““Walking up to a Trans person, assuming they are either a guy in drag or what have, is Transphobic.””
This is actually not transphobic or any other similarly response oriented action at all. This is an assumption, plain and simple, and a defendible assumption based on your outward appearence. We use assumptions every day to do all sorts of things. I assume that I see snow outside the window, it is cold. Thats not me being weatherphobic, it is me using a rational argument. You present appearence wise as a man with breasts, regardless of which pronouns you’ve chosen to use that day. If I were to meet you in a dark room, and you spoke, and it sounded manlike, I would also assume you are a male. That isn’t transphobic. A phobia specifically refers to hatred or distolerance of something, and acting in accordance to that hatred. Walking up to you and making a joke doesn’t conform to the definition of the word, or its intent.
““You don’t have to know if the person is Trans to be Transphobic. That’s like saying to someone “Oh, he didn’t know you were Spanish when he called you a Spic. So, he wasn’t really being racist.””
Actually, you do, if you’re referring to that persons actions specifically towards the offended party. By definition of the word, being phobic requires taking an action out of hatred or distolerance. If you don’t know someone is Red, you can’t hate them for being Red. You may begin hating them upon learning this new information, but your hatred towards them doesn’t exist until then.
““If you find that funny, good on you. Myself, I can’t always go “hahaha, you’re making a joke at my expense. Good one.” I understand that there is a prevailing thought that everyone has a say on whether or not someone can be upset but the truth of the matter is it is not a democracy. It is a person’s right to be upset by something.””
You yourself acknowledged after the fact that it is your understanding that Ali was not making a joke at anyone’s expense. Assuming that at the time you genuinely percieved a slight, it was on you to assume the need for and request clarification. A simple question directed at Ali, and not at a judge, would very obviously have clarified quickly the mistaken understanding, and likely would have returned an immediate and humbled apology. Instead, to put it into a metaphor for you, someone’s dog peed on your lawn and you responded by calling in the police, rather than speaking with the owner. Then, you went on your local TV station and made sure to denounce the dog owner as a terrible person who required public shaming and personal loss to alleviate the damage caused by his actions. From a non-rediculous stance, a comparison of the damage caused by your response, compared to the damage caused by his statement, could easily reflect that somebody scratched the paint on your car, so you shot them. Don’t blame you though, you’re the victim.
As for your last sentence, I would caution broad open ended sentences in public writing. If what you say is true, then I have the right to be offended that you are transgendered at all. You have no defensible position from there, because it’s my ‘right’, a term implying an infalliable justification. You’ll respond that I’m bigoted for thinking that way, and I’ll respond that you shouldn’t be labeling me as a bigot, which is a label, and that I’ve been triggered by your hateful label. From there, I’ll point out that labeling people a bigot that you’ve never met is onomatophobic, and we’ll have a truly rediculous and circular argument that goes nowhere, because nothing is being said. Instead, the intent is to establish who has been victimized the most. Once this is established, the most victimy victim can reside atop the moral high throne, from whence we will dictate labels of Bigot and Phobic and demand tribute to the moral throne via unending grovel and apology for our obviously offensive attempt to engage you with humor.
Clearly that wasn’t the intent of your sentence, just as it clearly wasn’t the intent of Ali to engage you in a manner that might offend you, cost him his standing in a tournament he stood to potentially gain income from, and jeopardize his job. You took your victim flag, stamped your TRANS label on it, and ran it free and loud for any and all to hear in a time period where people are only too happy to get a bandwagon to follow.
I worked at a job once where the “send-to-all” feature of our email was restricted. It was a great responsibility to make sure it was used appropriately, because everyone would get a copy of each and every email, errors included. Every spelling error, every ill written tone or harshly written word, sent to everyone. You’ve taken your issue with one person, a person you yourself declare yourself not to know, and whom you don’t know to have ever committed any other “transphobic” behavior, and you’ve published it to everyone you can find who will listen. This is the reason that send-to-all should be a privilege.