The Asterisk

[D.N.]

The little star people seem to enjoy tacking on the end of the word "trans". Am I the only one on this forum who finds it unnecessary at best? I mean, "trans" is an umbrella term in and of itself. Trying to wildcard it with an asterisk is meaningless, because it's already a wildcard.

In my opinion, at least, as a nonbinary person, the asterisk is more othering than anything else. To me, it always reads as, "There's Real Trans People, and then there's those other people who fall under the asterisk. They aren't really trans. If the asterisk wasn't there, they wouldn't be included under our label at all." I know people generally don't intend it to come across that way, but I can't help but wince every time I see someone type "trans*".

I know I'm not the only person out there who sees it this way, but am I alone on this here?

[helen2010]

D.N.

I use trans*.  Seemed to me it was the standard term, the more inclusive term.  But folk often react differently to the same words.  This seems to be another example. 

Aisla

[Cindy]

It refers to all trans, binary, non-binary, genderqueer. It is meant as an inclusive term, not as a sign of non-inclusivity.

[D.N.]

It refers to all trans, binary, non-binary, genderqueer. It is meant as an inclusive term, not as a sign of non-inclusivity.

But like I said, "trans" in and of itself refers to everyone, binary, nonbinary, etc. I know how it's meant, I'm talking about the underlying and unintended message.

[Cindy]

Many people, including myself, do not regard themselves as trans - I'm not trans anything, but the term is meant to include all.

It doesn't really matter, some people are very caught up in language and we try to accommodate all.

[Taka]

so there are others who don't see the necessity of that "*"...
i also winced.
but then i realized trans and trans* could just as well be considered synonyms.
i'm still waiting to see what footnote there is.





*it's meant inclusively by those who use it. try reading the intention instead of the shape?

[D.N.]

so there are others who don't see the necessity of that "*"...
i also winced.
but then i realized trans and trans* could just as well be considered synonyms.
i'm still waiting to see what footnote there is.





*it's meant inclusively by those who use it. try reading the intention instead of the shape?

Okay, but again, I understand the intention. Intent isn't everything. If someone says something rude, but they meant well, is it expected that the recipient of the rude comment not feel hurt? If you step on someone's foot by mistake, saying "I didn't mean to hurt you" doesn't erase the fact that you did, in fact, step on their foot.

[Cindy]

I am at a loss to understand your concerns. I really don't understand. FB has, what 50 terms for identification? Why not have an inclusive term? * is widely used in computer language to include all. That is all it means to me. For me it is being polite.

[D.N.]

I am at a loss to understand your concerns. I really don't understand. FB has, what 50 terms for identification? Why not have an inclusive term? * is widely used in computer language to include all. That is all it means to me. For me it is being polite.

My point and my concern is that trans, sans asterisk, is already an inclusive term. All trans people are included under the word "trans". It's kind of a given, right? So adding an asterisk implies that "trans" doesn't include everyone as is - and deeper than that, it implies that not everyone who calls themself trans really is.

If we say that the asterisk is necessary for the sake of including, say, nonbinary and genderqueer folks (which is how I most often see it used), we're saying that those groups aren't already included under the word "trans". Going out of your way to "include" a group that is already innately included suggests that you don't think they are innately included. I don't mean to be antagonistic, but by doing this, people take on the role of a gatekeeper, deigning to allow these other people into the exclusive "trans club". It all tastes vaguely elitist.

Also, I've unfortunately seen people use the asterisk to "include" DMAB folks, transfeminine folks, and trans women - again, people who are already innately included under the trans umbrella.

[Taka]

what about content then?

but well. wild carding it, will still only include identities that start with "trans".
while "trans" on its own includes all, even those that start with "andro" and "gender" and "fem" and "bo" and...

yeah. i understand the concern.
i have problems identifying as anything trans*. but trans is a lot easier.

it's not rude though, it would be a mistake to interpret it as that.
but if people start using it to exclude, it would be seriously bad.

[Cindy]

I have to admit that I am finding the definitional discussion meaningless. It, for me, distracts from the important fundamental issues. Trans rights, trans*rights? So what? my focus is on *rights

[D.N.]

I have to admit that I am finding the definitional discussion meaningless. It, for me, distracts from the important fundamental issues. Trans rights, trans*rights? So what? my focus is on *rights

Well for me, it is an important fundamental issue. It definitely doesn't make me feel more included, and I know I'm not the only one, and I kind of consider that to be a worthwhile concern? Intracommunity erasure is definitely a problem worth discussing imho. If you disagree, that's fine, you have the right to do so, but I'm really not appreciating the flippant brush-off :/

[Shodan]

Again, the asterisk came from a programming wildcard meaning that, literally, anything can come after trans. So it's supposed to be a shortcut to include Transgender, Transsexual, ->-bleeped-<-, etc. It is not a footnote indicator that's commonly used in writing. To me, using trans instead of trans* is a lazy way of saying the same thing.

