Well no, that would be an appeal to nature fallacy. You’re making the argument that I should accept the world as it is, simply because it is. Most people think the word works that way, therefore it should. That’s a nonsense argument. The world isn’t perfect, and people shouldn’t define words that way.
You know, 30 years ago, the word “man” was defined as “someone with a penis” by 90% of the population. It was trans activists who changed the defintion. Your logical fallacy is the exact same one that opposed the progress of trans rights back then.
I’m not mistaking you for someone else, I mean to say that the opinion you expressed is one I would have agreed with yesterday. I believe you misunderstood what the point of disagreement was.
Well that’s not true. If someone says “Don’t talk to me about them F*****s, I hate them”, then the correct thing to do is say “gay people deserve to exist, you homophobe”. It’s always correct to counter someone when they spread a harmful message, with or without their consent. Because spreading harmful messages must be considered implicit consent to be challenged on them. You can’t have a functioning society otherwise.
Yes they do. Trans people will be hurt if they don’t. Their definition of politics is propaganda created by transphobes, which benefits transphobes. That’s why it’s important. That’s why the speech is harmful.