From the conversation that brought us “chop your dick off”:

chop your dick off

problem solved really

so true stranger 1

he doesnt deserve his dick

only a man who wants a girl deserves such an amazing thing

dicks are for chicks

very true

not dudes assholes

he likes assholes

“he” or “it”

i’d say it

no no, they

or thing

Circlejerking at its finest. Let’s get at it:

he doesnt deserve his dick

What a pointless and idiotic notion.

only a man who wants a girl deserves such an amazing thing

As they failed to realize, I would want a girl, but that doesn’t actually matter because, first, I’m not a man, and second, the notion is still pointless and idiotic.

dicks are for chicks

Has anyone difficulties seeing the ambiguity of that statement here?

he likes assholes

Another unfounded and independently of truth value absolutely pointless statement. (I have no such experiences with assholes that I could say I like them.)

i’d say it

or thing

Oh yes. Dehumanization and objectification.

no no, they

Finally something we can agree on!

Striking out: First and third one, i prefer not to use “idiotic” any longer. (I would edit the title, but i don’t know how to strike out words in it.) Second, i mimicked the stranger’s phrasing here, but i should at least have put that into quotes, or better yet, clarified why i used such phrasing right away. To let it stay like that was simply wrong; it made me refer to myself as an adult while infantilising other women.

Specifically, I have used the term “faggot” to refer to male homosexuals and “dyke” to refer to female homosexuals. On one hand, that is just reclaiming those words. (Specifically dyke which I actually identify as, but also faggot which many call me incorrectly - as in “Not as if there’d be anything wrong with that, but, no, I’m not a faggot”.) On the other hand, those are the terms primarily used on Omegle, and I did use them with scare quotes and everything - and, obviously, they are also direct quotes off the collective Omegle stranger.

I dislike being denounced as “tranny” or “shemale” or “he-she” or “dickgirl” or (worst of all with these implications) “trap” in the same way I dislike being denounced as “dyke” and “faggot”. (Admittedly I might dislike the trans-specific insults more.) In that way, I think I can truthfully say I can relate. Regardless, I will keep using the terms as I have used them til now. If the tumblr messaging thing works, you’re free to discuss this with me though.

Striking out: Although i have not modified this policy yet, i want to say that the striked-out part here is too ambiguous for my tastes now. So after acknowledging that it was wrong, let me clarify that it was not my intention to set myself up as someone who ‘owns’ the term “faggot” and is therefore most entitled to reclaim it. Considering that it is primarily used against persons perceived as male, and that i do not identify as male while i am less and less perceived as such now, i certainly am not most entitled to reclaim the term.

If your definition of “trans woman” includes “man dressed as woman” or anything equivalent to that: You are wrong.

(Not that I have anything against crossdressers. I’d even have identified myself as one given some constraints. I just want to make a point of not misgendering trans people, that is, of accepting them as individuals of their gender.)

Striking out: “Gender” is a very ambiguous term with multiple definitions. I’d prefer to say “gender identity” here.

I think you’re transsexual

but not a woman, just a man with identity issues

I suppose if she got an op, it’d be different though…

So, first you deny me identification as a woman as I am trans but haven’t had any medical treatment yet, and then, that woman identity is reachable by something as (comparatively) trivial as adjusting my body? That is, a sex change now actually changes my gender identity too? How does that work?

im a gay female and trans women kinda weird me out

its just bc if you like women be with women if you like men be with men but when you get into trans gender idk it makes things complicated

im just saying as a women who likes women i like girls who look like girls

not a man who is now a girl idk i cant get my head around that

(I disagree with some of the terminology - “girls” without using “boys”, and “female” as a noun - but that isn’t important and irrelevant here.)

This is essentialism. Trans women aren’t men, and they weren’t ever men. They are women who happened to be born male-bodied. There is an implied and wrong distinction between “girls who look like girls” and “men who are now girls” too. Trans women can be(come) “girls who look like girls” too, or more accurately, trans women can have a typically feminine-female appearance too.

Nonetheless, refer to my earlier dating advice: if you’re uncomfortable dating trans people, then, well, I’d say you’re allowed to ask those who you intend to date whether they are trans. You’re allowed not to date trans people for being trans, because whom you date or do not date is entirely up to you.

of course it’s shameful. who would disgrace their gender?

i don’t see how you can “disgrace” a gender

it has to do with identity

someone shouldn’t be forced to be something they’re not

exactly why you shouldnt change genders

[disconnected]

And again someone incorrectly talking about the dubious “gender change”, which, to my knowledge, only cissexist essentialists like this one propose (per implication).

So she was born a man?

I think so

Well that’s fine

why not just say woman then

I am not a man. I wasn’t born a man either. I was born with and currently have a male body. Notice how this isn’t synonymous with saying “I am a man”. Why not just say woman then?

(I didn’t mean to erase non-binary or multiple gender identities in this; it’s just my particular case in which the binarily assumed conclusion of not being a man and hence being a woman would be correct.)

I don’t know, it’s probably natal. I’ve read somewhere that the brains of trans people work more like those of other people sharing their gender (as opposed to their sex-at-birth).

Also, COME AT ME BRO!

Striking out: Apart from the ambiguity of the term “gender”, here is again a fine piece of “male-bodied” language and defining some sort of “sex” that refers to how bodies are perceived and gendered. (I am not yet convinced that “CAMAB” and “CAFAB” language is inherently problematic, but “sex-at-birth” is definitely problematic in that it does not explicitly talk about the arbitrary assignment.) I might additionally remark that i used “trans” as a synonym for “transsexual” here, but that arguably is not problematic.