funny/odd/curious girl/boy/man/Ms/Sir/however you like to identify as a person.

---------- Post added at 06:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------

The OP has taken the position that boys cannot have periods and you have said the same thing and I'm saying that your statement is not correct because it is based on nothing more than your OPINION that the term "boys" should not or can not be applied to those born as a physical female.

The Op means the male sex side of the human condition regarding reproductive organs, can not have a period. YOU have turned this idea into a semantical issue where the term "boy" is all important where no one else is.

---------- Post added at 06:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ----------

You would not get in my way of calling him what I want but you would, in your own opinion, disagree that I have accurately identified my friend as a boy

Why would this matter to you if I am not standing "in the way"?

[mican333]

You are a really funny/odd/curious girl/boy/man/Ms/Sir/however you like to identify as a person.

I'm a cisgendred male. And I guess you won't be challenging my assertion that your position that boys can't have periods is ultimately rooted in opinion.

The opinion I'm referring to is that a boy is to be strictly defined by his birth sex. You are no more or less free to hold that opinion than I am to hold that a boy should be defined by gender identity.

The Op means the male sex side of the human condition regarding reproductive organs, can not have a period. YOU have turned this idea into a semantical issue where the term "boy" is all important where no one else is.

Have you read the OP?

It's SPECIFICALLY about a school that teaches that ALL genders can have periods which means the school has taken the position that some people of the male gender can have periods.

Such a position cannot be debated without getting into the issue of whether "boy" is going to be defined by gender or birth sex.

Why would this matter to you if I am not standing "in the way"?

Because this is a debate site and you have taken the position that boys cannot have periods.

I'm challenging your position which is the kind of thing one is supposed to do here.

[Belthazor]

It's SPECIFICALLY about a school that teaches that ALL genders can have periods which means the school has taken the position that some people of the male gender can have periods.

Such a position cannot be debated without getting into the issue of whether "boy" is going to be defined by gender or birth sex.

You know they meant the "male half". There wouldn't have been an article or Op in the first place if people were just worried about the word "boy". You always focus on a particular word as apposed to the meaning of what people are trying to get across.

---------- Post added at 03:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------

Because this is a debate site and you have taken the position that boys cannot have periods.

I'm challenging your position which is the kind of thing one is supposed to do here.

Negative again.
That has nothing to do with what you call your friend.

Ya, for my whole life until very recently, boy meant of the male sex. That you have a female friend that wants to be called a boy doesn't bother me, it can just be confusing as this whole thread is proof of. Perhaps if you live long enough you will understand. I get it makes less sense when you are young and taught to think including your feelings makes a better decision...

Look, you are correct about it isn't that hard until confusing language.

Is it really necessary to tell people that a human female, even one that wants to be treated/seen as a "boy", can have a period?

[Dionysus]

The class in question was neither a biology or sociology class but a sex education class. And considering that transgenderism is indeed a sex issue, it should be taught in sex ed class.

That's completely fair. I didn't even look that far into the issue. If there is such a place to talk about such things, surely it would be a class about sex education.

More broadly, I should point out that the points I was making in my post were mostly just opinion, and certainly not deserving of the thorough response that you gave. But, thank you nonetheless. I appreciate your comments.

I should also say that I, too, know someone who lives with gender dysphoria. This is a biological male who identifies as a female. Because I respect this person, I refer to them with female pronouns. Also, as I said in my original post, I respect these people and agree that they are entitled to pursue happiness, and that their paths to happiness should be as unimpeded as the path of any human being.

That said, my post is mostly one that expresses concern. I worry that these people hurt their own causes. I worry that they don't understand their own positions well enough. It seems very much like people who are just now learning how to live with gender dysphoria aren't much further along in their own understanding of their conditions than are people who are just now learning about was these things even are. Consequently, the learnings we all get from it are strange and self-contradictory. (for example, "they" say that one can't choose to be gay or straight, but go on to say that one can choose their gender). I worry that things like the OP described can cause confusion to the extent that people who might have been sympathetic can become frustrated; they can lose allies. Consider that in the last couple of decades, we've gone from a society that says a man should never hit a woman to one where a biological man can beat the sh!t out of a biological woman in a televised event, where a man can have a period, where a woman can get testicular cancer, and where people assume that weirdness like this is something that will be easily dealt with in legal cases in the future.

Again, I'm completely sympathetic to people who live with this stuff and I support their civil rights right along with the rights of everyone else. But - and this is what I meant when I say that the left "ignores" certain things - it seems to me that assuming that any and every case of gender dysphoria is something that must be supported and is something that is exempt from examination and criticism is a mistake, and I think it's a mistake that will ultimately hurt the people that live with it far more than the people who think they simply can't abide with someone else living with it. Everyone deserves happiness, but from what I see in the world (which is, of course, a very limited view), people are getting worn out over this kind of thing, and adding layers of confusion by redefining language only adds to that and makes people give less of a sh!t with every pedantic clarification of some new gender-idiosyncrasy.

