arrogance and hypocracy

[pennyjane]

i am not a judgmental person.  i believe that God made all of us and it's not in my paygrade to give Him advice.  if some of you who are losing your minds with offense would read the lines i write, and not read your own meanings inbetween them maybe you wouldn't have to take such offense.

you'll pardon me if i don't think that ->-bleeped-<- is such an awful word.  i know a couple of self-described ->-bleeped-<-s and they are perfectly nice people.  the term isn't derogatory to me....as it seems to be to so many others.  what gives me, or anyone else for that matter, the right to be embarrassed or humiliated for them?  that would be arrogance.  i guess since i am not as judgmental as many others around here i am left out in the cold.  who's right is it to tell these people that what they are is dirty and their existence should not even be verbalized.....certainly not me!  i've spent a long time on the other end of that kind of bigotry and i'll not participate in it from this side.  ->-bleeped-<-s are just like everybody else and if you think you're better then them then you need to learn some humility yourself.

i've not insinuated, inferred or catagorically stated that anyone here is or is not a ->-bleeped-<-.  i have not offered any opinion as to who is more or who is less trans, that's not in my paygrade either.  if there is a ->-bleeped-<- here listening, good for you...be a good one.

i have stated catagorically that the presence of a penis or a vagina has no relationship to gender identity...in my opinion.  my best friend is a non-op transsexual and she is all woman.  she is non-op because grs is entirely out of her financial reach and that probably will not change during this lifetime.  if it should, i'm sure she'd re-evaluate her status with grs as a viable option.  i lived for over a half a century as a
woman with a penis, no one has standing to offer me advice on that.

i will say it again...and if you are going to quote me please keep it in context...."I WAS EVERY BIT AS MUCH A WOMAN THE DAY BEFORE SURGERY AS I WAS THE DAY AFTER."  period.  op status is not relevant to rather one is trans or not.  this "more trans then you" stuff is just plain silly to me.  one is either trans or not...you can't be just a little bit pregnant.

once some of the girls around here grow up a little and stop looking for a bigot around every corner, stop thinking that every nuance of everything said is derogatory and is directed at them, maybe they'll want to come and join the women too.

[Lachlann]

While I understand where you come from completely and feel it is a misunderstanding, I think this place is also hypersensitive to such a topic where a term does come up. I also have difficulty because I think people get offended easily, so I have to be extra careful of what I say and how I mean it.

Though people get offended easily because such a topic can get extremely touchy. Maybe someone has a problem with the term she-male because it was used in a derogatory way against them. It's just like some people find the term ->-bleeped-<- fine and others find it offencive.

When you accidentally set off someone's trigger word, sometimes they have a hard time taking it in the context that you meant it. Maybe to them, she-male means something different and to you it means something different. I think that's something we have to keep in mind, regardless of what the true definitions are, if there is one, people have different connotations to such words.

Perhaps if we were to step back and ask each other why a word like that offends them, we would get through this situation more smoothly.

[Alyssa M.]

you'll pardon me if i don't think that  is such an awful word.  i know a couple of self-described  and they are perfectly nice people.  the term isn't derogatory to me....as it seems to be to so many others.  what gives me, or anyone else for that matter, the right to be embarrassed or humiliated for them?

I read your post which I quoted part of. Whether you are embarrassed or think it's an awful word is not the issue.

I consider the word to be a slur, whatever the context, save perhaps for someone who uses it to describe herself.

I recently read your post about a woman you found intolerable in part because of the coarse language she uses. Perhaps she doesn't think her language to be that coarse, but thats not relevant. The charitable thing for her to do would be to consider the sensibilities of others when she considers how to express herself. The same goes for you.

I have asked you to stop using that word. I'm asking you again. When you use it, it hurts me. It doesn't embarrass me on behalf of someone else. It just hurts. Please stop.

Posted on: October 05, 2008, 11:10:32 pm

Perhaps if we were to step back and ask each other why a word like that offends them, we would get through this situation more smoothly.

Why is it offensive? Google it.

