The transphobia isn't related to the 'fact' about Thailand. If anything, the fact that it's a reference point is the reason why the sentiment is distasteful. The implication/joke is:

* A person goes into a bar in Thailand, sees what they think is a girl and are surprised to find that things are not what they seem.

Broken down:

* Person sees a girl

* It is not a girl

* This is a bad thing

Now, it would be easy to claim (as indeed you and GP seem to be doing) that this isn't a slur on the second party in this encounter. It's a fact of the world. They exist. OP, the person who is saying that 'things are what they seem to be' would probably not want to find themselves in a situation where they making an assumption that the person is female.

The fact that this is negative can be seen in the 'I hope you don't' words which set the tone and are the basis of most of the sarcasm. I have to say that even if GP had picked a different example, I don't like this kind of comment anyway. It's a bitter, jabby comment that I don't think furthers discussion and overall makes HN a more negative and uncomfortable place to be.

So an assumption I made, which of course is debatable, is that the setting of 'bar' implies a romantic or sexual intent on the first party. GP will probably deny or refute this, but really without this implication there isn't much of a joke to speak of. "I spoke to this girl and it turned out she was a dude! What larks we had!".

GP seems to be making this claim in this comment:

>Nice to see confusing a joke reference to a regional fact (as to things that can seem X but be Y) with transphobia. Anybody told you that merely referencing trans women in Thailand is opposing them? Projecting much?

If it was 'merely referencing' then it wouldn't be a joke. 'Merely referencing' would we to reword the comment as:

"Things are not always what they seem, like commonly accepted phenomena of Thaiwanese ladyboys".

I mean, not much different, and still in poor taste for a thread that is about beautiful code, but the tone of the comment is completely changed. It's now no longer a jab at the PC, but using a counterexample to illustrate a point.

And why is suggesting that someone being shocked to discover a ladyboy transphobic anyway? Basically, it boils down to the fact that trans people have to suffer against stigma that they're somehow 'out to trick' people and that unassuming straight males need to 'watch out'. This comment is a prime example of this. It's literally a warning. Sure, it's mild transphobia, but it's perpetuating this stigma and I feel like Hackernews generally, and this thread specifically, are not really places for this kind of comment.

I normally wouldn't write this much out about this topic, but GP seemed very upset about their comment being called transphobic. Note, I didn't call them transphobic at all. I didn't actually make any comment about them, their person, their intent or anything. Just that the comment was 'casual transphobia' which I firmly believe that it is.

Let's break down the rest of their comment:

>Well, I am amazed that one can be so rude.

In both cases they use my own words back to me. I'm not sure why. It seems to be a mix of defensiveness and sarcasm. I don't actually think I was being rude - certainly no ruder than they were being to who they were commenting to. I felt that their original comment was snide.

>First, you come blazing with accusations of transphobia

I called the comment transphobic. Addressed above.

>to challenge the parents' notion that everything is WYSIWYG

Not very well.

>Do you even know me? Or you have a hobby of randomly assuming things about people you don't know?

This is incredibly defensive. Especially the second part. It's not enough to call out transphobia, they have to then pile on unfounded accusations of 'randomly assuming things about people' I don't know. I think the irony of this is amazing. They're literally accusing me of doing exactly what they're doing. It's like a bad girlfriend stereotype. (If you want to do some whataboutism, why not pick apart the inherent sexism of that comment? I'll give you a starter for 10 by lampshading it).

>econd, when I don't take that quietly, you add the above comment about having the gal to defend myself, going for the "This animal is extremely vicious. When attacked, it defends itself" angle...

So GP edited this comment a couple of times. Originally this was basically all there was. 'Having the gal' to defend themselves is a laugh. There was no self reflection, no admission that what they wrote could have been seen as transphobic. Just immediately jump to a victim paradox. 'Poor old me being attacked by nasty SJW just for merely mentioning ladyboys. Is it a crime? What did I do wrong????'

>Perhaps you can go even lower against some stranger on the internet, but you wont be getting any replies from me in this thread.

I mean I love this sign off. It's the reason I knew I had gotten to them and the reason I didn't reply. They didn't want to hear it. It was clear they weren't going to learn, and in fact they're telling me that they don't want a response anyway. I love the way that they're so deep in the role of the victim that they think I'm going to go off and harass more strangers. It's a lovely thought, but I don't do that. I just calls em as I sees em.

So anyway, I'm glad that you don't see the transphobia, but I don't think I was wrong to call them out on what I saw as implied transphobia.