At the end of the day, as Cindy pointed out, it's all semantics and there are bigger fish to fry in our community than this. 

[Cindy]

Your opinion is valuable. As valuable as anyone else's. Please feel free to continue the discussion. I do not find it worthwhile and shall leave it.

[Taka]

why would you not find it worthwhile, cindy?
i'd like an answer to this, so i won't have to feel hurt by this dismissal-like comment.

[NathanielM]

Could it be that trans is often read by people with a lesser understanding of the community as 'just' transsexual people and the * came about to signify that we include all transgender/gendervariant people? It's kind of the only way it would make sense to me, because I have noticed that a lot of people I come out to see trans as ftm or mtf and that's it.

[Taka]

it could be. i would like more input on the history of the asterix too.
particularly since there are some who find it odd or even offensive.

there is no point in an intended inclusive term, if it is seen as excluding by the people it tries to include...

[ShawnaB]

As per what Cindy said about *rights, that's what it really comes down to.

The argument of trans vs trans* though, I find both to equally problematic. Hopefully I'm not about to start a full on FlameWar based on semantics but here's why I think both fall short.

In the Hetero vs Homo space, we don't use Homo or Homo* to include Bi-sexuals or A-sexuals. There was a movement to try to replace LGBT/GBLT/LGBTIQQ2A* with QS(R)M - Queer Sexual (sometimes Romantic was included) Minority. QS(R)M covers everyone without the inclusion being "lead" by one group or another (L or G?).

Vis-a-vis cultural whiteness, in the Western world anyway, there's no catch-all for the culturally non-White and the implications of that are for another day/post.

Also in the Western world, Christianity vs non-Christianity. Take your pick at rankings of Judaism, Islam, and all the others I haven't listed. And then if you want an extra layer of complexity, apply those rankings to people who have white skin.

Then if you follow Serano's arguments, the biggest rights battle is simply between masculine and feminine. And we're back to gender definitions again.

I like QSM more than LGBT variants as it's inclusive without preference. I like QUILTBAGS even more as an acronym as its got a lot more letters that fall into not-cis-hetero-typicality and doesn't have any actual breakout that I know of. And QUILTBAGS will never catch on sadly.

So, in that not hetero*, not-culturally white*, not Christian* sense, I think the terms fall short of defining a non-typical that doesn't exclude. I find it clumsy but "trans*/non-binary/gender queer/andro" statements in explicitly inclusive events a lot better than just either trans or trans*. Oh and from my programming background '*' is just a wildcard. I'm glad its use as a prefix (->-bleeped-<-, transgender, transexual) seems to be shifting to that of an adjective (eg trans woman, spanish speaking woman, etc).

Just the thoughts of a culturally white, perceived as cis, born Jewish agnostic, trans woman (aka just another human being,) who tries her hardest not to be a jerk about it as much as possible. (And sadly there are people who would limit who gets go be included as 'human' eg Nazis, witch-hunters, etc.)

[Cindy]

why would you not find it worthwhile, cindy?
i'd like an answer to this, so i won't have to feel hurt by this dismissal-like comment.

The truth? I spend hours in LGBTIQ organisation discussions and often the discussions are bogged down in definitional terms and used as a political weapon to prevent facing the issues.In the mean time I have another suicide, another self-harm, another child going to hell because they are trans*. Yes often they have no idea how they identify and if you counsel them they don't identify with anything, but they identify as different to cis*. So you try get them to talk, to explain, to accept that they are normal. You get them to accept that they are not 'sick' not a 'head case' or mad. You explain that they are not alone. You meet their parents and do the same. You explain that there is a spectrum, that no one is the same, that there is nothing wrong in that. That trans* is everyone, no matter who you are.

Then I go home and cry because we rip each other apart over semantics.

I'm not dismissive. I'm tired to my soul.
And tomorrow I will get up and do it all again

You wanted the truth?

Cindy

[Taka]

thanks cindy.

i suspected something like this, but it is always good to hear these things.
i feel like even explaining why you find something not worthwhile can add depth to discussions.
just felt a need to have it confirmed. stating something is not worthwhile is easily taken as dismissal if it doesn't come with an explanation.
not replying is often better.

sorry for having bothered you, it might have reminded me of how people who should have cared enough to listen, would always dismiss whatever opinion i tried to express as unimportant. i'm currently in a "please don't make me want to kill you" kind of dark corner of my mind.
easily triggered by odd things, but always grateful when people take the time to tell me i matter, and that they can see me.
never had enough of that in childhood.