There's a word on the tip of my tongue that describes it perfectly...
"Systematic" implies that the thing itself is employed in a systematic manner, not simply that it is "within a system" (technically, everything could be said to be so).
But let us stop. There is no point arguing about the meanings of words when the issue, really, is elsewhere.
I find your use of "transphobia" a tad extreme. While I don't mean to trivialise your concerns at all (if incorrect pronoun use is problematic, it is problematic, even if it is only a subtle manifestation of "transphobia") the article as a whole seems to be rather fair and supportive. I would've thought transphobia is reserved for things more... vitriolic, perhaps.
You say that "she never was a male just was forced to live like one", and I think that cuts to the heart of the issue. Being forced to live like a male, she was also forced to be treated like a man in linguistic terms. This is not a good thing; but it's that she was forced to live like a man, and not that people are not yet prepared to linguistically deal with her situation, that is the primary problem.
See it from their perspective. They wanted to write about how a man who became a woman has been mistreated. Perhaps they neglected to use pronouns in a way that is accepted by the trans community, but given their intentions they can hardly be said to be "transphobic," I think.
Of course, you can easily write off everything I say as transphobia...
Is it "transphobic" in your eyes, indeed, for me to say that he was a man who became a woman? How else are we to talk about it? It would be confusing if they had used "she" and "Ashley" throughout; it would not read well, and would do a worse job of getting the story across. Perhaps "a woman in a male body changed her body to that of a female," yes...
- I would've thought transphobia is reserved for things more... vitriolic, perhaps.
There are many forms and degrees of transphobia just like there are many forms and degrees of racism.
- This is not a good thing; but it's that she was forced to live like a man, and not that people are not yet prepared to linguistically deal with her situation, that is the primary problem.
And continuing to do it in the media only slows down progress.
- See it from their perspective.
I think you should try to see it from ours instead.
- Is it "transphobic" in your eyes, indeed, for me to say that he was a man who became a woman?
Yes absolutely.
- How else are we to talk about it? It would be confusing if they had used "she" and >"Ashley" throughout; it would not read well, and would do a worse job of getting the story across. Perhaps "a woman in a male body changed her body to that of a female," yes
The word transgender adequately describes the situation. Simply describing her as a transgender woman and perhaps linking to the wikipedia article about transgender for the people who might be confused. All the article does is take a very brave womans story and uses it to further misconceptions about trans people, and as someone who has also done journalistic work the lack of research and thoroughness of the article is appalling as well.
Pardon my phrasing; I slept little.
Anyway, I was just sticking up for the underdog. I can acknowledge that incorrect pronoun use is perhaps a form of (latent) transphobia; I merely wish to say that these people thought they were doing good. You're quite right in saying that discrimination comes in many forms and degrees.