The word '->-bleeped-<-'.

[Calder Smith]

This is something that has been bothering me recently.

After seeing the interview, in which Gabourey Sidibe kept using the word '->-bleeped-<-' on the Arsenio Hall Show to make fun of people and violence against transgender people of color, it seems many people don't think of '->-bleeped-<-' as a slur. I find it as offensive as the word '->-bleeped-<-got' (sorry for the language) when used against gay people.

I don't know if this kind of thread has popped up often, I'm still relatively new here. I'd just like to know if you guys and girls think the word is a slur and are offended by it like I am?

[Declan.]

I'm not personally offended by it. I'm offended by the attitudes behind words, not words themselves. 

[Oriah]

I don't consider it a slur per se......

some people try to use it that way....but I use it too.  I'm taking the word back.....if me and mine use it without offensive connotations, it doesn't effectively work as a slur against me.  If transgender people start using ->-bleeped-<- as a self descriptive word it loses it's power as a slur....in my case the word is completely disarmed....I find it's use sort of comical and sillyu

[Calder Smith]

I don't consider it a slur per se......

some people try to use it that way....but I use it too.  I'm taking the word back.....if me and mine use it without offensive connotations, it doesn't effectively work as a slur against me.  If transgender people start using ->-bleeped-<- as a self descriptive word it loses it's power as a slur....in my case the word is completely disarmed....I find it's use sort of comical and sillyu

That is a good point.

My thing is, I think the word ->-bleeped-<- is kind of a sexual term used in porn like ->-bleeped-<- for example. I don't know how to really explain it, but I think some people use it to sexualize Transgender people if that makes sense.

[dalebert]

I'm offended by the attitudes behind words, not words themselves.

Context matters. Even so, I'm gay and never have been a fan of "->-bleeped-<-got" or "->-bleeped-<-", even when intended in a harmless way like by other gay guys. Those words have evolved throughout history to represent whatever society hates. It's whatever society deemed worthy of nothing better than be burned, usually alive so as to be as painful as possible. That's actually the origin of the words. One means a stick used a kindling. The other means a bundle of sticks for burning. I always get them mixed up. I think "->-bleeped-<-" is the bundle. This is why the British call cigarettes ->-bleeped-<-s.

Similarly, "->-bleeped-<-" has been so historically used in a negative manner that one needs to at least err on the side of caution. I always advise folks that it's considered a slur. They may not mean it as such, but it will often still be interpreted as such or others hearing one use it casually will use it casually as well even though their intentions may not be so benign. If someone identifies as trans and says they are totally fine with being called that and even uses the word themselves, then I think it's probably fine to use the word for THAT person as long as you never use it as a slur. It's just a neutral thing like being a blonde or a brunette. I probably wouldn't though for the reasons already given, or at the very least, I might restrict my use of it to very private spaces where there is a high comfort level between everyone present.

That said, if I'm ever talking about the word itself, I'm never going to refer to it as "the t-word". OMG. If you're talking about the word (like now), say the word. Just don't use the word to describe someone when it remains largely seen as a slur. That's a level of personal censorship that just stifles communication and progress, IMHO.

[ThePhoenix]

I would consider ->-bleeped-<- to be a slur. 

There has been a movement, seemingly mostly among transmen, to reclaim it.  That, in turn has generated backlash and criticism from transwomen because, among other things, they feel that the term was never used for transmen and therefore cannot be reclaimed by them.  Transmen using it is, therefore, a misappropriation of a term that retains full power to harm those against whom it was (and still is) used.

I prefer not to opine on reclamation.

[dalebert]

There has been a movement, seemingly mostly among transmen, to reclaim it.  That, in turn has generated backlash and criticism from transwomen because, among other things, they feel that the term was never used for transmen and therefore cannot be reclaimed by them.  Transmen using it is, therefore, a misappropriation of a term that retains full power to harm those against whom it was (and still is) used.

But isn't that due largely to trans men being nearly invisible until somewhat recently? I'm with you about it being a slur and discouraging people from using it for that reason but the idea of trans men "stealing" the term bugs me because it practically labels them as second class trans people. It implies they're not as oppressed because they haven't been insulted as much but they haven't been insulted as much because they're lagging behind in having their very existence even be acknowledged. If they'd been as visible as trans women for as long, it seems fairly likely the slur would be just as commonly applied to them.

[Calder Smith]

So, basically what I'm getting from this is that transmen aren't as disrespected because they aren't as common as transwomen?

[dalebert]

So, basically what I'm getting from this is that transmen aren't as disrespected because they aren't as common as transwomen?

