It is only the tyranny of the theist that requires me to be called an atheist. Why must I be

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

Last edited Sat Mar 30, 2013, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)

classified in any way in regards the topic? The only reason I ever think about "god" is that is is thrust upon me by theists trying to control my behavior and my government in accordance with their beliefs.

There are a lot of things I am not, but only religion and perhaps nationalism insist that I be classified and identified according to that fact.

TYRANNY

DEFINITION
: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock — Dixon Wecter


EXAMPLES:
Cars freed Americans, already infamous for their mobility, from the tyranny of train schedules. —Cynthia Crossen, Wall Street Journal, 7 May 2003

She felt lost in the bureaucratic tyrannies of the university system.

[struggle4progress]

1. You can define yourself however you want, as far as I'm concerned

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

3. Thanks. Too bad that attitude in not far more prevelant.

[Kolesar]

2. I am an atheist because I had to throw that monkey off my psyche

I think about it a lot. I was oppressed and manipulated.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

4. My point exactly. Your atheism was forced by theists. Oppressive and manipulative theists.

[Warpy]

28. Mine wasn't, not really

Oh, I knew the church was FOS and I spent a lot of time on my knees on bare marble for asking uncomfortable questions, but I was out of there at the age of 10.

The reason I'm an atheist is because I've simply never seen any evidence at all to support the existence of a god, especially the meddlesome god of the bible. And I'm too honest to pretend that I have.

In my case, it's probably hard wired. I really didn't have a choice to become a believer or even go along to get along. It's just not part of my own makeup.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with anyone else.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

41. Of course, but you miss my point. If others weren't claming some imaginary papa in the sky existed,

and expecting you to believe it, it wouldn't have been required of you to reject it and have that be named and be significant factor. You probably don't believe in unicorns either, but do you have a word you call yourself to specifically describe that lack of belief?

[Warpy]

48. And if it never rained, we wouldn't ever have sunshine?

They're just words.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

50. How deep.

[longship]

5. That is why I call myself an atheist.

You hit the nail right on the head.

And some theists often label atheists as "strident", "militant", or compare us as "Hitler", "Stalin", etc. and, of course there's always the devil worship claim or Pascal's wager.

I just want to be left to myself and not have people use their position in government to impose their religious beliefs on others. Until that happens I will remain an outspoken atheist.

[cbayer]

9. Hello my atheist friend!

If you get a chance, please check out the new Interfaith group.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1264

[longship]

10. Been meaning to do that.

It's been a busy month for me.

I will check it out soon. It's definitely on my list of ToDo things.

[cbayer]

11. Thanks. Figured you were busy, since you haven't been around.

[Common Sense Party]

6. "The tyranny of the theist"? Melodrama much?

Point taken, though. You can label yourself whatever you want. You do as you please, and I will do as I please.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

12. Melodrama fits the topic. I don't think you do take my point because a large part of that point is

requirement that I be labeled anything at all in reference to the beliefs of theists.

Also, I use tyranny in this sense: : a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock — Dixon Wecter>

[Common Sense Party]

25. Actually I DO take your point. I said as much.

You have no way to dispute that. Point taken. And, yes, you're being needlessly melodramatic.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

42. On further condsideration, I disagree that I'm even being melodramatic. If you don't notice the

immense power and influence the Christian faith has in our nation, and how one aspect of that power and influence in encompaased in what I claimed in the OP, you're not paying attention or you're in denial.

[hrmjustin]

7. You need to classify yourself as you want and if someone does not like it that is tough.

Peace

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

13. I used myself in the OP to make a more general point about the foisting of religion on all of us

by the requirement that we declare and be labeled. It's just an accepted thing, even by those who really don't choose to have religion--acceptance or rejection--enter into their lives. It's a good trick the theists play trying to force everyone to be an ally or a target.

[cbayer]

8. There is a tendency among members of any group to make you take a side

or a label. When it comes to religion, I am very reluctant to claim a label of any sort, though some try to push me into one corner or another.

I think this is true for many people and explains the rapid rise in the "nones".

You do not need to be classified. That's entirely up to you.

If you feel strongly about church/state issues, you are a secularist, which really has nothing to do with being either a theist or an atheist.

