A short list of people who have adopted other names:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stage_names

Bo, but at the same time, if your name is James, but you hate James, and you ask everyone to call you Jimmy instead, that doesn't mean your name isn't James.

Yeah, but people called you RCA Dome, Domey, Domebo the Elephant, Domebo the Elephant Sucks, Bo Sucks etc etc specifically to piss you off. People didn't call Leelah Josh to piss her off, but because they'd always called her Josh. I'm sure the people who wanted to bully her had plenty of nasty nicknames they would have used.

Even so, Octavious, my point is that names, nickname or assigned name, can be changed simply by request. One doesn't need to pressure someone to change their name - it's a long, tedious process, and in Leelah's case, her parents wouldn't have let her. It only makes sense that we respect that she has the right to alter her name and any other forms of identification in any way that she pleases and expect us to respect it, whether we agree with it or not.

Interestingly, a girl I know for over 4 years told me recently that she purposefully mispronounced her name at school for over 4 years because she thought we'd have more trouble with the actual pronunciation.. I really don't think there's a difference in difficulty.

No point to this post. Occasionally you need one of those.

Misrepresenting me once again? "You claim that those who refuse to call transgender people by their supposed pronouns undermine their identity and therefore deserve to die."

No, you don't seem able to seperate my claims.
Maybe i can make it easier:
1) refusing to call someone by their a trans person by their chosen name undermines their identity.

2) Done consistantly this can be seen as bullying.

3) Parents who bully their child(ren) to the point of causing their suicide should be held accountable to the full extent of the law.

So you are violating 1) here, that is being a dick. And despite your non-sense claim to the contrary (i honestly think you're the only one deluded enough to think this, but anyone can feel free to deny this, if they exist) But given freedom of speech, i uave said you're entitled to be a dick.

Do you have any reasons for wanting to be a dick?

'Bo, but at the same time, if your name is James, but you hate James, and
you ask everyone to call you Jimmy instead, that doesn't mean your name
isn't James.'

Interesting theory; i guess it comes down essentialism. Do you think names are an essential part of a person, acquired at birth and fixed by their nature?

Or alternatively, are names attributes which are arbitrary with the quality of being what is used to (uniquely) identify a person.

In this later case, your name is just what people call you. Whatever that is, there is no special importance to the name your parents gave you at birth.

I read an interesting article on how bilingual children think differently about the world - in particular when it comes to essentialism; see: www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2sefwc/bilingualism_changes_childrens_beliefs_about_the

"A mistake was made and her family refused to acknowledge who she was. This should be criminal."

True or false, you said that "refus[ing] to acknowledge who [someone] [is]" "should be criminal"? Or do you mean just in the case that parents *have to* say something against their beliefs to their children? I wonder what you would say about a Christian or Muslim, or any other religion, child who felt depressed because their atheist parents refused to acknowledge a God? Will you force the parents to believe in God, or at least pretend to?

KC, atheists not acknowledging a god does not deny people the ability to be religious, parents or otherwise. You can quite capably believe in something even if your parents don't.

Mendax, I absolutely agree. And I also would agree that you are perfectly capable of believing whatever else you want, such as you are a different gender, without the acknowledgment of your parents.

Bottom line, orathaic is saying that parents *have to* believe, or lie about believing, what their child believes about their "gender identity." Now, I am asking, is he completely cherry-picking, or will he agree that they also have to accept (or pay lip service) to their belief in God, body image, or any other "defining" aspect.

I like doombo most.

You seem to be equating gender identity with religious beliefs. The suggestion that Leelah believed she was a woman equating that with her parents belief in God.

Even if this were valid, i would call for people to respect eah other's beliefs. That would mean, not insulting a person belief in God and if the insulter was a parent, and doing so on a consistant basis to undermine them it would count as my 2) above ie: bullying.

But regardless, your equating the two is not valid. I do not believe i am male; I am male. This is a fact, not a belief. Leelah was female. A woman. She also happened to be transgender; these are all facts.

Now you can claim that you know more about her mind than she did, and that would be insulting. Or you can trust that she knew her gender just aswell as you know yours. As evidence for which i would offer simply her first-hand testimony as linked prevuously on this tread.

Now i fully admit that my analysis neglects the comparitively invisible gender-fluid people. But i will leave learning about them as an exercise.

Octavious, I must say I love the progression, and how you bring it back to his username.

I love how in one breath orathaic tells people how they get to decide their identities (or inform us what they are) and then tell us that things that make up our identities (such as religion) aren't as important as others'. Classy dude, classy.

Individuals get to decide which pieces of their identity are the most important.

"A mistake was made and her family refused to
acknowledge who she was. This should be
criminal." True or false, you said that "refus[ing] to
acknowledge who [someone] [is]" "should be
criminal"?

False.

I said that her family's behaviour should be criminal; a consistant pattern of bullying is abuse, and currently that is criminal - though hard to prove.

I am not calling for any changes to the law as written, merely to an understanding of how it should be applied.