I hope you're not getting that from what I said. If so, I've expressed myself very poorly.

[Madison (kiara jamie)]

i have always seen it as a slur also, it definitely comes across to me as a way for people to sexualize trans women, and everyone that says it to me doesn't say it again because i tell them that i find it to be quite offensive and i won't be friends with them if they want to call me by that name, fortunately my friends like me lol

[JRD]

I don't like the term, don't care to be around people(even other trans people) that throw the term around, no matter the context. It has too much bad history in my opinion. And even if used "affectionately", I still think it trivializes who we are.

I've even broken off a few long term online friendships over it. One main friend when I asked them not to use it, they didn't take my word that it offended me. but later when someone else(cis) told them it was kind of offensive, then they believed that.

I don't hear the term in real life as most people where I live either don't know it or know better than to say something like that anywhere near me.

[ThePhoenix]

But isn't that due largely to trans men being nearly invisible until somewhat recently? I'm with you about it being a slur and discouraging people from using it for that reason but the idea of trans men "stealing" the term bugs me because it practically labels them as second class trans people. It implies they're not as oppressed because they haven't been insulted as much but they haven't been insulted as much because they're lagging behind in having their very existence even be acknowledged. If they'd been as visible as trans women for as long, it seems fairly likely the slur would be just as commonly applied to them.

Actually, I think those who subscribe to the theory of transmen appropriating the term are saying that transwomen are the second class citizens. 

I can't say why the term hasn't had much use applied to transmen.  All I can say is that if a term has not been used to put you down, then the term has not been used to put you down.  Who cares why?  The point is it hasn't happened. 

As far as transmen vs transwomen and who is more oppressed, it bears noting that transmen seem to have a MUCH easier time with transition, including better employment prospects, less likelihood of assault, greater ability to blend in, even having LGBT orgs more willing to hire them, and not having their existence used as a scare tactic to promote transphobia.  That's a topic for another thread, so I won't go into it here, but it could be an interesting discussion. 

[Jill F]

Umm, that one would have probably got your face rearranged before I got my T tanked.

"He/she", "->-bleeped-<-" and "it" are also just as ugly.  I don't like perjoratives pointed at me.

[Oriah]

it bears noting that transmen seem to have a MUCH easier time with transition

I'm not a transman, obviously, but I find that to be an offensive assumpttion.  Granted the struggles of an m2f are different from an f2m.....but there are a load of issues that transmen have to deal with that transwomen don't.  I can be pretty certain you haven't walked a mile in their shoes.....

[~RoadToTrista~]

I don't see it as offensive as "->-bleeped-<-". I also think there plenty of other words to use against transpeople that are worse than "->-bleeped-<-".

[missy1992]

->-bleeped-<- is like the word ->-bleeped-<-got or ->-bleeped-<-. It does not belong anywhere in an academic paper, public speech, etc. Saying such a word can (and often does) prove controversial due to the affect it has on marginalized persons, whether historically or in the present day. Hopefully such words will lose their power and eventually will have about as much weight to someone hearing the word as "sandwich" but until that day comes I will call out someone I hear using such foul and offensive language.

[Oriah]

Hopefully such words will lose their power and eventually will have about as much weight to someone hearing the word as "sandwich" but until that day comes I will call out someone I hear using such foul and offensive language.

it will never lose it's power unless the power is removed from it by using it in a non-offensive manor.

look at what lesbians have done with the word dyke. 

[kelly_aus]

->-bleeped-<-? When did this become an automotive forum?

[Tori]

The thing I dislike about the word, is how readily it can be preceded with the word, "That".

Usually, when someone says, "That ->-bleeped-<-" they are dehuminizing the subject of their conversation, be it unintentional or not.

[missy1992]

it will never lose it's power unless the power is removed from it by using it in a non-offensive manor.

look at what lesbians have done with the word dyke.

I see what your saying however I have a much different view as I still see the term dyke as offensive. At best it is a vulgar way for someone to communicate with another and at worst a tool of oppression we've inherited from the patriarchy.

If someone calls me a ->-bleeped-<- im going to be very offended and they can certainly know they are in for a lecture. For me, this rule applies in any context, any circumstance, said by any person. Yes, that includes if it was said to me by another trans person.

If you on the other hand do not find offense to being called "->-bleeped-<-" or anything for that matter, that is your personal situation and I respect your feelings. Just know that "Taking the word back" is much easier said than done. Try taking Porch Monkey (like the reference there? )back... or any of these offensive terms. Guaranteed it will come off as offensive or vulgar at one point or another whether intentional or not