Take a stand, if you wish, and refuse to be labeled.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

15. Great point about secularism. Though, in general, atheists will be more likely to qualify.

I stand by my initial frustration, however, in terms of the labeling not really being left to any of us as a choice, hence the tyranny.
: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock — Dixon Wecter>

[cbayer]

17. There are many who consider themselves both theists and secularists, but

I agree that it is more likely that an atheists will also be a secularist.

My experience has been that some theists and some atheists want you to take a position, and, if you don't, they will take one for you, lol.

I see no tyranny here at all. The labeling is entirely up to you. If I had to choose a label, I would say apatheist - I don't know if there is a god or not and it doesn't really make any difference to me.

Can you give an example of how you have been forced to take on a label? How do you think those that consider themselves "spiritual but not religious" deal with it? For me, this is far from an either/or situation and to make it one generally ends up being divisive.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

18. I used myself in the OP to make a more general point about how it is expected of everyone to have an

opinion. The Right has made it their mission to make everyone take a stand so that they can attack those who do not stand with them. The video here is a good example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=73958

In general, we are repeatedly expected to take either believe or not believe. I have a great passion for many things. I don't require everyone to have a position on those passions. But a great many people think they have a right to expect others to have an opinion on the matter of religion because it is a prevalent thing.

On a more personal level, in my life, I have had many negative personal encounters, where I have been strongly pressured to be religious or suffer the consequences.

The lead singer/leader of a band I was in kicked my husband and I out of the band because my husband did not join the flock.

On night, after he'd been in the band about three years, my husband was invited over to the band-leader's house. He was subjected to a hard-sell on the fundyism. When he said he was not interested he was told that now that he has been told, he will definitely go to hell for not accepting "the truth".

The next week, on stage, the band-leader make a dramatic speech, saying that "for reasons beyond his control" this would be our last gig. He didn't even have the decency to do this at the end of the night. He did it in the second set. When we asked for an explanation, thinking perhaps he or his wife were ill, he refused to discuss it.

We did not want to be unprofessional and refuse to play the 3rd and 4th sets, so we continued until the end of the night. At which point he made some BS excuse about how he thought my husband should have done more to promote the band being the "reson beyond his control."

Another example, an assistant principal required us to report our church involvement to her as part of an evaluation. You may say, "She can't do that," but she did.

[cbayer]

19. Well all I can suggest to you is to use the power you have to resist it

and refuse to be labeled.

Honestly, I have felt this pressure from both theists and atheists. It is generally from people who see themselves as having the *correct* position and the need to define you one way or another so that they can determine 1) whether you are on their team or not and 2) whether you are wrong or right.

Being discriminated against (as in your band example) is quite a different thing. It seems it would have made no difference whether you had assumed a label or not. You weren't one of *them*. Would they have been more tolerant if you were Muslim?

My daughter is currently in a difficult situation. She has married a Muslim and his family is insistent that she convert. The question is whether she should "convert" in label only or whether she should refuse.

These are problems faced by many kinds of people, be they believers or not.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

44. Yes, problems abound in life, but in the OP I was talking about a specific problem--the fact that

a common belief in fairy tales creates a condition in society in which one being such a believer or not is considered of extreme importance and everyone's business. Sure, there are ways of resisting. I resent the requirement to resist or succumb. Again, I don't see your pointing out other problems in life being relevant here.

I think you're wrong about the band thing. If my husband and I had claimed to believe, bandleader would have been very happy to keep us in the band.

[cbayer]

47. Perhaps if you stopped calling other people's beliefs "fairy tales", you would

experience more acceptance and understanding.

As to your experience with the band, I don't know why you would want to be part of a group that would exclude you based only on your religious beliefs or lack of beliefs. My question was, would they have accepted you as a believer if you were a Muslim or Jew? Sounds like you ran into some religious bigotry.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

51. The music, that's why. The fact that anyone's religious beliefs had to enter into it at all is the

problem, but we made music and had fun for a number of years before it apparently became an insurmountable problem.

They are fairy tales. Why should I lie?