And i am not for you to be criminalised or deprived your freedom of speech; i am merelt calling you out on your choice of disrespecting this person. And the presumption that you would continue this line of reasoning in person, that you choose to be a dick. So i ask again, have you any reason for making this choice?

Also, why the hell do you get to decide what is "important enough?" Once again you are showing the authoritarian streak in you. Apparently, only you get to decide what "defines" me. It is my sex, or my gender, but not my religion? Now who is generalizing people and telling them what they can think, or how they should be? You are a filthy hypocrite.

"Individuals get to decide which pieces of their identity are the most important."

Unless it is religion, then it's out.

Religion is only out if the individual says it's out. I'm not really sure how that's up for discussion.

Sorry bo, that was directed at orathaic, not you.

I know.

I see flaws in what ora is saying but I don't see him saying quite the egregious things that it appears he is when quoted out of context. They look worse then.

All right, bo, question for you. I am getting too worked up with orathaic, so lets you and I reason something out.

Leelah believed (or knew, whatever) that Leelah's gender identity was not the same as Leelah's sex. People's, especially parents, refusal to accept this belief caused Leelah to commit suicide. Fair enough?

Now, suppose I am a Christian, and my parents are atheists. It is something that truly defines me. I read the Bible, go to church, and attempt to live my life 100% in accordance with my beliefs. But the whole time my parents refuse to acknowledge that their is a God. So depressed by people not accepting my beliefs, I commit suicide.

Now, ought my parents to have agreed with me, or at least say that they did, to stop my depression? Should Leelah's parents have agreed, or at least said that they did?

Again, either a failure of comprehension or a blatant choice to misrepresent wha i said:

"I love how in one breath orathaic tells people how they get to decide their
identities (or inform us what they are) and then tell us that things that make up our identities (such as religion) aren't as important as others"

You don't get to choose your gender, you get to choose how you display it. Gender expression is a pretty big issue for trans people; but not all that relevant here.

You get to decide what you like to be called. That could be based on your religion. Take Mohamed Ali, you would not call Cassis Clay; that would be an insult to his identity.

The idea of respecting someone's identity is not in conflict with the idea of respect someone's religion. As my example demonstrates.

Not sure if this has to do with using the name "Leelah" (which I am) or about pronouns. The two are fundamentally different here.

By saying Leelah, I acknowledge that people can change their name.

By saying "she" or "he" I am expressing that I believe or disbelieve that genders are separate from sex.

Now, I accept the first proposal. I do not the second. I will call Leelah Leelah. Because that is what Leelah wanted. However, why should I use pronouns that are representing things I don't believe in, and in fact go against my religion?

Again, either a failure of comprehension or a blatant choice to misrepresent what I said:

"You don't get to choose your gender, you get to choose how you display it."

Really orathaic, try reading more carefully.

"I love how in one breath orathaic tells people how they get to decide their
identities (OR INFORM US WHAT THEY ARE!!!!) and then tell us that things that make up our identities (such as religion) aren't as important as others"

(emphasis added) (and exclamation points)

Framing this as an attack on the parent's religion rights is not useful, i might claim that they were being bad christians (might even then be guilty of a 'no true scotsman arguement') but i don't care what caused their behaviour. They choose to bully, and abuse their child. It is a shame that social welfare were not able to protect her.

It doesn't matter to me that their actuons were religiously motivated. But it seems to matter to you. You seem to want special protection for religious parents to abuse their kids. Which turns the conversation into one which is against religion.

In that conversation, i would conclude that religion is a bad thing and should be abolished; in the same way (or similar) that we attempt to abolish rascism. But i never made any claims about the parents of their religion; cause i don't give a shit about it. They should be free to practice their religion however they see fit. And their child should not be forced to stay in an environment which was so damaging to her.

She could have run away from home, but that was clearly not something she saw as a viable option. Maybe if she had friends to support her it would have been easier, but her parents had deliberately and systematically isolated her from her friends.

I believe the state should have offered her protection, she was clearly old enough to ask for help.

Now if you want to protect religious people, and their rights. Preach, tell them to love their children as God made them. And to accept them not matter what. I don't really care if your religion dies out or not, so parents who reject gay/trans kids who then become atheists aren't a big deal to ke - except that these kids are made to suffer. But if you care, then please take action to help.

'However, why should I use pronouns that are representing things I don't believe in, and in fact go against my religion?'

Any evidence to back up this claim? Just wondering where you get the idea.... Does the bible go into any detail on sex vs gender, anywhere?

@KingCyrus, lets address this one point.

You disagree that gender and sex are seperate, correct?

Ora, I am not really sure you understand where I am going with this at all.

Question #1: Who gets to decide what is a fundamental part of one's identity?

Question #2: If you answered "the person" to question #1, would you also agree that I can say that religion is a fundamental part of my identity?

Question #3: If denying one's beliefs about gender identity is a form of bullying, would you agree that denying one's beliefs about religion is a form of bullying?