[pennyjane]

i'm sorry the word so troubles you alyssa.  i hope you'll take a look yourself at just why that is.  as i said, i know of a couple people who self-describe as ->-bleeped-<-.  also, as i said, i think they are both pretty nice people.  by accepting your notion that the term is derogatory, i'd have to denegrate them and their reality.  i think it's just awfully selfish of you to ask anyone to do anything like that to another person.

i do not accept your notion.  that's my perogative and it's every bit as valid as yours.  i have never liked the term "queer", as i was growing up it was entirely offensive and derogatory. i've had that word used on me in a mean and hurtful way more times then i can count.  now, people self describe as queer and i think it would be just down right arrogant of me to retain my negative feelings for the word and impose it on them, tell them they shouldn't use that word because it offends me.  if one self identifies as queer, then by golly they are queer and they are just as good as me or you.

the parameters of life are not yours alone to set.  you may set your own, just as i do with the woman with the vulgar mouth...i may not like it, but it's not my perogative to insist she change the way she speaks.  i just have to live with it...i don't own the world...and neither do you.

if you want to think you are better then people who self-identify as ->-bleeped-<-, there's nothing i can do about it...bigotry doesn't die easily. but for me...i won't denegrate anyone for what they are, just for what they do and how they treat others.

i hope you'll try to see it from another perspective, one of openess and inclusion...all of us are just what we are and none of us has the right to tell others that what they are is just too vile to mention.  i'm sorry but i will not indulge your selfish wishes.  good luck to you, perhaps you should join the other girl and put me on your ignore list, then you won't have to face the word.

[Alyssa M.]

I told you why the word troubles me:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=->-bleeped-<-

compare:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=queer

Still, I know several people of an older generation than mine who also find the term to be terribly distasteful. I don't use it around them, though I like the term: its primary definition, at least according to the OED, is strange, odd, peculiar, eccentric, a fairly even-handed description of deviation from heteronormativity, IMO. But to many people, it's a slur. I respect that.

I have no problem with self-identification of any individual. I won't use "------" to describe gay men, however much they might use it themselves. I won't use "------" to describe black people, despite the word's ubiquity in African-American culture. Using your logic would make my avoidance of those words be homophobic and racist.

It's just bad manners (and thus, uncharitable) to use slurs at all, unless you are using them to describe yourself (i.e. "reclaiming" the word, what your friends are doing). But you can't reclaim words on someone else's behalf. It just doesn't work that way.

[Shana A]

BTW, the correct spelling is hypocrisy.

Nobody here is suggesting that anyone who self identifies using certain terms shouldn't use them to describe themselves. But if various people of our community find these terms offensive, as has been expressed in the locked thread and here, presumably it would be polite and courteous to not use them.

Z

[pennyjane]

charity?  who is entitled to charity?  charity is freely given, not demanded.  polite and courteous...looked that up so i don't offend the spelling sensibilities of anyone, <sorry-dropped out of school early and ran away because of the bullying and name calling that was so prevelant in my early life>  who is it courteous to that we're talking about?  apparently the entitled, certainly not those whose dignity is being stepped on in the name of the entitled's charity and courtesy.

listen.....i'm tired of this nonsense.  if people will stop egging it on it wouldn't have to be such an issue.  i have stated that i will not cease using the word because i feel that it would impune the dignity of people i like and who have the same right to dignity as anyone else.  seems as if the dignity of others is not only not a matter of principle to some, is isn't even a matter of awareness, it is to me.  actually, it's not a word that comes up in my vocabulary very often so if those who are offended by it would just leave it alone, maybe they wouldn't have to hear so much of it.  and since the word terrorizes some people, i hope they will put me on their ignore list and then there will be no chance they might hear the word from me and have to think about it and have it ruin their sense of entitlement.

i apologize in advance for any spelling or grammatical errors i have committed in this post.  i hope some will find it in their hearts not to make the effort to impune my dignity over it.  thank you.

and...oh...again i wish people wouldn't put their words in my mouth.  in the other post i did not say the woman with the dirty mouth was "intolerable" to me, i'm not an intolerant person.  i said she tried me, she made loving her difficult for me...because of her dirty mouth...and i also mentioned her sense of entitlement.  she seems to have an attitude that the world revolves around her and that it's only her wishes and needs that should be attended to.  her rights, it seems, are the only rights that need be considered...the dignity of others is of no concern to her.  when others have different sensibilities she believes they should modify their behavior to suit her.  if there is no cost, i don't mind that...but when her sensibilities demand the inpunment of the dignity of others i find i cannot comply.  i think that to be selfish and inconsiderate, uncharitable and discourteous. 

[NicholeW.]

OK, the ignore buttons work amazingly well. But so does measuring one's words.

The particular argument that began in someone's thread who wasn't requesting a "real"/"unreal" argument to breakout in her thread may have had some feelings about the fight as well, and the argument was well-away from what the OP talked about.

There's no shame for anyone in saying "ok, I disagree and you needn't be me to be valid." And that seems like the crux of the matter.

Not a one of us is above criticism, question is how is that given and accepted. If a critical post is begun in an effort for me to be defensive about being criticized or disagreed with have I ameliorated the problem or added to it?

