Dear Editor, I am boggled by Michael King's response to a letter ["Postmarks," Feb. 6] about the article "The Death of Ben Brownlee" [News, Jan. 30] wherein King says, "Ben/Tesía was not a transsexual." As the article's second paragraph quoted, "he felt that he was a female trapped in a male body." If that's not transsexual, then what is? I can only guess that King misunderstands the word "transsexual" and mistakenly equates it with having had sex-reassignment surgery. If this were the meaning of TS, then the notions of pre-op, post-op, and no-op TS would not exist. The Chronicle seems to be unduly dismissing the questions raised by letter writers about this article. I certainly appreciated the article's goal of raising awareness of how schools are letting down students who are struggling with issues like this, but especially when you get a slew of letters raising the issue of name and pronoun of transfolk, I would expect the Chronicle to be more careful. Claiming that "Ben/Tesía was not a transsexual" is absurd, based on what the article reported.