[cbayer]

53. Why is it that religion only came up after years of peaceful harmony?

You have the right to call it anything you want, but I would wonder whether your attitude that what they believe in are "fairy tales" played a role in the whole scenario.

If you see their beliefs as fairy tales and that to say otherwise would be a *lie*, implies that you have the *truth*.

And that, my friend, is perhaps why you have been "labeled".

[cleanhippie]

80. You're right, it's not a lie, it's ignorance.

Willfull ignorance of reality and facts about the world we live in.

[eomer]

21. I can give an example that applies to almost all of us.

At my nephew's high school graduation I stood silently during the Pledge of Allegiance. Afterward my mother-in-law made an issue of it, spreading that information through my extended family. I was pressured to explain that it was because I do not agree with "under God".

Almost all of us are forced, at some time or another, to either say the pledge or not, and thereby to pick one or another label, publicly.

And there are plenty of theists who are willing to make an issue or scandal over someone declining to say it, in my personal experience.

[cbayer]

22. Why not just omit those words?

Again, secularists, some of whom are also theists, generally object to that phrase as well.

Not saying it doesn't mean one has to identify as anything other than a secularist.

I recognize that there are theists who will make an issue out of it, but it really has nothing to do with having to self-identify as an atheist.

[eomer]

23. Why not? Because it reduces the exercise to an offensive farce.

Why shouldn't we all stand, then, and each say our own words, whichever we choose. Maybe not a bad idea but certainly the essential point of saying the pledge is that everyone says the same pledge.

And if I did stay silent on just the words "under God" then most people wouldn't notice and I would have effectively accepted the label publicly as far as anyone besides myself would know. So the effect is exactly the same as saying all the words since the only one who would know the difference would be me and I already know where I stand, don't need to say a pledge for myself.

And maybe the pledge should also include a statement of being straight and anyone who isn't can covertly omit those words. And maybe people of color can discreetly leave out the words where we say the USA is mainly for white people. (Sarcasm, in case it's not clear.)

An outrageously ridiculous proposal, an offensive one, in my opinion.

[cbayer]

24. Again, not wanting the words "under god" in there or not being willing

to support them by not saying it has nothing to do with being an atheist. It is about secularism and church/state separation issues.

You have countered your own argument here, imo. You make the case that if you just omitted the words you would miss the opportunity to make a statement. Then you complain that others notice and object to the statement you are making. You can't have it both ways, imo.

The words should be removed from the pledge, imo (and the money, etc, etc). If you wish to make a point about it by not saying the entire pledge of allegiance, then you should be prepared to defend your point.

I don't think this is a good example of what the OP is saying.

[eomer]

29. I never said it had to do with being atheist.

I had no desire to make any public statement about God at my nephew's commencement. I was there for other reasons. I was put into a situation where making no statement whatsoever was not one of the choices.

If I left the two words out then there are two possible outcomes:

1. No one notices my omission in which case I've created a public appearance of making a statement I didn't wish to
   
2. Someone does notice my omission in which case I've made a different public statement that I didn't wish to

In other words, I was forced to publicly choose a label, which is what I joined the conversation to say.

[Starboard Tack]

59. You seem overly concerned about what others think of you

How can you be forced to recite the pledge, or anything for that matter. You were not forced to publicly choose a label. Maybe you were intimidated, but not forced.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

61. If you are in a room where people are reciting the pledge, you are by circumstance "forced" to

either say it or not say it along with them. You must do one or the other.

[Starboard Tack]

62. Then you are not forced, you have the choice to do one or the other.

Unless you are being threatened in some way, how on earth can you be forced?

[eomer]

63. Correct, but that's what we said in the first place.

Please read the OP and this subthread - what we said was that the issue is thrust upon us and we're forced to take a position, to choose a label.

The topic of God is thrust upon us and we're forced to take some public position on it. I wasn't forced to pledge, I was forced to choose to either pledge or not, publicly.

In fact that's the point of scheduling a public recitation of a pledge of allegiance - to force people to take a public position one way or another.

