An attempt to avoid the TL;DR...
I believe I have consistently used "nature".
I am a firm believer in well-defined and consistent vocabulary, and what A et al are saying just isn't consistent. It's what they want, for all kinds of reasons, but it's not well-defined and it's not consistent. I'm saying that GA was born male and while he in later years has been working towards becoming a woman, that pronoun would, in my mind, not adequately describe the result because a "woman" is a "human female", biologically and genetically speaking, and that's not just the case.
It doesn't get easier for me to consider such an inaccuracy when people like Rissy come here and basically say I'm trolling or disrespectful because my stance differs from theirs.
As for the rest, you are missing part of my point. I am basically indifferent. If somebody I meet appears to be a woman and says she is, I am not going to require proof or doubt the statement or anything. I will accept it as a fact, according to the definitions I have outlined.
If, later, somebody shows that the woman in question is biologically a man, I would most likely remain indifferent and continue with the pronouns offered to me at that earlier point. I don't really care, see. My comments here are all about terminology and cases like GA's where I seem to be required to change my pronouns (that have been accepted and OK for years) or else I'm disrespectful and included in some fancy *new* definition using a word that I had to look up to know it exists in current urban terminology (but not, yet, in a printed dictionary).
You seem hell-bent on showing that I must have ulterior motives, that I'm really a bigot of some new and exciting definition, but I just don't think that is the case.
Have you considered how difficult it is to change social conditioning that's been instilled since birth? Of course GA used to exhibit masculine traits, and now as Kayleigh she is working to reprogram her brain to overcome the training and act in a way more aligned with her natural self. If you're having difficulty revising your mental concept, that task is exponentially more difficult from the inside. Not something to be undertaken on a whim, and an ongoing process.
Tell me why I should. What I'm talking about is an individual I learned to know on teh interwebs as a male, who identified himself as a male, and whose friends online identified him as a male. I used a set of pronouns when addressing him or talking about him, but there was no conscious effort on my part. Basically I was indifferent.
I am discussing a vocabulary, a terminology, that is consistent. I am in no way saying what anyone can or cannot do. Why do you think you link is relevant to what I am saying?
I'm in favour of a well-defined terminology, whatever that may be.
Because it is not inaccurate. It's not a spiritual discussion, simply a biological one. You are being PC, Pyraxis, and I have to say I'm a bit surprised.
Maybe I sound different because this is the first time I've tried to have a serious intellectual debate on Intensity.
I don't see how I'm being PC. I've never once called you bigot, transphobic, or cis-whatever-the-new-word-is. I don't know the PC terminology either, LOL! What I called you was a "crotchety old man" with "ridiculous antiquated views".
Sure, that's name-calling, but not out of character with the usual Intensity banter, IMO. I can even see why Kayleigh's blasting in here on a high horse wouldn't predispose you to seeing her POV. But make up your mind. If you don't want people to call you names, fine, but when I backed up my words with scientific sources, you also asked what the point was and whether I was "making you follow links for fun". What argument style are you looking for?
The essence of your argument seems to be that you want clear definitions for the terms male and female, yes? You said you were interested in finding out what pronouns were used for chimeras, but when I offered an answer, you asked what my point was. My point was to clarify the definition.
The reason I asked about mother nature and God is that nature can't have intentions unless it's an intelligent entity.
To me, going after a trans person's gender identity is seriously fighting dirty. That's why I don't do it, and why I was shocked to see that both you and Callaway did. (Schleed I've come to expect it from.) Hell, why do either of you even
need to fight dirty? But whatever, I certainly can't stop it. I can however be vocal about my disgust.
That's another of my points here, if you want points. To make noise in defense of trans people. It's up to you how you respond to it.