Did i say so?
My observations and your 'definitions' are different.
> Like I said, I was simplifying, and specifically the simplification erased some identities.
Language is inherently symbolic and thus an simplification (an reduction). This makes "Identity erasure" an very toxic concept - you are guilty of it because there wasn't a way to comply with it in the first place.
> The same person is still trans if they eventually become a passing woman.
Wow. You can't say that - that's really rude and a offense to transitioned people. They are a woman - becoming so was the whole purpose of transitioning. You should know that.
> and it entirely contradicts how the trans people I know define their transness.
If that's so, fine. The trans people i know don't even "define" themselves, because here people aren't obsessed with self-identity as in the US. They only want to be accepted as Women.
> [...] they don't perceive themselves as either strictly a man or a woman. This is where you get various non-binary trans identities.
Only in identity politics. In the outside world you get people that don't conform to various gender expectations, and the majority of them does not need to make up their mind around that being an identity. They "can be".
> Education and normalization does more to protect LGBT people than staying silent.
Yes, but then do it correctly. Identity politics as it is now has resulted in a large number of "shit liberals say"-outrage-memes. People are making fun of self-identifying because it is so absurd - does "I sexually identify as an Apache Attack Helicopter" ring a bell for you? I'm sure you have good intentions for LGBT people, but if you unironically argue with concepts like self-identification or identity erasure, people will be driven off. I'm driven off. Its neither how things work in practice nor how we will get LGBT acceptance in the future.
> "identity politics" (which, to be clear is a phrase I still don't understand the meaning of)
In the US, identity politics is the most vocal view on LGBT issues. Its core feature is the strong emphasis on self-identity and that it must be 'respected'. How the latter happens in detail is subject to being abused as leverage to control other people. Its only a power play if you see through it, and it rejects the normal-ness of LGBT people, segregating people into groups.
Contrast it to the other parts of the LGBT community, where people are like, normal people. And happen to have transitioned or a having partner of the same sex. That's as normal as chewing gum. Nothing 'special' that needs any kind of extra things to be respected. Just personal life choices.
I've isolated the statement I was responding to at least twice: "because this is what they think makes their voice 'valid'." You seem to think that trans people believe that, even if you yourself don't.
> Wow. You can't say that - that's really rude and a offense to transitioned people.
I don't see how differentiating between passing and non passing when we're talking about the impact of external perception is offensive, but please elaborate, I'm open to criticism.
> They only want to be accepted as Women.
And as I explained, this limits the definition of Trans to only a very specific type of trans person. It seems like you're saying that those are the right kinds of trans people. Perhaps that's why you're met with friction with those people: you're choosing to invalidate their self-perception because they don't conform to how you think a trans person should be.
In your mind, the trans "identity" is someone in one gender role who swaps to another gender role quietly.
After this point, the rest of your post was really just a rant about how you don't want to accept trans people who don't conform to your perception of them. That's you playing identity politics, it's forcing an identity on to them. And this is why I mentioned that I don't get identity politics: it's not a liberal or US-centric thing. It's a lens. It's a form of analysis of the world, a framework for looking at interpersonal interactions. Forcing someone to conform to an identity is identity politics just as much as identifying with an identity in a way you disagree is. They're two sides of the same coin.
The argument that identity politics forces you to be controlled is the exact same argument that the US religious right used for years to push back against all the "personal life choices" you mention, like marrying a same-gender person. It's the same argument that the US religious right pushes when they try to ban trans people from using the right bathrooms. The argument that respecting someone else's personal choice is an imposition on you. It's the same argument.
Some trans people find external validation important, yes. But being trans is not defined by external validation (and certainly not external perception), but instead self perception.[0] This is obvious: it would imply that a man in drag is a trans woman, which is obviously untrue.
> If the identity of gender-fluidity can be externally erased by your wording, its perception, not identity. I'm sure the same applies to trans.
No, gender-fluidity can be erased only due to the simplification that feelings are permanent. If we accept that how one self-perceives can, for some, change over time, then that leads obviously to gender fluidity. Like I said, I was simplifying, and specifically the simplification erased some identities. Removing the simplification doesn't erase any other identities. The identities were never invalid. The simplified definition I was using just didn't extend to them.
> Its all about how others perceive you.
Self perception certainly isn't all about how others perceive you. It may indeed be influenced by external factors, but I identify as a man not because of how others perceive me but due to my innate feelings about myself. Dysphoria is a mismatch between self-perception and external validation. The self-perception isn't defined by the external validation, if it were you couldn't experience dysphoria.
So I'll reiterate: trans people are trans based on how they identify, not based on how they are perceived. A biological male who is a closeted trans woman is still trans, no matter how I perceive them. The same person is still trans if they eventually become a passing woman.
> The wrong assumption here is that your LGBT status can make your voice valid or invalid.
When discussing the experience of being LGBT, of course it does. In general, of course it doesn't. You seemed to imply otherwise when you said "because this is what they think makes their voice 'valid'."
Which, like I said, isn't the case. None of the trans people I work with or know believe that being physically non-passing makes their voices any more valid than it would be if they were passing. Let me just reiterate that: None of the trans people I associate put any particular weight on being non-passing, this was something you invented, and it entirely contradicts how the trans people I know define their transness.
In other words, to make that claim is to misrepresent what being trans is for many trans people.
> This is like, the greatest wish of people with gender dysphoria. This is definitely "perception".
Yes, for some trans people that is absolutely the case! I'm not denying that people who are "classically" trans are trans. They absolutely are. Their dysphoria is still driven by a self-perception mismatch.
Let try to approach this another way: if we agree that classical trans identities, those that align closely with the gender binary, are valid, then the question is what about people who have less severe dysphoria? Like if we accept that it is possible for someone's self-perception to completely mismatch their body, why do we reject the idea that there can only be partial mismatch. In other words, they don't perceive themselves as either strictly a man or a woman. This is where you get various non-binary trans identities.
Again, all I'm doing is adding more people under the trans umbrella, I'm very much not denying any particular trans person's experience.
> What about Jessica Yaniv?
I'm glad you asked! Here's Contrapoints again to dive into the concept of "trans-trenders" and specifically Yaniv better than I ever could.[1]
> acceptance might fall enough that LGBT rights will be rolled back (already happening in the US)
If you honestly believe that LGBT rights are at risk because of a perceived backlash to "identity politics" (which, to be clear is a phrase I still don't understand the meaning of), and not simply the US religious right doing the same things it's always done, you haven't been paying attention. Education and normalization does more to protect LGBT people than staying silent.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mspMJTNEY
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdvM_pRfuFM