Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

>I don't keep up on the latest trends of vernacular [..] Out of curiosity, what is the current preferred nomenclature for what used to be "transexual"?

The preferred term is "transgender", or just "trans (people)". Which might not seem like a huge distinction, but most of the people you'd be having a discussion consider "transexual" to be at least mildly offensive, due to various implications that aren't important to go over here. The point is that very few people use it except for much older trans people, aside from much older trans people who you likely won't find on the internet much.

There's nothing inherently wrong with using the antiquated term - the euphemism tread is a real phenomenon, as you pointed out. But using a term that almost no one on the other side uses (and claiming no knowledge) is an indication that you haven't actually put in much effort at all in listening to and understanding the other side. Especially when your defense amounts to "I haven't checked for 10 years". When your specific criticism of liberals is that they don't "listen and consider and understand", if you and the peoples' arguments you view don't even spend enough time looking at the opposing viewpoints to be aware of which terms they'd generally prefer not to be referred to by, I would hope you can see why the people opposing them wouldn't be motivated to do the same.

I didn't say these "shut down the conversation" (in fact, I think I spent enough words elaborating on everything else that that is a particularly unfair and non-understanding accusation), but rather to illustrate the reasons why you're saying the polarization you do.

That being said, I am shutting down the conversation here, since I don't want to get into another HN comments flame war, and I've already pushed that line an unwise amount. You're welcome to reply further and get in the last word, if you'd like.

If you're interested in continuing this topic, I'd urge you to read Scott Alexander's blog posts on Steelmanning and the culture war, as he has much smarter and more articulate things to say about it than I do. I linked one of them elsewhere in this thread, I think it's the most relevant:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...

or any of his other top posts

https://slatestarcodex.com/top-posts/

>The preferred term is "transgender", or just "trans (people)".

Yes, now that you said it, I remember.

>But using a term that almost no one on the other side uses (and claiming no knowledge) is an indication that you haven't actually put in much effort at all in listening to and understanding the other side.

It's not the other side to me, I'm all for equal civil rights of all people. I'm vehemently against violence or bullying against other people and believe people should be given the benefit of the doubt and judged by the actions of their character. My only concern with any aspect of the trans movement is people born as males and aging past puberty competing with females in female sports. I don't think it's fair to females, they are just too strong biologically. Females have been fighting for rights for over a century now and this particular aspect seriously encroaches on that. We have men's and women's sports for a reason. It can also be extremely dangerous in contact sports.

https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/news-when-transgender-fighte...

I'm sure I got some of the nomenclature wrong, but you get the idea.

>That being said, I am shutting down the conversation here, since I don't want to get into another HN comments flame war, and I've already pushed that line an unwise amount. You're welcome to reply further and get in the last word, if you'd like.

I understand, I was about to do the same. Thanks for the decency in our discussion, I learned some stuff.

A lot of state governors refused to take Medicare funding for the ACA and it was a very unpopular move. I think it's mainly the conservative politicians that don't like it because they have to put it in their budget. Conservative citizens, by and large, particularly older ones like it, but it's part of the conservative "package." Social security is along the same lines. As soon as a conservative politician starts talking about cutting social security, his or her days are numbered.

I don't think so. I'm not particularly interested in 'status', but I do want to propagate my opinions. When I'm replying to a comment online--like this one--I'm not really thinking of changing your opinion. I'm thinking how other people are going to read our comments, and what opinions they're coming away with. I don't care what they think of me, or of you, but I care what ideas propagate. Unfortunately, that undermines our conversation.