The pledge is an example of being explicitly, intentionally forced to choose a public position. There are other more subtle ways that I'm forced to take a position - for example when I sneeze in public almost invariably one of the people around me says "God bless you". I always reply "thank you" but what I would like to say is "no thank you". Or even more so I would like to ask the person not to thrust God upon me but rather to wish me health if anything. But I don't because it would be a public scene and even more of a public position on God. Every time this occurs I feel uncomfortable, just so perhaps someone reading this who is in the habit of saying that will know.

[Starboard Tack]

64. You are still using the word "forced", which is complete nonsense.

Nobody can force anyone to pledge allegiance to a flag, a deity or anything else. Sounds like you have deeper issues. To feel victimized by someone saying "God bless you" for sneezing kinda says it all. How a few kind words from a believer can offend you is beyond baffling. Are you really so insecure, or do you feel genuine hostility toward believers?
Remember that an act of kindness is still an act of kindness, regardless the religion of the giver of such kindness.
I don't believe in a deity, but I often say "Bless you!" when someone sneezes, or "Bless him/her" when I feel someone merits some special love. I'm not calling on a deity when I say that, but am speaking from my heart. IMO, there is no finer virtue than humility and if we all aspired to it, the world would be a far better place.

[eomer]

65. You are still misstating what I said.

I didn't say I was forced to pledge. I said I was forced to publicly choose to either pledge or not pledge.

And wouldn't it be more considerate to wish people well in a way that doesn't insert your religious views that they may not share?

[Starboard Tack]

66. And how exactly were you "forced to publicly choose"?

And yes, it might be more considerate to wish people well in a way that doesn't insert religious views. However, the important thing is that they wish you well. The fact that they insert their religious views indicates sincerity. So why complain?

[eomer]

68. It's obvious how I was forced to publicly choose.

All of us who were at that public event at a public school were asked to rise and say the pledge. At that point my only choices were to rise and say the pledge or not (with a couple of possible variations of the latter). I chose the latter - to rise and remain silent - as is my usual practice. Was there another choice I'm missing (one that doesn't require dishonesty)?

[okasha]

69. So you did exactly what cbayer and I

have sometimes done. despite all the typage downthread. The difference seems to be that you felt forced to remain silent, while I did so out of free choice, in protest. I can't speak for cbayer here, but I would assume she also made a deliberate and principled decision.

[Starboard Tack]

70. You had a choice to comply with a request or not. You chose to partially comply, by standing.

This hardly amounts to labeling yourself in public. If you are so sensitive in these situations, then you may want to consider avoiding them. Otherwise, you might embrace the opportunity to exercise your 1st Amendment rights.
Personally, I would have remained seated. Nobody can force me to say something I don't believe in, or force me to adopt any labels. If others wish to label me because they perceive me as different, then that is their prerogative. But that is on them, if they choose to judge. My decision to not participate in certain rituals is personal and in no way a judgment against those who do participate.
Even when I was a theist, I would never have pledged allegiance to a flag. The absurdity is mind numbing.

[eomer]

72. And then you've chosen the label of the person who protested the pledge.

It is intentionally a test of allegiance.

And to not explain yourself (to not choose a more specific label) doesn't really help - the more general label is enough.

[Starboard Tack]

73. I don't "protest" the pledge. I take no part in it.

I have no issue with those who want to pledge allegiance, it's their business. If they have an issue with my not pledging, that is their problem. Like you, I won't lie to please others, but not doing something is not necessarily a protest. What others choose to do or say does not make me feel persecuted, unless they specifically target me for my beliefs, or lack thereof.
When a person of faith prays or partakes of some religious rite, I doubt that by doing so, he/she intends to offend non-believers. Just as my non participation is not intended to offend.
"Do unto others...." is the golden rule.

[eomer]

75. If people want to spontaneously pledge, or whatever, speak in tongues, pray to gods...

let them do whatever they want on their own time. The pledge is an official part of the program specifically because people are expected to participate and that makes declining to participate a type of public statement. If it's not one to you, in your own mind, and that's all you care about then you've got no issue. My point, however, was about making a public statement. And in fact my MIL took it as a statement and made it an issue, so there's your proof that people take it as a statement. I do have an issue because in that situation there is no way to not make a statement in the eyes of many (probably most) of the people with whom I've gathered. And I was there to show support and encouragement for my nephew, not to make any statement about God.

