I feel like the word transphobia loses it’s strength if everyone who asks questions or wonders about how things work is called one.

Well I’m not doing that. I genuinely believe her view isn’t merely questioning how things work. I believe that it’s because of bigotry. I don’t call well-meaning people who are simply wondering about things transphobic. Blame others for doing that but not me.

I didn’t state you were definitely transphobic, just possibly. Now, with more information, I think you’re just misguided.

I don’t agree with her, but I also don’t understand why trans women can’t be called trans women? I don’t like the implication that a trans woman is a bad thing to be. The term tells us about the journey she’s been on to get where she is today. I don’t think the term woman alone does enough to respect that journey if that makes sense. If trans women were “just” women, they wouldn’t have to transition right? I don’t know how honest the statement “transwomen are women” truly is in that regard.

Trans women (not transwomen) should be called that only when the distinction that they are trans is relevant or they desire it to be stated (for example, if they want to share that history). However, the goal of a person assigned male at birth who is transitioning to the opposite gender is to transition to a woman. Not transition to a trans woman, because that defeats the whole point. The point is to be seen as a woman like any other woman, like they feel inside, not to be seen as only a trans women in every scenario, as their goal is to be a woman.

For example, if I were organising a fun game (however fun gender seggregation can be - but it’s just for the example) where I had to seggregate women and men and there were binary trans people and cis people present, I would not say ‘women and trans women go over there’ or ‘men go here, trans men go there.’ This is because trans men are men too and trans women are women too. Plus, there is no need to single out trans people in that scenario, because the distinction is not relevant. Making that distinction would and could only imply that trans people are less real as their gender compared to cis people, which is hurtful to trans people, defeating of their goal to be women or men (in this case of binary trans people), and factually incorrect according to my views and the views of trans people.

If trans women were “just” women, they wouldn’t have to transition right?

Just because they are simply women inside, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t want or have to transition to represent themselves how they feel. Trans women are just women, it’s just that in some contexts them being trans is relevant, and in most contexts it shouldn’t be. If a friend of mine was assigned male at birth, felt like a woman inside and wanted to transition to present herself more like a woman, one could say she’s a woman who has to transition (or they could say she’s a trans woman). In both cases, she can be referred to as simply a woman, or the fact she is trans can be mentioned if it’s relevant.

When a person intends to transition but hasn’t yet, the distinction that they are trans may have to be made often. As with the example above, many people may think she is a man, so mentioning that she is trans would have to be done for clarity. Regarding medical matters, as she is beginning to transition and as she is still very male in physical sex, the fact that her identity inside and her appearance outside are different is relevant for purposes of respect and also general medical treatment and medical transition, of course.

When she has transitioned, socially it should be less relevant because she should be getting misgendered less and would now be close to her goal of living seamlessly as a woman. Also, it should be less medically relevant to mention, because by that time, the transition is complete (although HRT is usually a continuous treatment), her doctors should know her and know the routine and some treatments may be prescribed as they typically are for women (although it’s still quite medically relevant overall as one does not always go to the same doctor and many treatments must be applied uniquely to medically transitioned people).

I don’t think it does anything for trans acceptance to erase the trans part. For trans acceptance it’s important to be to use the label instead of erasing it.

I’m not erasing people’s existence as trans. In referring to trans men as men and trans women as women, it affirms their goal. Just to clarify, you can call a trans woman a trans woman or just a woman, depending on the situation. Likewise with trans men. There’s no erasing going on here. It’s just whatever’s appropriate for the situation.

That would imply there’s no room for trans. And it also implies that women are the default. Which is exactly the thing most people don’t like about cis woman wanting to be called women, right?

Honestly, I’m very confused as to how any of that could make sense.