It sucks, and it's too bad, but there it is.

I hope I'm not right, but I don't see much reason to think that I'm not.

Anyway, feel free to have the last word.

I think that's enough posting on ODN for me.

[mican333]

You know they meant the "male half". There wouldn't have been an article or Op in the first place if people were just worried about the word "boy". You always focus on a particular word as apposed to the meaning of what people are trying to get across.

No, it's not just about a word. It is about whether transgendered males will be considered a "boy" not just in name but in every relevant aspect of how we treat males and females. The school issue is partially because they are putting feminine products in the boys room. So the word is indeed an integral part of the whole issue but it's not simply about the word.

So if boys can't have periods, then there's no need to put feminine products in the boys room. But since boys can have periods, it's appropriate to put those products there.

So your statement that boys can't have periods is incorrect. It's not just semantic. If we are to agree that boys can't have periods, then it makes no sense to put tampons in the boys room. So if we agree that trans males should have access to tampons in the boys bathroom, then we need to acknowledge that some boys have periods.

Ya, for my whole life until very recently, boy meant of the male sex. That you have a female friend that wants to be called a boy doesn't bother me, it can just be confusing as this whole thread is proof of.

It's not confusing. In fact, if you met my friend without foreknowledge that he was a trans male and someone asked you whether he's a boy or a girl, you'd say boy because he resembles a boy in the traditional sense much more than he resembles a girl.

When you meet a guy do you just consider him a "guy" or do you withhold such judgment until you learn whether he was born with the male sex or the female sex? Obviously, you do (or at least you should) consider that person a boy. It's trying to based his gender on information that is not apparent and likewise information that you may never receive is what would cause confusion.

I mean if we met in person, should I refrain from considering you a guy until I see your birth certificate so I can check the birth sex? Or should I just take it that because you definitely seem like a guy, that you're a guy. And the same should apply to my trans male friend. And even if you learned that my trans friend was born with the female sex, there's no good reason to not address him as a guy or hold that he's a guy in any situation save that which his birth sex is the primary issue. So in practically all relevant ways, he's a guy.

It's really not complicated.

Perhaps if you live long enough you will understand.

I get it makes less sense when you are young and taught to think including your feelings makes a better decision...

Perhaps it's not your intent to sound condescending but such statements are indeed condescending. I'm not young. I haven't lived with my parents for decades. Odds are I'm older than you (since I'm past the half-way point of the average life span). And trying to discredit one's positions due to their personal characteristics (such as being young and inexperienced - which I am not) is indeed engaging in the ad hom fallacy.

Please leave all personal characteristics of your opponent out of the debate. Even if you were right about me being young, it's completely irrelevant to how strong my arguments are. Attack my arguments on their merits, not on my personal characteristic.

Is it really necessary to tell people that a human female, even one that wants to be treated/seen as a "boy", can have a period?

In our laws and society, we do recognize people as being boys and girls and likewise structure our society based on that. So if we are going to put feminine products in boys bathrooms, then we do need to acknowledge that some boys can have periods.

This is not just about words. It is about how we are going to treat trans people. We should treat trans men as "boys" and not "girls", which mean that they should be considered "boys" in every situation barring those where their birth sex is the issue.

---------- Post added at 10:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:30 PM ----------

That said, my post is mostly one that expresses concern. I worry that these people hurt their own causes. I worry that they don't understand their own positions well enough. It seems very much like people who are just now learning how to live with gender dysphoria aren't much further along in their own understanding of their conditions than are people who are just now learning about was these things even are. Consequently, the learnings we all get from it are strange and self-contradictory. (for example, "they" say that one can't choose to be gay or straight, but go on to say that one can choose their gender).

No, they generally don't say that they can choose their gender. To say you "identify" as a particular gender is not saying that one chooses to be that gender.

I'm a cisgendered male and therefore I identify as a male. But I don't identify as a male because I choose to identify as a male. I can't control what gender I identify as any more than I can choose my sexual orientation. In fact, I'm sure it would be much less of a leap for me to be gay than it would for me to switch my gender identity to female. Just putting on a dress and saying "I'm a girl" would not actually change my gender identity.

And your argument seems to include the premise that being transgendered is the same as having gender dysphoria. That is not true. Some transgendered people have dysphoria and others do not so any arguments regarding dysphoria does not apply to the transgendered in general.

I worry that things like the OP described can cause confusion to the extent that people who might have been sympathetic can become frustrated; they can lose allies.

I don't think upsetting people when you ask for equal treatment is a good reason to not seek equal treatment.

