Pronouns

Author: rbelivb

Posts

Total: 327
#151
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
Self-described CONSERVATIVES are the ones who are more likely to "MISGENDER" someone.
Are you honestly suggesting that LIBERALS are the ones who are more likely to call the cops on someone in a public bathroom for "wearing the wrong clothes" ?
I never remotely suggested it at all, I think you are becoming lost in your bad faith arguments to the point that you're quoting yourself in order to misconstrue what I said.
You suggested exactly that when you challenged my statements regarding "CONSERVATIVES are the ones who are more likely".
#152
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
yeah i'm gonna have to block you. You are honestly delusional. I challenged your ESFJ conclusion.
#153
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@3RU7AL
You are taking the anomaly and applying it to the set. If your standard, being looks, is what determines gender, then 

  1. That voids almost ever transgender person from transitioning, as most of them look their sex. 
  2. A person can somehow be a women in their youth and become a man? 
What is your definition for a women? 

#154
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Bones
You are taking the anomaly and applying it to the set. If your standard, being looks, is what determines gender, then 
"looks" determines perception of gender/sex to OTHERS

if someone tells me they are a "woman" then i will call them a "woman"

self-ownership and self-identification is paramount

i will not demand to see their birth-certificate and medical records and naked pictures of them
#155
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
yeah i'm gonna have to block you. You are honestly delusional. I challenged your ESFJ conclusion.
you've proven my point
#156
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@3RU7AL
You are taking the anomaly and applying it to the set. If your standard, being looks, is what determines gender, then 
"looks" determines perception of gender/sex to OTHERS

if someone tells me they are a "woman" then i will call them a "woman"
What if someone who looks asian tells me they're black? 
#157
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Bones
you probably need to send their dna to ancestry.com before jumping to any conclusions
#158
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@3RU7AL
But just like how you don't demand to see their birth-certificate and medical records and naked pictures of them on the grounds that self-ownership and self-identification is paramount, asking for someone's ancestry would likewise be, on your worldview, a violation of privacy, thus making believing them only tenable position to maintain. 
#159
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Bones
asking for someone's ancestry would likewise be, on your worldview, a violation of privacy,
No, simply asking them to self-identify would be polite.

Demanding an answer would be rude.

Why on earth would you care if someone said they were "black" or not ?

Experts on race relations agree that up until very recently, and to some extent even today, white America held to the “one-drop” rule: if you had one drop of black blood in you — any detectable African ancestry at all — you were black. [**]
#160
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@3RU7AL
No, simply asking them to self-identify would be polite.

Demanding an answer would be rude.
Well that strawmans my position, because no one is demanding a birth certificate.  

Why on earth would you care if someone said they were "black" or not ?
I care because if you utter that which is untrue and expect me to go along with it, that becomes my problem. 

Experts on race relations agree that up until very recently, and to some extent even today, white America held to the “one-drop” rule: if you had one drop of black blood in you — any detectable African ancestry at all — you were black. [**]
Well that's very subjective, what is "one-drop". By that, you article is defining it as one detectable drop, but we all know that the population evolved from a tribe in Africa, so technically everyone has "some" African in them. 

But this is a red herring, because even if it were the case, would you be comfortable with allowing visually caucasian men who have "one drop" of "black" blood in them to then identify as black? 
#161
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Bones
I care because if you utter that which is untrue and expect me to go along with it, that becomes my problem. 
do you believe AHURA MAZDA is the supreme being ?

how is "untruth" (aka OPINION) "your problem" ?
#162
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Bones
Well that's very subjective, what is "one-drop".
a great-grandparent that is 1/16th african
#163
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Bones
even if it were the case, would you be comfortable with allowing visually caucasian men who have "one drop" of "black" blood in them to then identify as black? 
would i be comfortable ?

of course i would be perfectly comfortable

why would i give a shit if someone calls themselves "black" or not ?

there are native americans (first peoples) who look perfectly white

but have a verifiable "blood quantum" of 51% or more (which is required by federal law for native american status)
#164
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@3RU7AL
how is "untruth" (aka OPINION) "your problem" ?
Well Holocaust denial is my problem even though it's just some bimbo's opinion. 

You are attempting to mix up biology with the mind. You argue that because some people have "one drop" of biological African American blood, they are able to identify as Black. Putting aside how dubious this is (what about the other 15/16 percent of their identity?), this does not align to what gender theorists are arguing. They argue that an individual could have no biological obscurities and still, if their minds believe it, that they can identify as the opposite gender. 

