"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?"

Who says my religious beliefs all come from the Bible?

Ora, in regards of humans (as opposed to words. I wouldn't say words have sex. That would just be kinky) and the noun, not the act, yes. I actually don't really see the need for the word gender in regards to humans. Now, I understand that people are more "masculine" or more "feminine," and that some men are much more feminine than women, or vice versa. I would say that gender is our feeble attempt to label an aspect of the human psyche. Now, I do believe that Leelah absolutely believed that Leelah was a girl. If that is your definition of gender, then I agree with that. But if your definition of gender include a “boy/girl” being trapped in a “girl/boy’s” body, then, no, I do not agree with your definition of gender.

I have said we should strive to respect people. Their beliefs and their identities.

" 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?"

I would agree, and in a relationship of equals, between peers, then equal reapect should be given where possible.

I know of cases where parents refuse to acknowledge their child's gender and thus the parents and (now adult daugther) no longer see each other. It is not possible for them to reconcile their differences. So they don't see each other at all.

This is a pity.

In relationships which are not equal, the side with power has the ability to abuse the side without. The state should protect the weaker party.

This is based on the same principle of the state making killing illegal. To protect the weaker party - but allowing violence in self-defence. (you don't usually need state protection of the stronger party because they are, by definition stronger.)

I assume your beliefs come from the bible. I am capable of making mistakes. But if you care to take the spirit of my question you could answer based on where you beliefs come from; or you could assume Leelah's parents are the ones who based their beliefs (which you say i disregard) on the bible. And answer from their point of view.

Also, thanks for phrasing thelat as 3 clear questions. It does help illuminate your point.

"I have said we should strive to respect people. Their beliefs and their identities."

Something we can agree on. It's a start. Our disagreement is, I believe, on how we should apply this. I do not believe that in order to respect someone that I have to accept their beliefs, thoughts, or actions. Is this something that you believe?

"Ora, in regards of humans (as opposed to words. I wouldn't say words have
sex. That would just be kinky) and the noun, not the act, yes. I actually don't
really see the need for the word gender in regards to humans. "

And up until fairly recently i probably would have agreed with you. As a femenist i believe in gender equality. And i would have said that a world where gender expression was not normalized or was banned would be better - but tyat was before i gained an understanding and empathy for transgender friends. Gender identity and expression being two seperate things - obviously a man can present himself as a woman, and actors have for years done so; and a woman can present as a man, and women posing as male soldiers have fought in many wars. But gender identity is needed, there is a part of the brain which categorises like and different, and trangirls (as young as the age of 4) will clearly identify themselves as like the other girls, and unlike the boys. They feel bad when they are told they can't take part in normal girly activities and will no understand why.

Even if they don't really like doing the activities.

I think there is sufficient evidence that this is different from a tomboy who likes to play with other boys (cause their activities are more fun) but still categorises herself as a girl. This is similar in a way to sexual orientation because you can't see sexual orientation, it's in your head, you can assume a person is gay/straight based on who they are fucking/holding hands with - but they could easily be bisexual, or asexual (and not attracted to their partner at all, but fucking them cause they want to or feel obliged to)

Similarily gender identity can only really be known to a person themselves, and we can listen to wha they say (they could choose not to present as the gender they identify with, just as a man in prison could choose to have anal sex with his bunk mate - that doesn't change their sexual orientation/gender identity)

"I do not believe that in order to respect someone that I have to accept their beliefs, thoughts, or actions."

Great example, i think i'm respecting my fellow catholic's beliefs by standing in mass when everyone else stands. But i refuse to kneel when they do.

I grew up in a majority Catholic country, and still go to funerals and weddings on occasion. I even bring my Scout ls to mass on some special occasions.

Standing is a sign of respect, kneeling is a sign submission. So i choose to respect their religion without submitting to it.

So yes, i would feel i live up to that sentiment to the best of my ability.

(on a side note: 25% of languages do aasign gender to all words; a fsct i only learned today)

OK, so to get this more tangible...

Can I respect my transgender friend without using their preferred gender pronoun?

"(on a side note: 25% of languages do aasign gender to all words; a fsct i only learned today)"

Really? I would have guessed more.

I don't think you can respect your trans friend without using their prefered gender. (or in the case of my gender neutral friends, 'they' works fine, it is already used when you want to hide someone's gender or when you don't know it)

Re: gendered languages, see this (i think) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=46ehrFk-gLk

But why? I understand if they prefer it and are insulted by not using it. But is it possible to use that without giving tacit approval of their actions? Likewise, some Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus/etc. maybe offended by people refusing to acknowledge their respective deity/ies. Should we also reference them with the proper terms of respect and/or acceptance?

I think it may be a false analogy; but if they are offended they don't have to listen to you. Likewise a trans person doesn't have to be friends with you if you refuse to respect them.

Unfortunately outside of equal relationships which we can to end, someone usually has more power. And this power can be abused.