[cbayer]

79. Interesting discussion on this in GD.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022602321

MOYERS: "The next time you say the Pledge of Allegiance – remember: it’s a lie. A whopper of a lie."

[eomer]

82. Yes, saw that. There are a lot of interesting things to discuss about the pledge.

I agree with Moyers' point that the "justice for all" part is currently a lie. (I haven't ever seen Moyers say something I disagreed with, that I can remember).

The point I would make is that the very actors who are tearing our country apart are the most fervent advocates of the pledge. They pledge allegiance at the same time they commit treason.

I'd be happy to pledge to work with fellow citizens to make our country a better place for us, our kids, and future generations and a better part in the world community. I'm not too keen on the current pledge for the above reasons and one or two more.

[cbayer]

83. I'm not too keen on it either and never have been.

I rarely find myself in a place where I am asked to recite it. In fact, I can't think of the last time.

But were I, I would have to weigh the circumstances before deciding how to proceed.

If by not participating I might detract from something that was important to someone I cared about, I would most likely just say it or mouth the words.

But were I in a more public setting, I might choose to make a statement by refusing to participate. And this I would weigh against the ability to make a statement that counted.

[okasha]

32. I've omitted the words since second

grade, in the classroom and at public meetings, and never been challenged-or even noticed, as far as I know--nor made a scene over it. And I'm not an atheist; I just don't think the phrase is appropriate. There have been times during the reigns of Reagan and Bush, when I've declined to say the pledge at all, as have many of my friends. Again, no hoohoo.

[cbayer]

33. As have I. I fail to see the tyranny in this scenario.

[eomer]

35. And I never have in my life - it offends my sense of honor and honesty.

To stand physically with a group of people and create the impression that I stand with them in a statement that we say in unison, but to discreetly change the statement - in my opinion that would be dishonor and dishonesty. To you it's just no hoohoo - we differ.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

45. Your example in this subthread is, in fact, a very good example of what I was saying.

[pinto]

71. Maybe you could have used the incident to make a point - the phrase was a political call,

not strictly a religious statement per se. Part and parcel of the anti-Communist fervor preceding and continuing through the cold war.



(ed for spell)

[eomer]

77. Certainly, I could have, but that's also not what I was there for.

My in-laws are Cuban exiles, fervent anti-communists, Faux News fans, anti-Democrats while at the same time moderate-left in their actual policy views (typical clueless "Republicans&quot . If I want to discuss politics with them there's likely a better setting than my nephew's commencement.

And if I want to make a political statement more broadly there are better places for that too, like the Occupy protests I was in. This event wasn't for that.

[Starboard Tack]

76. OK, but I still don't see what the big deal is

Obviously, your MIL thought it was a big deal and had no problem declaring her theism, which begs the question "Why do you have a problem declaring your atheism, when challenged?" You say that your issue about reciting the POA was the "under God" part. Fair enough. Are you saying that your MIL was unaware of your atheism prior to this event? Or is this part of some ongoing conflict you both have?

[eomer]

78. I haven't said it was a big deal, merely described what occurred.

And I was there for my nephew's commencement. My wife's parents and siblings often get into ugly fights that I've learned to mostly stay out of. I pick my moment to make a statement and this wasn't it. We had no incidents and my nephew had a nice day to remember.

And if I was going to make a statement I would want a setting where I could explain my thoughts fully. I have more problems with the tradition of reciting the pledge than just the reference to God.

[haikugal]

14. Very well written statement in the OP!!

I thank you for putting it so well. May I add to this discussion by posting a link to an article about this topic. Some might find it interesting...

http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-religious-leaders-who-gave-faith-and-became-outspoken-atheists-and-agnostics?page=0%2C0

BTW I completely agree that it's theists that force a label on people like us.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

16. : ) Thanks for the link. I'm about to hit the road, so I'll have to bookmark for later.