A more appropriate question to ask would be, would you allow a person who doesn't have any drops of African American blood, yet believe they are African American, to identify as such? 
Topic's author
#165
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Bones
There is a reason race is seen differently from gender. Race has a relationship to one's genealogy, so that one's race is directly related to the race of their parents. Gender is much more related to the individual identity of that person, and gender has an intimate relationship to one's self-expression and sexual life. It is probably impossible to find any other category which could become a direct comparison for gender because it is so uniquely constitutive socially.

The binary gender distinctions that characterize the western "nuclear family" developed to support industrial capitalism under the nation state. The housewife's role of "household management" in the 19th century was a complex task which also involved strenuous physical labor. The popular presence of trans and non-binary, have come about as we have moved toward an economy mainly based on information technologies, under a globalized system of government. It is likely that this would also have an effect on how we view race, but the effect is more indirect and is a function of the disappearing association between ethnicity and national territories.
#166
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@rbelivb
There is a reason race is seen differently from gender. Race has a relationship to one's genealogy, so that one's race is directly related to the race of their parents. Gender is much more related to the individual identity of that person, and gender has an intimate relationship to one's self-expression and sexual life.
This can easily be bypassed if we create a new term which refers to the way in which one feels in relation to their race. 

  • Sex refers to the biological difference between male and female, namely, which gametes they possess. It is a scientifically observable phenomenon. 
  • Gender refers to the way in which on feels in relation to their sex, whether it be conforming and rejecting. 

  • Race refers to the genome which one possesses, and in more layman terms, the ancestry to which one belongs. It is a scientifically observable phenomenon. 
  • Rase refers to the way in which one feels in relation to their race, whether it be conforming and rejecting. 
Regarding sex/gender, you clearly believe that we ought identify people in regards to how they feel i.e, gender. To maintain consistency, would you apply this standard to race? Or age? Or species? It seems much more rational to simply adopt the already scientifically scrutinised and observable standard which we have, sex, instead of this “feelings” notion. 

#167
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Above may be of interest to you. 
#168
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Bones
'Rase' actually is ethnicity, we just do to ethnicity what anti trans people do to gender, literally.
#169
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@RationalMadman
Ok substitute the thesis for, as opposed to race, species. 
#170
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Bones
As I said, the same people saying trans people get to play their gender, wouldn't let furries genuinely play out their animal persona.

I agree with you but from the opposite side; I'm actually for the freedom and fantasy as long as we admit it's a fantasy.
#171
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@RationalMadman
As I said, the same people saying trans people get to play their gender, wouldn't let furries genuinely play out their animal persona.
And I'm fine with people being furries or cosplaying as long as they understand that the costume they put on does not define the essence of their character. 

I agree with you but from the opposite side; I'm actually for the freedom and fantasy as long as we admit it's a fantasy.
Do you not think that there is an issue, from a factual standpoint, to allow a fully grown man "identifying" as a moose? 

#172
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Bones
We are prone to make fun and mock it, I'm not stupid and know for sure even a cousin or 2 of mine who'd just think I'm a freak if I identified as a dog and acted out that kink/lifestyle day in day out, that's just relatives let alone outside society.

I am not one to brutally mock, I gently tease everyone equally and see life as one big hilarious adventure of hypocrisy and double standards. I don't hate trans people, I don't fear trans people, I think it's fine to do what you want but if you ask me, there's a horrifying level of delusion and self-deprecation involved in a man hating his masculinity (yes, hating) to the point where he needs female hormones and to mutilate his genitalia to truly feel comfortable. Even without the operation, I still think there's an issue but less of one.

As for FtM trans, I think the issue is also rooted in them often barbarically squashing their breasts (obviously the bigger their breasts, the worse the damage is) to the point that if they ever want to be a cis woman again, they have to be embarassed of their super saggy, disfigured breasts that probably even developed a wonkiness to them that isn't symmetrical at all. That also happens because of what happens when you go on and off testosterone but furthermore it's about the squashing they originally do while teens and young adults if they aren't on hormones yet.

I get it though, it's like trimming one's facial hair, what's natural isn't always the best (Sikhs would beg to differ but anyway), it's just that to be truly against one's own natural way of being tends to be unhealthy and that, I do believe.