The one thing I have gotten in the years I have wandered around BBs, not just TG/TS ones, is that some people are gonna be more or less sensitive to any one or two particular items. Just the way it is. If I step on feet with my opinion, I needn't change my opinion. All I have to do is say "I'm sorry. This is simply my way of thinking." I don't need to go on from that and say "but you've missed my point entirely and I'm gonna go be with "real people" who'll get that."

That last response just seems like a way to dismiss the positions of those others on whose feet I unintentionally trod.

So, perhaps the best way for any of us would simply lay down what we think about the original idea and let it go at that.

Anything else tends to re-open whatever offense has been taken in the first place. So might we all "just try to get along," please?

Thanks so much,

N~, management rep,

[Sarah Louise]

The term "->-bleeped-<-" has dictionary and street meaning.  When it is used to, or for, people who place themselves under the understood meaning, that is fine.  But, when you use it to describe anyone else it is Rude and unnecessary.

Lets at least try to be polite to each other.

Sarah L.

[pennyjane]

thank you sarah, i think you are exactly right.  looking back over my posts on the subject i see that i have been in agreement with you all along...both in letter and in spirit.

i brought the word up in response to tanya's question about why any woman might "want" to keep her penis.  the subject was never about ->-bleeped-<-s and went on it's way until later when people started complaining.  i reiterated the context of my original statement.  i started getting blasted, as if i were some kind of bigot, both in the thread and in pm.  yes, i think we might be a lot more considerate of others, only bomblast them when it's appropriate, not over something they haven't done or haven't said.

i think if folks had used even just a hint of sensitivity to me i might not have responded so.  but...i get people reading hate messages between the lines of my posts...that is only in their mind...no way can i see where my post had any relationship to hate.  i don't hate anybody, i've tried to make it clear that in my opinion self-described ->-bleeped-<-s have every right to be who and what they are, just like all the rest of us.  and i really don't think it's right to denegrate them by suggesting that they mean less then us...that we shouldn't speak their name in public.  others may feel differently, and under different circumstances i think i may have been more sensitive to their feelings.  but i got defensive too, when i started be accused of hate monging..and then people decided to take issue with my spelling...it just got downright petty to me.

we are all different, and civility is important...but it doesn't rest on just one to be civil, it's a group effort.  i got feelings too!  i haven't suggested anyone modify their feelings or sensibilities to accomodate me...it's me being admonished to modify my speach and my principals to comform to theirs.  let's do be fair, and let's all be sensitive to the other more.

[Shana A]

but i got defensive too, when i started be accused of hate monging..and then people decided to take issue with my spelling...it just got downright petty to me.

I didn't correct your spelling to be petty, had the word been in the body of the message, I wouldn't have even mentioned it. Since it's part of the title of the thread, I mentioned it in case you wish to change it.

Have a wonderful day!

Z

[Andrew]

I consider the word to be a slur, whatever the context, save perhaps for someone who uses it to describe herself.

I think that's a good way to put it. If you use it to describe someone who doesn't describe herself that way, it's an insult. If, however, a transperson wants to use it to identify herself, it shouldn't offend anyone. I'm sure there are some in the GLBT community who find the word empowering.

[Nero]

Penny, there may be blacks who take no offense or even embrace the N-word but that doesn't make it okay to use.

Just as there are transgendered women who take no offense at the S-word. That doesn't change the stigma of the word.

Wouldn't it be better to refrain from using such emotionally charged words at all?

[pennyjane]

hi nero.  i think i have explained my reasoning for being unwilling to not use the word that seems to be driving everyone crazy.  i don't think i can make my motives and feelings known any better then i already have.  i used the word initally to describe a pathology as i saw it.  that was the end of it as far as i was concerned, it was used innocuously and void of even the slightest hint of malice.  i didn't call anyone one and i didn't intimate it, i didn't suggest it, think it or any other manner of maliciousness.  it was pereferal to the conversation at hand and would have gone right away...except that there were others who decided it should be made an issue of.

i regret having ever joined in the conversation that was.  i think it's really a shame that people have to be so worried, so tentative in their posts so as not to be slammed and maligned in every sort of way,  unfair, untruthful and unwisely.  really, just a big shame.  the conversation is reduced to it's lowest common denominator when those are the rules.  then we end up with no more then the "you go girls" of most interactions in the tg community.  we don't grow, or explore...we just wallow in our pitifulness and remain perpetual victims.  really, just a big old shame.

[Nikki]

I don't know what thread started this but in this thread your indifference to how a word hurts people strikes me as cold and insensitive. You do no disservice or insult to your friends by understanding and caring about the feelings of people hurt by the word.