You don't have to respect other people's religion, and they don't have to like it. But being in a carer-caree relationship is different. You have a duty to protect another person and put their interests ahead of your own.

It is entirely possible the Leelab disrespected her parent's beliefs; but we would have less sympathy for them because they had the power. They could have kicked her out of their home, and we would not he sympathetic, because they gave up on their duty of care - but it was in their power. Leelah didn't have this power.

Ora, by no means am I arguing this from the case of if Leelah did something wrong here. I am asking if the roles were reversed. Atheist parents, theist kid. And we don't have to go that far. Transgender friend and friend-who-doesn't-agree-with-transgenderism (not sure that is a word) as opposed to an atheist friend and theist friend.

The idea is that you accept them for who they are. I guess you can't do that without some kind of implicit approval.

If your child was a drug addict, you wouldn't have to accept them; you could kick them out. You could force them into rehab - but that is the same because you're giving up responcibilty to a state organ (or perhaps a state sanctioned private body, depending on where you live)

What you should do may depend on the circumstances, but that is a parenting question; not a general question of respecting others.

So you do agree that someone could not use a transgender person's preferred pronoun without giving implicit approval? Or is that "you" directed specifically at me?

If Atheist parents bullied a theistic child to the point of suicide they should also he held to account. That is clear from my position, as it is based on simple principles.

OK. Where do you draw the line on bullying? Is simply denying the existence of a deity considered "bullying?" Or would it take more, such as dragging their child to atheistic councilors, to try to dissuade their child of the existence of a deity, and preventing them from meeting with their theist friends?

That was a general 'you' or one. Take an alternative but similar situation, the parent of a gay child (i don't think the friend relationship is sufficiently similar in power dynamic) The parent doesn't have to approve of all the gay sex their child is having, but likewise doesn't have to ask about it. You can still show love for your child, support them, and even try to stop them from having sex - up to a point - But to force your views on them, to force them to have sex with someone they don't want to, would be harmful.

Trans-people have more difficulty in that the neutral position is not as easy to find.

Bullying is systematic. There has to be a pattern, one incident may indicate an unhealthy relationship, but is something which respectful individuals can work through; can come to some agreement on how to disagree respectfully.

So no, to once deny the exiatance of God is not bullying. Bu there is a dramatic difference between saying you don't believe in their God and telling them they may not worship their God.

Granted. But continually denying a deity would be comparable to continually denying of the child's gender identity, true?

Again, the friend relationship doesn't have this dynamic. Your friends don't have to believe in your God or worship it the way you do. But they are not respecting you if they attack you for your belief, if they cross that line beyond neutral. Burn down your church, or harass and ridicule you for your faith.

There is a clear middle ground here. Where is that middle gronlund for trans people?

"Granted. But continually denying a deity would be comparable to continually
denying of the child's gender identity, true?"

No, saying I don't believe in your God is not the same as telling someone that they don't Believe in their God correctly.

There is a neutral ground where you can tell someone what you believe and agree to let them believe what they want.

To go out of your way to tell them that what they think is wrong is to invade their personal mental space, and to undermine them. It is like saying they are not a christian - because of what you believe. Not saying the you are not a christian.

Is that better?

To a degree. I think that the best a Don't-agree-with-trans can do is to be as respectful as they can, don't preach (although I think discussing it and sharing their views is fine) and to refer to them by their preferred name. But as you have said, using their preferred gender term *does* give tacit approval.

I think that saying to a theist, "I don't believe in your god, but you are free to" is the same as "I don't believe you actually are a man/woman, but you are free to think you are."

But then, some will try to convince one or the other the other way. Many people disagree with transgenderism and would actively try to dissuade someone from it. But also, many people disagree with religion, which you have admitted to, and would like to see it be dropped as well.

I wouldn't mind if religion was dropped; but i don't seek to attack it. I'd prefer to work with religious people to reduce harm. I think Richard Dawkins is wrong in his tactics - even though he thinks religious teaching amounts to child abuse and attacks all religion. I don't disagree in principle (ie some religious practices can be abusive) but in practice i'd prefer to work with people without needing to end their beliefs. I think they are mostly good and will agree that abuse is bad and should be reduced...

"I think that saying to a theist, "I don't believe in your god, but you are free to" is the same as "I don't believe you actually are a man/woman, but you are free to think you are."
"

I don't think they are the same. Saying 'i don't believe you are a man/woman' is like saying, 'i don't believe you are a christian/atheist' - it is a claim about the other person.

You could say you believe bio-sex is what determines gender, or something similar. That might get you into a rather tough conversation (which i've seen friends negotiate recently) where they ask straight out 'do you not accept me as a man/woman' - and they say no - that is a really horribke thing to say to someone. A more passive trans person might let that slip.

But equivalent, i'd never tell someone they're no a christian. Or not a 'real' Christian.