In any case, in today’s usage, the term [transgender] is only properly used as an adjective, e.g., “transgender (or trans) girl”, “transgender man”, “transgender youth”, etc. Transmuting the word into a noun (“transgenderism”) or a verb (“transgendered”) has important implications.

First, and perhaps most importantly, changing the word transgender into something else labels the very people we are talking about with a word they did not choose and specifically object to. This is insulting and entirely unnecessary.

Second, by making being transgender just another “ism” we are encouraged to dismiss it like any other political, social or religious belief: liberalism, conservatism, socialism, communism, Catholicism. In this formulation, transgender becomes a description not of who a person is but what they believe. It’s like telling someone from Japan that they are not actually Japanese (adjective) but their ethnicity is only a belief that they are Japanese, perhaps a mistaken belief. Might we call this “Japanese-ism?”

Curt Buckley on language.

The whole article is about debunking and illustrating the dangers of “trans skeptics”, i.e. the sort of people who like to front up asking “polite” and “reasonable” questions about “transgenderism” and won’t someone just think of the children. So, like, obvious content warning in the article for transphobic attitudes and languages, presented for the purpose of criticism. Buckley’s point is that not only are “trans skeptics” wrong objectively (i.e. their science is bad), but that because they’re good at seeming “reasonable” to cis people, they’re arguably more dangerous than the out-and-out frothing bigots. It behooves cis people, then, to be vigilant not just for the arguments the “skeptics” make, but to also be aware of the facts that counter them.