Nazi?
I think there are internet laws explaining what happens to a discussion once the word "nazi" comes up as an argument. Godwin ring a bell to you?
The thing with my views is that they are not just opinions, I have hundreds of years of evolutionary science backing me up. You don't.
I'm not calling you a Nazi. I'm saying that anyone can call
anyone disrespectful just because they disagree with their views. Even full-out racists. You wanted to highlight that I was being disrespectful too, but that's not an excuse. Of course some people have opposing views, that's life and Kayleigh shouldn't be trying to make you have her point of view. I'm arguing with your argument though. Picking at it to better understand you. This is just chatting to me and I'm exploring your views. Stop putting me in the same category as Kayleigh, I'm not here to preach, I'm only annoyingly critical. I don't expect to change your views and I'm not trying to.
Language has nothing to do with evolution by the way. Language is only applied to things. And it has a habit of changing. You're not speaking old english right now, so you've obviously accepted some changes to the language. And just like religious people pick and choose from the bible, you pick and choose the word definitions you like and reject. This isn't a science argument. It's about language and social issues.
As I tried to explain earlier, mistakes happen all the time when nature does its thing. I would say that the intentions are what define the result, not the result itself. They aren't my definitions, though. It's basic human biology and thus I do have the evidence supporting my views. It's all over teh interwebs if you care to look.
For someone who suggest he's objective and scientific, you sure show signs of divine judgements on what is supposed to be. You didn't answer me about the 'reasons humans are here'. Your evidence supports biological classifications, but not social classifications. The issue is social and about the use of language. Besides, it would be more objective and scientific to be more elaborate in classifying things. It's not very good for distinguishing things. And while human reproduction makes sense, the need and importance of reproduction is simply ego. Society is a cultural environment, not an orgy.
Okay, everyone, refer to me as an "it" now or I'll bitch at how you're all objectist bigots and try to lecture and shame you into respecting my desired pronoun, instead of providing a reasonable counter-argument to your objections! 
That is an example of obvious trolling/fucktardism of course. 
Well there are individuals who wish to be neuter or bigendered. Most don't use the pronoun 'it', but some do. Pronouns are a personal thing after all, it's used in place of a name. I know you're teasing, but that point is relevant. I suppose I could call Dr Al Swearengen Esquire, Dr Al Swearengen Esquire if Dr Al Swearengen Esquire wants, but then I want my pronoun to be Tentacle Queen; Rissy Amethyst Pandora Everlust. Do you agree to that Dr Al Swearengen Esquire?
The thing with gender pronouns is that they're already commonly used and they're not so obnoxious to type out or pronounce. And transpeople tell other people what pronoun they want them to use. Using something else is rude and disrespectful. Dr Al Swearengen Esquire and odeon dispute that it isn't botty-burp but cispeople naturally get their choice of gender pronoun respected but transpeople are denied that privilege by some. Treating someone as inferior says more about an individual than thinking they are inferior. If Dr Al Swearengen Esquire and odeon hold the view that they shouldn't be allowed to use their choice of pronoun then Dr Al Swearengen Esquire and odeon consider Dr Al Swearengen Esquire and odeon's views as superior to the respect of transpeople. In reality everyone is disrespectful and consider themselves superior to others in some way.
By last attempt I meant the last reply I made. I wasn't implying that I wasn't going continue rephrasing it for Dr Al Swearengen Esquire. It is possible to troll trolls back. And I already pointed out that the word can be applied to Kayleigh. It does not change the fact that it can also be applied to Dr Al Swearengen Esquire. I was highlighting that section because it's where Dr Al Swearengen Esquire revealed Dr Al Swearengen Esquire's motivation for Dr Al Swearengen Esquire's actions. Dr Al Swearengen Esquire and others were using male pronouns on Kayleigh not necessarily through lack of disrespect to transpeople but to insult and provoke Kayleigh and provoke me since Dr Al Swearengen Esquire pictured me as a white knight. The main example is in reply to Kayleigh because it was all about making her rage quit and such. People can still troll with truth and facts. The fact that Dr Al Swearengen Esquire was attacking her gender instead of her obnoxious traits highlight the fact that Dr Al Swearengen Esquire was not really being serious with her and only wanted to upset her. I was implying that Dr Al Swearengen Esquire wasn't being serious and just being hostile. I admit some of it was due to me misinterpreting Dr Al Swearengen Esquire's posts because Dr Al Swearengen Esquire arguments looked like trollbait. It's hard to tell if Dr Al Swearengen Esquire is serious or if Dr Al Swearengen Esquire is just playing with me. In some way it is true that everyone here is playing with me because I'm a target. But I know that and are looking for serious or interesting topics to be baited by. Although, if I have a target on my head that must mean people do want to troll me.
"And in calling some people cissexist, I only mean to point out offensive behavior"[/i] It really doesn't matter "what you want to do" it is the claims you make that I am calling you on in as much as you call me and others here.
"Compare it to white priveledge or male priveledge or whatever". OK I looked at you examples to compare
"they still avoid black people and favor white people" We are not avoiding black people or transgender people.
"it had a father proclaimed to like black people but in truth only fetishized black females" We are not fetishising black women or transgender people.
YOU are still not making yourself clear.
Some people are avoiding respecting transpeople, and I'm comparing it to similar examples. Tell me if Dr Al Swearengen Esquire thinks avoiding black people isn't treating them as inferior to white people. Tell me if Dr Al Swearengen Esquire thinks fetishising black people is treating them as equals. I said earlier that with transpeople, it's about respecting their gender indentity and right to choose which pronouns to use. Since they're already in use it's not hard to use them. If the pronoun is derogatory to an individual then the person using the pronoun is being disrespectful. Showing disrespect for the sake of a selfish personal view is obviously your own sense of superiority. Respect is a selfish request to make, but so is disrespect. Obviously some people you don't want to give respect to. But some forms of disrespect to an individual can upset a group by comparison. The members who I'm calling cissexist are the ones who wish to deny people their choice of gender pronoun. Maybe that can be considered cisgenderism because it includes random gender variants. But keeping to the topic of botty-burp, a transperson should be able to have a choice of gender pronoun because cispeople have the choice which they take for granted.
I know I'll never 'win' against Dr Al Swearengen Esquire, I just enjoy participating here. I like the 'Part of the Chaos' title, and my birthday is the 4th
"Is she gone yet?"