[itishappy]

Simpler than "treat people how they look and act, update your assumptions if corrected"?

This system can break down for some trans people (although I bet most make excessive effort to present as their preferred gender), but it also breaks down for effeminate males and masculine women (and I bet this is the larger category). Despite these difficulties, it's worked for literally all of history until people started pretending they don't know how pronouns work. Test it yourself by taking a look at Lynn's picture and asking which pronouns you'd use.

I'm not sure how invoking genetics simplifies anything. Have you had your sex chromosomes checked? I haven't, and triple-X and KS are often undiagnosed! I'd hate to have to update my drivers license to "unclassified" in my 30s.

[umvi]

Yes, it's simpler because it's immutable. It's the mutability of identity that causes so much confusion and complexity. In Lynn's case she was a man the first 30+ years of life and even married and had kids. Then later switched genders, names, and pronouns. That's anything but simple since now every person and computer database that ever knew her now has to track and reconcile 2 identities. It's incredibly confusing when people change their identities later in life, especially if you are out of the loop. Even more confusing if people change identities multiple times.

I actually don't really care too much which classification system is used (chromosomes vs. observable genitalia at birth vs. something else), I just think the pros of collectively treating certain aspects of identity as immutable such as gender, race, and possibly even name, outweigh the cons of making a tiny fraction of the populace slightly more uncomfortable.

[itishappy]

You're arguing that somebody who wears dresses and has breasts should be referred to as male? That pronouns shouldn't be based on appearance or preference like we've done throughout history, we should instead invent new classifications based upon unobservable characteristics like genetics or genitalia at birth? And that this is all being done to reduce confusion?

I'll be honest. I'm confused.

[umvi]

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I personally think it's simpler to continue to refer to "Chelsea Manning" as "Bradley Manning" with he/him, even if they decided later to completely change their identity. Close friends can call them "Chelsea" out of respect, but society should not rewrite history to erase all traces of "Bradley" in order to accommodate one individual's mental health struggles. I find (the history rewriting) to be extremely confusing and, frankly, Orwellian. That said, if I'm interacting with a trans person that prefers some name/pronouns, I will use them out of respect, even if I fundamentally disagree with a lot of trans activism.

[itishappy]

Do you hold the same views about marriage? That changing one's last name is is confusing and Orwellian? That close friends might humor the individual out of respect, but society at large should refuse to allow history to be rewritten?

[umvi]

I personally am against changing of last names at marriage and encouraged my wife not to change hers.

But to directly address your point... the main difference here is that "dead names" and "dead pronouns" are considered harmful and/or offensive and are therefore actively hunted and scrubbed from history by activists, unlike maiden names which are considered benign.