Labels are not important. Well except when they are needed to define something. In this case the term Transgendered needs to be defined and who it encompasses is important even if we do not like it. Let's put it into say a bill, like...oh I don't know...let's just call it ENDA for fun. If you write the bill to say it will prevent discrimination for transgendered individuals and then define TG as encompassing Transsexuals (who would have a definition) Gender Dysphoric people (another subset with its own definition) and so on and so on it makes it a lot harder for someone to line out certain subsets. If not as an umbrella term then the bill could pass for only drag queens let's say. Why? Because the people supporting the bill are afraid of transsexuals and crossdressers (who tend to hang out where they don't want them to) but DQ's because they are on stage and aren't really gender questioning but entertainers. See?
OK we don't like labels. I don't like labels in any day to day activity for the most part, but they do serve a purpose. We need to communicate with people every day. We all accept the word "human" as a set standard. There are subsets under that where people define themselves even more but as an umbrella term we are human. This is how we communicate to others. Say "dog" and people see in their minds a certain dog. Maybe the one they had when they were young. But under dog we can say German Shepherd and that makes it more specific. Does this make sense?
This subject is posted about every month I think. It always leads to "Don't call me Shirley" by someone who takes offense because they don't want to be put in a box. OK We get it. Sorry if we stepped on your toes. It always seems to be taken as someone poking a stick into a den of vipers (which are in fact a subset of snakes which is a subset of reptiles....But you immediately saw in your mind a viper not a Bull snake. Point made?)
