what does this even mean? zero investigation terf-vibes-based analysis has ruined discourse forever 
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
Really the only people I am comfortable using “transsexual” is elderly trans folk who grew up using that terminology. They’ve been fighting the good fight longer than we have, so I have no right to police the words they use to describe themselves. Younger trans folk should move away from such terms (as we are) because it’s just harmful language.
I think it is harmful only if you concede, as in the lib trans narrative, that gender is a vibe that arises from the "physical reality" of sex and that you cannot change that physical reality but can change your vibes. If you see gender instead as a class system arising from human relations to the means of reproduction in which sex is just a gendering brand for a class of people, then the distinction between transsexual and transgender is harmless, albeit also meaningless.
Can you expand more on what you mean about the relationship between access to reproduction and gender as a classifying mechanism? Also I don't think that something being harmless qualifies it as also being meaningless, but that's just a personal opinion.
I didn't mean that it's meaningless because it's harmless, I meant that it is meaningless and harmless.
As for your question, I will have to define some terms so that we're on the same page before answering, so sorry for the incoming wall of text.
First, means of reproduction refers to the resources and tools required for human reproduction. Importantly, when saying "human reproduction", we talk about everything required to make a new human, including everything during and after birth: medical supervision of birth, childcare, schooling, safe home environment, etc. Of course, everything that happens before birth is relevant too – so, e.g., a uterus is part of the means of reproduction concept – but usually people forget about the part after so I address it specifically.
Next, humans interact with the means of reproduction and contribute reproductive labour in order to make new humans. Again, this includes everything after birth too. A guardian helping a child with schoolwork or dealing with an emotionally challenging situation is reproductive labour as much as giving birth is. A teacher providing and controlling the schoolwork is, likewise, reproductive labour.
Looking at human reproduction from this perspective, we can see a complex social organisation with many humans contributing their share of reproductive labour. The way any single human participates in this social organisation is what we call this human's relation to the means of reproduction. Relations to the means of reproduction define various aspects of the social organisation of reproduction, including but not limited to how reproductive labour is divided and who gets to decide when and how reproductive labour is performed.
Thanks for taking the time. Can I DM you if I have more questions?
Yeah sure!
Now to actually answer the question! Where does gender come in?
At some point during the development of human social organisations – Engels argues that it happened at the point when the concepts of private property and inheritance were established but we don't have to agree with him – humans understand that, even though any person's individual relation to the means of reproduction is not uniform, there are broadly certain "kinds" (or classes) of people that relate to the means of reproduction similarly. In other words, a certain class of person is typically tasked with a certain share of reproductive labour and has a certain say in when and how reproductive labour is performed. The number of these classes and what being part of a class entails exactly varies between regions, cultures, and time periods but in the Western tradition we have the two classes that are familiar: one that makes most of the decisions and one that does most of the labour.
The emergence of the different classes of people in the social organisation of reproduction based on their relations to the means of reproduction gives birth to a self-perpetuating class system in which class division is maintained with social pressure and violence. This class system is what gender is. Over the course of human history, the basis of this class system, that is, the relations to the means of reproduction, serves as fertile ground for building a cultural, vibes-based understanding of the classes. Is it a coincidence that those who make most of the decisions are expected to be assertive and blunt while those who must obey the decisions are expected to be submissive and meek?
One of the ways class division is maintained in this system is by making sure that the boundaries are never crossed. There are various approaches to this, e.g. barring a whole class of people from education, but the topic of this conversation is sex so I'll talk about sex. While sex as a concept has been useful in scientific research, within the context of the gender class system it is consistently used to "brand" a class of people with immutable characteristics. In this context, sex is the gendering label assigned to a person to ensure class division. In this context, sex is not based on "physical reality" but on whatever is more convenient for the goal of ensuring class division – see the awful example of the way Imane Khelif has been treated.
When we refuse to be confined by the gender class system in whichever way – crossing the boundary, rejecting the boundary, or rejecting the entire system altogether – we also reject the enforcement of gendering labels. Since sex is this enforcement manifested, there is no distinction between transgender and transsexual.