>Trans people do not violate the gender binary. They were the one and want to be the other. Non-binary people is the label for people who violate the gender binary. There are people who want transition to non binary state but that is a minority of Trans people.

I was typing on my phone. I should have typed it all out. I know there is a difference between trans and gender binary. I should have been more complete in my wording.

>What many of them believe in is that a soul has a sex and that God makes no mistake when assigning souls to bodys. So they believe to be Trans is to act against Gods will.

Why are you bringing up religion? There are millions of nonreligious people who deny trans is a thing. So much for steel manning.

>I also found no such poll either. The polls i found for the US very a lot on the question being asked. Trans people in the military, strong support. Trans athletes not so much

Here is the poll
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/america...

"A rising share say a person’s gender is determined by their sex at birth"

"Majority of U.S. adults say gender is determined by sex assigned at birth"

>Also why focus this on the US? Elliot Page and Jordan B Peterson are both Canadian. A country where there is a solid support for trans people at least since the 2010s. So it is not controversial there at all.

Page lives in America.

>In fact the complete Bill C16 stuff from Jordan B Peterson was him drawing attention to the fact that he disagreed with the direction his society was taking. His stance against the Bill was controversial

I think a lot of people who opposed Peterson's position don't actually know what his position is. He does not actually oppose using people's preferred pronouns in general. He has said this many times. He is opposed to forcing people use preferred pronouns and will use non-preferred pronouns when people try to force him to do otherwise.

>So i do not see how i am obtuse here talking about (a potential legal matter between) two Canadians and applying Canadian standards.

I was saying you were being obtuse for not understanding why somebody may not support your view.

Also, like I said above one of them lives in America which is why the US is important.

>Your definition differs with the country where the legal system would settle whether it is harassment.

Which legal system would take it? The one where the alleged victim lives or the one where the alleged attacker lives?

>Where i interpreted "this" to mean "As society we agreed that calling trans people by their old identity repeatedly is a thing they do not want (unless specified by them otherwise)" as you refer to my standard of harassment later explicitly.

I don't think anybody denies trans people do not want to be referred to with their previous pronouns. That however, was not what I was saying.

>You will not be able to find survey even under evangelical Christians which denies that " calling trans people by their old identity repeatedly is a thing they (Trans people in context of the original quote) do not want". This is statement of observation. Evangelicals are aware of this they do in fact do the opposite to harass trans people sometimes.

Had no clue you are telepathic and can determine people's motives. Surely it could just be that they literally do not believe something is true so they don't say it? Instead of steel manning like you talked about in your first paragraph you are straw manning and assuming motives.

Also, why are you continuing to bring up religion which has no impact on this issue?

>Now that i have taken apart what you wrote at the point you were replying to me, accusing me not to read, tell me: Is it agreed and non controversial that "Trans people don't want to be called by their previous gender"?

I am not suggesting that trans people not wanted to be called their previous gender is controversial?

So much for taking apart what I wrote.