Consider that in the last couple of decades, we've gone from a society that says a man should never hit a woman to one where a biological man can beat the sh!t out of a biological woman in a televised event, where a man can have a period, where a woman can get testicular cancer, and where people assume that weirdness like this is something that will be easily dealt with in legal cases in the future.

If we are going to validate gender identity, then these issues are inevitable. I don't see any solution to avoiding this "weirdness" than to reject gender based on gender identity.

I mean I'm not weirded out by the notion that boys can have periods and girls can have testicular cancer.

If people are weirded out, then the solution is for them to get over it. And the best way to get over something "weird" is to get used to it. I'm old enough to have been rather homophobic during my school years. I wasn't hateful towards gays but they were so unfamiliar to me (no one in my school was out) that they did indeed weird me out and when I would see one, it seemed pretty strange to me. And then as time went on, they were more visible and I worked with a really nice gay guy and we became friends and then by experience and exposure, I wasn't weirded out by gays anymore. It just took some getting used to. And that's what needs to happen with trans people.

If you're weirded out by boys having periods, then get used to the idea and it won't be weird anymore.

But - and this is what I meant when I say that the left "ignores" certain things - it seems to me that assuming that any and every case of gender dysphoria is something that must be supported and is something that is exempt from examination and criticism is a mistake, and I think it's a mistake that will ultimately hurt the people that live with it far more than the people who think they simply can't abide with someone else living with it.

I see no validity in this criticism. There is no general leftist position that those transgendered people who suffer from dysphoria should not be recognized as having a disorder nor that a person with this disorder should not be treated.

And as I understand, a pretty common solution to someone suffering from gender dysphoria due to transgenderism is sexual reassignment surgery (so the mind and body are in better alignment).

Everyone deserves happiness, but from what I see in the world (which is, of course, a very limited view), people are getting worn out over this kind of thing, and adding layers of confusion by redefining language only adds to that and makes people give less of a sh!t with every pedantic clarification of some new gender-idiosyncrasy.

The only way to get somewhere is to go there.

If people are upset with us going somewhere, there only two solutions.
1. Go there anyway even though some will be upset about it
2. Not go there

So when it comes to recognizing trans people by their gender identities and treating trans men like all other men in law and language, the only alternative to doing it is to not do it.

And if doing it now upsets some people, doing it later would just upset them later on. So unless we aren't going to do it at all, we can't really concern ourselves with the upset.

And using gay rights as an example, we can take a pretty good guess at how trans rights will play out. As time goes on, more and more people will get used to it and it will become less of an issue as time goes on and eventually will not be much of an issue at all.

It sucks, and it's too bad, but there it is.

I hope I'm not right, but I don't see much reason to think that I'm not.

Well, some people will be upset but just like with gay rights, it doesn't really change whether we should proceed.

Change is painful to some but that's not excuse to not make a change when it's generally a good thing.

We can do it now. Or we can do it later. Or we can not do it at all. And we are doing it now and I don't see any reason why we should choose either of the other two options.

[evensaul]

'I am otherworldly': Ex-transgender man, 33, who now identifies as an 'agender ALIEN' reveals they have had their nipples and eyebrows REMOVED to look 'less human'

A 33-year-old, who was born as a woman before transitioning into a man, has revealed that they think they belong to any gender, and is an alien.

Jareth Nebula, from Edmonds, Washington, transitioned from female to male and changed their name at the age of 29.

The barber's shop receptionist, who also works as a model, has even gone as far as having their nipples removed in order to 'feel less human'... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...der-alien.html



Well, why not?

[Belthazor]

So if boys can't have periods,...

They can't. Trans boys can, but boys can't. It's just a basic natural difference.

Now if we just go with "anyone" can be a boy, the word really looses it's meaning.

For if you are a girl in every way but how "you" feel, what are you appealing to actually be?

IOW, if the definition of boy can be anyone, what is a trans male identifying with/as?

---------- Post added at 05:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 PM ----------

When you meet a guy do you just consider him a "guy" or do you withhold such judgment until you learn whether he was born with the male sex or the female sex? Obviously, you do (or at least you should) consider that person a boy.

How did I know he was a "guy" when I met him?

Look, I'm all for respect for nearly all (there are exceptions). I just don't see people getting mad if a pronoun isn't what you want it to be.

Where you are at (it seems) is we need to change the def of "boy" to include anyone, but you still hold onto other gender/sex/whatever pronouns (male, guy, etc) to mean a definition that is not consistent with "boy".

It is confusing and I expect tolerance from all sides, which would include trans people as well. If someone is talking respectfully to you in every way but miss a pronoun you prefer I just don't see it as a catastrophe.

---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 PM ----------

Well, some people will be upset but just like with gay rights, it doesn't really change whether we should proceed.

I don't think anyone in this thread has promoted trans people not having the same rights as anyone else. People need to lighten up and not look to take offense where none is intended.