I appreciate you reading my articles.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to answer your question, for the following reasons:

You said “the modern definition of transphobic…is ‘having or showing a dislike of or strong prejudice against transgender people,’” and a few sentences later, you added “Transphobe means heretic…” Here, you've provided two definitions. (The latter seems to date back to a 2018 Brendan O'Neill column, though it's been echoed in more recent diatribes by Rowling and Dawkins.) Perhaps you’re implicitly acknowledging that a word may be used in different contexts, or by different people, or that it may be received differently by different audiences, etc. (I can’t workshop this definition of the word “definition” for you.) Meanwhile, you say I haven’t explained how anyone “meet[s] the actual definition” of transphobe, yet you're pointing out two definitions (so, there isn’t one definition that is “the” definition) or perhaps you're implying that the definition is a matter of interpretation (in which case, no definitions are the actual definition). Again, I can’t workshop this for you, nor can I begin explaining to you how anyone meets “the actual definition” of anything, given how slippery you've made it. You imply that the actual definition is the one that you provide, and in the same breath, you give two definitions. This question is set up to be unanswerable in principle.

Another central issue here is that you seem to be arguing — though I’m reading between the lines — that speech itself cannot cause harm. Or, if you're not exactly arguing that, it seems to be the place you're preparing for retreat. When convenient, one could say that anyone can say anything, for words are but mist, and each is entitled to their own mist. (Yet you object to my articles...?)

I suppose you could reduce my hundreds of articles to the position that (supposedly) I believe one thing and I’m just upset that other people believe something else (“should people just not be allowed to say things you don't like?”), but anyone's arguments could be reduced to that. Everyone likes and believes some things and dislikes and disbelieves other things. So that's at least an oversimplification—but no, indeed it's a total erasure—of whatever specific theses you object to

You like the Greek word hairetikos, "able to choose." As an atheist Jew who majored in philosophy, I also feel a certain appreciation for that word and for its implications. Obviously, freethought is good, and philosophers should not be persecuted. Here is my suggestion: Try applying the positive connotations of that word, heretic, to trans people. Why not just let trans people choose their gender? Or are you, perhaps, calling trans people heretics in the negative sense, because they are choosing something you’d like to forbid them to choose?