Transgender does not include “but also may not be.”
But I don’t think you can underplay how difficult the language is here. If the article merely mentioned a sex worker, people would unfairly jump to the conclusion that it was cis woman. If they say “sex worker with a penis” then it would leave people wondering what information was not being included. They can’t say transgender because there is no way to know that. “May have been transgender” would imply they have reason to suspect it (imagine if someone say, “May have been a dog owner”).
It isn’t fair to gender someone male just because they have a penis, but it isn’t fair to gender someone female just because they are wearing a dress. I’d prefer we were in a situation where we didn’t have to gender people to talk about them, but I don’ t think we are there, I don’t think there is a simple solution, and while raising the possibility that the person was a trans woman (rather than a man) is completely valid, I think it would be more productive to be more patient with people who are using the wrong terms or excluding possibilities in their mind.
Looks like @mathew was responding to someone who pointed out he had registered as a Democrat. Pointing out that he’s just a loon with no particular party affiliation seems completely worthwhile to me.
Actually, a little interesting to me that you objected to the second but not the first.
I thought both were stupid. I guess I let “tit” go, but lost it at “tat”. It’s just tiresome anytime anyone does something “bad”, people want to start labeling them. Especially when it comes to fringe lunatics. People just use it to as an opportunity to attack the other “team”, even though that has nothing to do with what happened. It’s usually an attempt to stain the other team through association.
“Oh he played video games and was a cat person. That doesn’t surprise me, those are the worst kinds of people.”