You like to talk about 'what is a woman' kritik question and I admit it does a good job of highlighting an issue but the better question to ask is 'what is masculine' and 'what is feminine'. We have got to a damn level where two people close to me irl said I was talking shit when I said men are inherently more competitive than women, as a trend and not just professionally. They said I was sexist and silly and don't meet enough people to judge (as I'm fairly introverted). This is the nonsense of the modern 'equality' era, it's no longer about equal rights, it's about wiping away the beauty of being an authentic man and a authentic woman. By authentic idgaf about cis or trans, I mean a masculine man and feminine woman are no longer allowed to truly embrace what they are without being seen as either toxically masculine or 'caving into patriarchal gender roles'.
#173
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
The conservative position should be that it’s okay calling a transgender person by their preferred pronouns, as long as they’re attempting to look the part.

“If there’s no effort, there’s no pronouns for you.”
Topic's author
#174
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Bones
This can easily be bypassed if we create a new term which refers to the way in which one feels in relation to their race. 

  • Sex refers to the biological difference between male and female, namely, which gametes they possess. It is a scientifically observable phenomenon. 
  • Gender refers to the way in which on feels in relation to their sex, whether it be conforming and rejecting. 

  • Race refers to the genome which one possesses, and in more layman terms, the ancestry to which one belongs. It is a scientifically observable phenomenon. 
  • Rase refers to the way in which one feels in relation to their race, whether it be conforming and rejecting.
People can already identify culturally with the ethnic or social aspects of another race, but it is not as directly personal to that individual as their gender is - for example, as part of language via pronouns, but also in terms of sex, relationships and so on. Race is not so much a function of one's personal expression, identity, or sexual life so much as their social surroundings, heritage and location. That said, there is nothing stopping you from attempting to establish such a use of language, the reasons I'm listing just show why it's less likely to become widely accepted or necessary. I don't see anything inherently wrong with the linguistic construct, "my rase is black" meaning that you identify with black culture, live in black areas with black friend groups, were adopted by black parents, etc.

Regarding sex/gender, you clearly believe that we ought identify people in regards to how they feel i.e, gender. To maintain consistency, would you apply this standard to race? Or age? Or species? It seems much more rational to simply adopt the already scientifically scrutinised and observable standard which we have, sex, instead of this “feelings” notion. 
I don't hold that we should defer to whatever arbitrary linguistic construct people propose. However, because people's gender is so intimate and individual, I deem it as a reasonable request that they can choose how they are referred to. Race, age or species are not so much intimate aspects of an individual's self-expression, but tied to objective interpersonal circumstances, or to fundamental aspects of one's level of autonomy. Biological sex is unique in that it is specific to that person.

Also, I would not even specify that they should need to "feel" like that gender or dress in any particular way in order to make the request, so long as their request is reasonable. For example, I don't view it as reasonable to expect everyone to put their pronouns in their bio, or for everyone to ask each other's pronouns on first meeting, because it is too much an imposition on what is already habituated. However, if someone actively makes a reasonable request, or makes it clear after being misgendered what their preferred pronoun is, then I think it is unreasonable or impolite for the other person in question to refuse the request.
#175
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@rbelivb
People can already identify culturally with the ethnic or social aspects of another race, but it is not as directly personal to that individual as their gender is - for example, as part of language via pronouns, but also in terms of sex, relationships and so on. Race is not so much a function of one's personal expression, identity, or sexual life so much as their social surroundings, heritage and location.
I think the "culture" relation is more comparable to if a male were to portray feminine characteristics. Nothing wrong with that, ones just a feminine man, however, this doesn't mean that the man can become a literal women because of these traits. 


Regarding sex/gender, you clearly believe that we ought identify people in regards to how they feel i.e, gender. To maintain consistency, would you apply this standard to race? Or age? Or species? It seems much more rational to simply adopt the already scientifically scrutinised and observable standard which we have, sex, instead of this “feelings” notion. 
I don't hold that we should defer to whatever arbitrary linguistic construct people propose. However, because people's gender is so intimate and individual, I deem it as a reasonable request that they can choose how they are referred to. Race, age or species are not so much intimate aspects of an individual's self-expression
Bu this is only because society has not reached a point in which race, age and species are intimate aspects of self-expression. Are you suggesting that, were people to reach that stage, it would be correct to then base the identity of people purely on how they feel?  

