Ah, patronizing too. Not surprised.
I wrote, "thanks for the life advice, but I'm pretty much where I want to be in life for what's left of it" You offered me unsolicited life advice and I politely declined, and you call that patronizing. You seem to be having an emotional response to my posting.
Perhaps you can mull over the conversation instead
So then
no to having made a rebuttal as you claimed. No problem. That's the goal in dialectic - to a eventually make plausible argument that cannot be successfully rebutted. Of course, when its a cooperative effort as with scientific peer review, it goes on until such a position is reached, and those who have learned are grateful to have been taught. In discussion like this one, one makes a comment, the other rebuts it, and the original poster drops the ball as has occurred here, and the debate is over.
In a court of law, dialectic begins with an opening statement by the prosecution and a theory of a crime. If this argument is convincing to a jury and not successfully rebutted, it's time for a verdict: guilty. But perhaps the defense can poke a hole in that theory, maybe by offering an alibi for the defendant. Perhaps there is cell tower ping data suggesting that the defendant wasn't present at the scene of the crime. If this isn't rebutted, it becomes the last plausible unrebutted argument, and the jury is ready to vote for acquittal. But then, the prosecution produces photos of the suspect near the scene of the crime, resuscitating the original theory of guilt. And once again, if this cannot be successfully rebutted - if it cannot be shown that the prosecution cannot be right - the debate is over and the jury able to convict. This is dialectic, and it ends with the last plausible, unrebutted claim. Any other form of discussion is useless in deciding matters.
Just label anything you disagree with as transphobic
What I call transphobic behavior is anything demeaning, derogatory, or harmful to LGTBQ people.
Well refusing to refer to somebody as Zi, Xe, Cir, or whatever pronouns a wild imagination might conjure is not irrational or harmful to every member of a law abiding group, so I guess according to you, it is not bigotry huh?
It depends how and why you do it. I would also resist, but not out of disesteem. And I wouldn't do so angrily. Hey, I refuse to learn the names of most three-named actors. Seymore Hoffman something? The dude from the original Miami Vice with three first names - Michael David Paul? Then there's Sally Jessica Parker Rafael Mary Louise or something like that. Doogie Howser has too many names, one being Patrick (is another Harris?), which might be first, middle, or last. The point is that I can't be bothered with that, but it's not out of disapproval of who those people are.
If a trans person's requests were too complex, I might decline, but respectfully - "I don't think I can remember that."
Ya know it wasn’t very long ago when gay sex was considered harmful, and expressing a negative opinion about the behavior was not considered irrational or bigotry. But attitudes change don’t they.
Considering gay sex (relative to straight sex) harmful was always irrational, and behavior that marginalized and demonized gay people was always bigotry: irrational, applied to every member of a law-abiding community, and destructive to them. It's based in Abrahamic monotheism and its irrational proclamations about what an allegedly infinitely good god considers an abomination for whatever its arbitrary reasons might be, not empiricism.
I also wasn't long ago that this same system of thought and its analogous atheophobic had unbelievers much more marginalized as well, and yes, almost literally demonized (filled with the devil and under its sway). Go back a few centuries, and such people were executed or tortured in inquisitions. When I was born inthemid-20th century, atheists were officially deemed morally unfit to teach, adopt, coach, serve on juries, or give expert testimony.
This is church-inspired bigotry, and blowback to it is called militant atheism:
The problem for the bigots is that these groups now have a voice, and they don't like it. They preferred the bully pulpit they enjoyed until the rise of the media that gave objectors an audience began eroding at that asymmetry. The gay movement goes back a few decades, but the trans movement is newer. The rise of atheism and anti-theism (pushing back at the church) came in between. The rise of women and blacks preceded them all.
This is humanist tolerance and compassion making inroads in the unkept promises of egalitarianism ("All men are created equal") and meeting fierce obstruction from a threatened, entrenched white patriarchy. They're nervous that black lives suddenly matter, and that young black legislators or white trans legislators expect to be heard. They are also threatened by modern children's books and men in women's clothing. They march with tikis chanting, "You will not replace us" and drive vehicles into crowds. And they demean and dismiss it all with the wave of a hand: "wokeism."
Like I said, it's cultural evolution being experienced as a culture war, and I for one don't mind that these people are uncomfortable. It's to be expected. Are you old enough to remember when a mixed-race couple was stared at disapprovingly? Today, I think that most of that is gone. Do you remember when divorcee meant loose woman, and it was fine to refer to women as dames and broads? That kind of thinking seems to have disappeared as well, but none of those changes came without fighting the bigots.