[deucemagnet]

20. On one had I agree that it seems ridiculous

to be defined by something that you don't even believe is real, but I have a problem with people who play fast and loose with definitions to define themselves in the way they want. True, atheist is a label that shouldn't have to exist and comes with some unwanted and unwarranted baggage, but it is, nonetheless, an accurate description of my attitude towards a supreme being. Like it or not, I am an atheist by definition. I could shove feathers up my ass and define myself as a chicken, but that would just make me a crazy bastard with feathers in my ass. It changes neither the definition of "chicken" nor a single base pair of my genome.

[dimbear]

30. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

That is the official word, my friends. You are in or out, and if you are out you are in a jam.

There's no waffling or middle ground.

Benign neglect??? Dead ruled out. You are playing the lottery whether you buy a ticket or not, luckily that doesn't much change your odds.

[Common Sense Party]

34. Is it the tyranny of the carnivore that requires some to be called vegan?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

37. Similar, but far less intense and less impactfully.

[Bad Thoughts]

36. Hindus and Jews are trying to control you?

Or are you really just annoyed by Christians?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

38. There are scant numbers of Hindus or Jews even compared to the Christians. So, in my world, it's the

Christians, but if I lived where any other religion had a huge number of adherents and they behaved in their majority as the Christians here do, then I'm sure I'd be annoyed by their assumptions and demands as well.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

39. Though the comment was hidden, I want to thank Swampwhatever for showing his/her true nature.

Funny I hit such a touchy nerve in so many here!

[cbayer]

40. I could be wrong, but I am guessing that it was your intent to hit a touchy nerve.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

43. You guess wrong.

[goldent]

46. You and we Christians have something in common...

we're all gentiles!

And the Amish would refer to me as "English" even though I don't have a drop of English in me!

And I read a lot of medical research and you have no idea how researchers are classifying and labeling you, repeatedly, for being unremarkable. It's not always a bad thing!

Relevant except from Paul Simon: A SIMPLE DESULTORY PHILIPPIC

I've been nearly branded
Communist, 'cause I'm left-handed.
That's the hand I use, well, never mind!

[okasha]

49. I have it on good authority

that the Archangel Gabriel is left-winged. Ssssshhhhh. . .

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

52. Scientitifc classifacations generally have very little impact on our lives, so they don't bother me.

[On the Road]

54. I Don't Think That DU is in Need of Understanding What Tyranny Is

I think you are.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

55. My comments make perfect sense by the meaning of tyanny cited. Your comment is invalid.

[On the Road]

56. Posting a Dictionary Definition

is something that 6th graders do when they can't think of any other way to start a paper. It adds nothing of substance and is generally a poor idea.

You are comparing tyranny -- actual tyranny -- to people calling you an atheist for not believing in God. And you just reiterated that you think this is a good comparison. That is all.

I am atheist myself, BTW. But I am neither a drama queen or an idiot.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

58. BS. I was clarifying the particular sense in which the word tyranny applies perfectly to my point.

And your use of the phrase, "actual tyranny" proves that it needed clarification.

And your childish final comment proves even more.

[cleanhippie]

81. "I am atheist myself, BTW. But I am neither a drama queen or an idiot."

You are entitled to your opinion, although most others may disagree.

Do you feel better now that you called someone names?

[ZOB]

57. It is only the tyranny of the sexist that requires me to be called a male.

...well, that and the fact that I have a penis.

Nobody forces me to be classified as "atheist" other than Daniel Webster who defines atheist as "one who believes that there is no deity".

...and I'm ok with that.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

60. Not the sexist--biology.

[okasha]

67. Yes, the sexist.

There are «biological» males who identify as female.

[Humanist_Activist]

74. Still biology, which, unlike the supernatural, isn't simple...

In a biological sense, there are at least 5 sexes in homo sapiens, female, trans-female, the intersexed(itself with variations), trans-male, and male.

Transexuals, as I listed under trans, are individuals with brains that are physiologically more similar to those of the opposite sex than of their physical sex. NOTE: For the purposes of this post, I differentiate between transexuals and those whose mental and physical bodies match perceptions, however, this is only in a strict, biological sense. In common parlance, it is more appropriate to call a trans-female a woman, a trans-male a man, as they prefer to be identified.

Intersexed are those who have physical attributes of both sexes to varying degrees, may be mistaken for transsexuals, superficially, depending on early treatment(non-consensual sex assignment surgery, etc.)