Also, I would not even specify that they should need to "feel" like that gender or dress in any particular way in order to make the request, so long as their request is reasonable. For example, I don't view it as reasonable to expect everyone to put their pronouns in their bio, or for everyone to ask each other's pronouns on first meeting, because it is too much an imposition on what is already habituated. However, if someone actively makes a reasonable request, or makes it clear after being misgendered what their preferred pronoun is, then I think it is unreasonable or impolite for the other person in question to refuse the request.
I don't think the question here is "would I refer to a trans man as a man", for you would hardly find anyone who wouldn't on the simple grounds of common courtesy, but the question is are they actual men. Just as how one can cosplay for the day and "adopt" a new identity, that costume does not define the essence of your character. 
#176
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,170
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Anyone who would tell me what I can an cant say or how I will address them will all carry the pronoun of fucktard from this day forward. I don't give a shit what you call me. I don't define myself by my genitals or how I pleasure them. 
Topic's author
#177
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Bones
I think the "culture" relation is more comparable to if a male were to portray feminine characteristics. Nothing wrong with that, ones just a feminine man, however, this doesn't mean that the man can become a literal women because of these traits. 
Here is the point of my original post that I want to emphasize: People on the conservative side of this want to stress the fact that they are on the side simply using logic, talking about objective facts, that they are right on biological grounds, etc. However, every time this framing is used, that a trans woman is a man claiming to be a "literal" woman, a man "pretending" to "really" be a woman, and so on, this is a distortion and an attempt to load the language in a way that prevents the issue from being discussed in clear terms.

Trans women (for example) are not claiming to "really" be "literal" women, or at least do not need to. All they need to request is for the concession in the use of everyday language. Using she/her pronouns, and even using the term "woman," does not need to imply anything about their biology, or the gender they were born as - "woman" can here simply be used as a shorthand for "trans woman." The real conservative side of this is not that trans women are "not really women" or "not literally women" because this is just a loaded use of language to state what would otherwise be completely obvious, and something on which neither side disagrees. The reason trans people do not want to concede that use of language is not because they are deluded about biology, but because it violates the social norm that "woman" can be used as an acceptable shorthand for "trans woman."

In fact, the conservative side is that men taking on social roles previously reserved for women, and asking for this concession in the use of language, is somehow a degenerate or anti-social behavior which should be culturally penalized and discouraged or at least marginalized through indirect means. The need to deflect from their essential position (that deviation from gender norms should actively be culturally penalized) by using strawmen about biology, as well as wedge issues like bathrooms and women's sports, is because that fundamental position would be unpopular if advocated directly, but you can move people to eventually agree with it through the use of framing and wedge issues to gradually move their sentiments against trans people.

Bu this is only because society has not reached a point in which race, age and species are intimate aspects of self-expression. Are you suggesting that, were people to reach that stage, it would be correct to then base the identity of people purely on how they feel?  
I don't think this would be acceptable in the case of age or species because of the mentioned links they have to autonomy, e.g. the obvious ethical issues that would arise from allowing adults to identify as children or vice versa. In the case of race, it could be the case that when the nation-state model has dissolved, and free movement has developed to the point that ethnicity is untethered from territory, the cultural aspect of ethnicity totally dominates the biological aspect.

I don't think the question here is "would I refer to a trans man as a man", for you would hardly find anyone who wouldn't on the simple grounds of common courtesy, but the question is are they actual men. Just as how one can cosplay for the day and "adopt" a new identity, that costume does not define the essence of your character. 
The question is what you mean by "actual men" as I described the problems I have with this above. The reason I believe trans people have a problem with the statement that they are "not really men" is not that they disagree about the biology, but that it violates the linguistic norms which would make them feel included.

Topic's author
#178
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Bones
We generally agree that a human taking on the social role typically reserved for a dog is a perversion, and generally does not need to be integrated as a normal part of society. Likewise, we agree that a grown man taking on the role of a three year old would be perverse, and similarly should not be integrated as normal. The progressive side argues that a man taking on social roles typically reserved for females is not necessarily perverse, and can to a large extent be integrated as normal without causing any catastrophe. Now, it is totally up to the conservative side to make their case that deviating from gender roles is an immoral behavior that should be socially penalized. I'm not even disputing it on that point here.

