I know other’s will say we are “gendered” people therefore can be “transgendered,” but I agree with GLAAD and the transgender database.
Actually, I’m going to disagree with this.
I am going to point out the “gendered” thing, I’m afraid. The thing is, adding “-ed” does not necessarily mean that something is a verb in the past tense, which most arguments against the word “transgendered” seem to assume. It can also be used in the passive, which, in effect, makes something into an adjective. If you are excited (and adjective) you have excitement (a noun) and something excites you (a verb).
In the same way that “to excite” means (in a manner of speaking) that something gives someone excitement, “to gender” means that someone gives someone/thing* a gender.
Now, when someone is “excited”, they have been given excitement, and as such now have it. When someone/thing* is “gendered”, they have a gender. “Gendered” is an adjective.
Now, you still might not want to use “transgendered”. In fact, it would probably be best to split it into two words - trans gendered. That way you use two adjectives. You say that someone has a gender, and that, on the topic of gender, they are also trans.**
Though this is not perfect, I actually find it less problematic than “transgender”. If you were to say someone is “gender”, you would be saying that they are the idea of gender. If you describe someone as “transgender” it implies that that is the main thing about them.
Of course, since the majority of trans* people seem to prefer “transgender”, I will continue to use that. I’m just pointing out that, to me, it doesn’t seem quite logical.
*The use of “thing” refers to items, such as toilets, which could be gendered.
**Or even better - “trans* gendered”