What I am disputing is how conservatives use loaded language and strawmen to claim that a trans female is "a man pretending to be a woman" or other similar formulations, which make it seem like a straightforward dispute about biology. The claim that a trans female is "a man who is deluded into thinking he's really a woman" or any other framing like this, is objectively false and logically flawed regardless of the dispute about whether men should in fact act as or identify as women, or how deep the biological differences between male and female are. We can even apply the same thing to your race / rase example: in that scenario, the claim that those whose "race" is white but whose "rase" is black were "white people deluded into thinking they are really black" would be a linguistic distortion and a falsehood, if the race/rase distinction were a linguistic concession we were in fact debating the usefulness of.
#179
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@rbelivb
People on the conservative side of this want to stress the fact that they are on the side simply using logic, talking about objective facts, that they are right on biological grounds, etc. However, every time this framing is used, that a trans woman is a man claiming to be a "literal" woman, a man "pretending" to "really" be a woman, and so on, this is a distortion and an attempt to load the language in a way that prevents the issue from being discussed in clear terms.
Real refers to that which is objectively observable and studyable, that which is grounded in reality. The "maness" or "womeness" of an individual is certainly something which is grounded in reality - when archaeologists dug up Cleopatra, we know she was a she not because of her perception of herself, but because womanhood is ingrained in every fibre of her being.  

Trans women (for example) are not claiming to "really" be "literal" women, or at least do not need to.
But that's the issue, the label "women" ought be prescribed to only that who is a "literal" women, just like how homo sapien is a linguistic label which refers to "real" homo sapiens, and how ducks is a linguistic label which refers to "real" ducks. 

In fact, the conservative side is that men taking on social roles previously reserved for women, and asking for this concession in the use of language, is somehow a degenerate or anti-social behavior which should be culturally penalized and discouraged or at least marginalized through indirect means.
Transgendered people are not "taking on the social roles previously reserved for women", that would be what a feminine man does. To adopt the stereo-typical behaviours of a certain gender isn't indicative of you literally becoming that gender.  

Bu this is only because society has not reached a point in which race, age and species are intimate aspects of self-expression. Are you suggesting that, were people to reach that stage, it would be correct to then base the identity of people purely on how they feel?  
I don't think this would be acceptable in the case of age or species because of the mentioned links they have to autonomy, e.g. the obvious ethical issues that would arise from allowing adults to identify as children or vice versa.
Sure, concepts such as age and species have links to autonomy, just as sex how sex regards biology, but one can easily sidestep this by conjuring new terms which refer to a social construction these biologically linked concepts. e.g I can say that, as gender is to sex, speeces is to species, whereby speeces is the social construct which refers to how one feels in relation to species. The question is, when referring people/animals, ought we consider their speeces or their species? 

 The question is what you mean by "actual men" as I described the problems I have with this above. 
My worldview can easily define what a man is - that is, a plethora of biological complexions, however, your position would be hard pressed to form a cogent definition of a man. I throw the question to you. 

Topic's author
#180
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Bones
the label "women" ought be prescribed to only that who is a "literal" women

Transgendered people are not "taking on the social roles previously reserved for women", that would be what a feminine man does.
This makes it clear that the issue is not about biology (e.g. the idea that male vs female patterns of behavior are biologically ingrained) but instead that you think we should refuse to make the linguistic concession of normalizing the use of "woman" as shorthand for "trans woman," or she / her pronouns being used to refer to trans women. The term trans women refers to people who were born men but identify as women - that is the "objective reality" that the term references. So, the disagreement is not about objective reality, but about how language should be used to refer to that reality.

For example, we could construct a totally arbitrary language game in which we refer to "oranges" as "apples" and vice versa. As long as we both agree on the terminology and the reality underlying it, there is no distortion of reality involved. If you ask me to pass you the orange then I would pass you the object we would otherwise refer to as an apple. To say that we "think apples are literally oranges" would be confused, and a falsehood. If you say that we shouldn't accept or adopt this game, that it is wrong to play it, then it is incumbent upon you to make that argument, but that is not even the argument that I'm concerned about here. I'm just pointing out the way that framing is being used to distort the reality. In fact, it seems that we agree on the times when it is reasonable to agree to the language of trans, because you said that you would abide someone's request to use their pronouns in the same case that I would.

My worldview can easily define what a man is - that is, a plethora of biological complexions, however, your position would be hard pressed to form a cogent definition of a man. I throw the question to you. 
I don't view definitions as preceding the use of words in some essentialist way. A definition is simply a summary that allows us to understand how a word is used, and at times our use of words might conflict with the definitions provided by dictionaries, there is nothing inherently wrong about that. I cannot provide a definition for most of the words I use in everyday language, for example "the," "house," "apple," etc. In fact, the number of words I can provide a rigorous and encompassing definition for is only a small fraction of my overall vocabulary.