Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I don't want any more people to die of this

8:54am Monday 6th February 2012
    Exclusive By James Connell

http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/9514082.I_don___t_want_any_more_people_to_die_of_this/ (http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/9514082.I_don___t_want_any_more_people_to_die_of_this/)

A GIRL trapped in a boy's body says she sometimes feels suicidal but is determined to give hope to others like her.

Livvy James, aged 10, of Worcester, has gender dysphoria which means she was born a boy but feels she has always been a girl.

We have previously reported how Livvy, which is an assumed name, was called a "freak" after she returned to her school dressed as a girl for the first time last September.

Her family launched an online petition on Thursday against the use of terms in the media which include "sex-swap/change', '->-bleeped-<-', 'gender pot', 'gender confused' and 'gender bender' because of the emotional scars it leaves on transgender people.

Signed. Gladly.

Definitely nothing wrong with the term"Gender bender". In fact, I have often called myself such and the times I have seen or heard it used, it have never ever been used as an insult, but rather as something "trendy" or "cool", or the like.

That sad, I have neither never ever seen or heard it used to describe MTF's, so I don't know why she want to "ban" that expression on the mentioned grounds.

Leave the genderbenders alone, darn it.

didn't think there was anything wrong with 'gender confused' either.  or sex change.  misnomers, possibly, but not offensive, as far as i'm aware.  still, it's well-meaning.

I find "gender confused" to be pretty offensive. I have to say I've never heard of "gender pot" though. Is that derived from crackpot?

fair enough.  it seems more like a misnomer to me, a misconception rather than intended offense. 

I get the impression that the point of the petition is using these or any terms to justify reporting where it is clearly inappropriate and to create a flippant image.

8 year old child has epilepsy and regularly flapps around like a slobbering fish. Might make good headlines, but is the reporting necessary, given this is a child and is the language intended for effect rather than to inform?

I suggest it is neceesary to show some respect and support for transgender children. Especially to recognise this is a treatable condition and not some weird fashionable fettish.

10 year old bravely deals with a difficult problem. for example.

Time was when many issues, outwith the control of the individual were available for ridicule. Being illegitmate for example. We can best deal with these issues using public pressure.

That's why I signed it.

Just another unnecessary layer of politically correct speech all of which is already way over-the-top. A few of my friends refer to themselves as ->-bleeped-<-s and even joke about it. It's silly to them and maybe offensive to some especially given that a ->-bleeped-<- also sometimes refers to a part of a car. A thick skin and a sense of humor always helps because nothing in this world will ever be perfect!

The more I think about this issue, the more I do understand and sympathise with the positions of others here.

I am however moved by the plight of the young children who are victims of bullying because of this problem.

I realise we cannot protect children from all harm. I totally accept that we should try to be more thick skinned about silly terms, which after all, could equally be taken as endearing if we choose.

But the issue for children, at this time, is improving acceptance that they do have a problem and are dealing with it, positively. That they deserve support and unhelpful comments by newspapers are not necessary. After all, a transgender child of, say, 10 or less, probably has very little sexual interest, other than that which the media throws at them. So it is not the same thing as sexuality.

It's a difficult point to deal with. I am so much in sympathy with other opinions here, yet I still feel, over all, that children deserve to be protected.

So, I can't regret signing it and upon reflection would probably do so, in this context, again.

i'm in complete agreement with everything you said, and i think it's perfectly fine to support the family's campaign.  i also think there's a danger of overreacting to terminology used in ignorance without offensive intent and alienating people outside of the community further by unneccessary defensiveness.  it'd be a better idea to work towards welcoming the media and educating rather than putting walls up and hollering about how it's bad to use a few ambiguous terms.  there's an obvious difference between terminology used specifically to hurt and when it's simply misunderstood.  i have a TG friend on facebook who is aggressively defensive towards anyone who he percieves to be speaking out of turn about transgender issues, and most of it is a complete overreaction, and it sheds a negative light on the rest of us-- i've had people comment on how it makes them wary and uncertain about how to approach other TG folk for fear of saying something wrong and offending us.

Quote from: schism on February 06, 2012, 05:31:51 PM
i'm in complete agreement with everything you said, and i think it's perfectly fine to support the family's campaign.  i also think there's a danger of overreacting to terminology used in ignorance without offensive intent and alienating people outside of the community further by unneccessary defensiveness.  i've had people comment on how it makes them wary and uncertain about how to approach other TG folk for fear of saying something wrong and offending us.

Good thinking, a balanced approach! Being perceived as a bit different along with others who enjoy their individuality rather than being just another of society's clones is just a part of being real. Throwing up walls plays against any acceptance one might wish to have from those living outside of the lifestyle and only serves to exacerbate their negative attitudes against GLBTI people.

How about we address the speech of the private citizenry some other time, and recognize for now that journalists and other controllers of media should be held to higher standards? I'm not sure I'm capable of considering the two situations in the same breath.

recognize for now that journalists and other controllers of media should be held to higher standards

I don't.  I don't see where any legal or moral standard would hold them to any higher standard either, matter of fact, it might even be less legally speaking.  They might be bound by whatever professional ethics their publication holds to, but in an era of Fox News, I don't see where anyone really thinks that the media is held to any standards - other than 'make money' - at all.

The freedom to speak must be preserved, at all costs.

But what this petition is calling for is the press and others to be more considerate with terminology when referring to those who are already struggling with their lives.

The media here, has a number of words and terms, which it routinely doesn't use. Some may seem rather ridiculous, but all recognise the power of the media to influence behaviour and the need for consideration of others over expression. This is, of course, part of a voluntary code of conduct. (Thank fully).

Words which imply derogatory references to people's race, for example. Generally, mental illness references.

What this does is not so much as restrict press freedom, as create guidelines for presenting generally acceptable behaviour.

Words exist and will continue to be used. But the negative sentiments, where people are harmed by factors outside their own control, don't need encouragement.




Reading back, I'm suddenly struck with the notion that that appears to be a presumption that some of us have assumed the authority to guide how others think.

That's a pretty frightening prospect.

But in reality, it's how we all behave, if we think about it. It wasn't so long ago, that negative references to black people, for example might have passed unnoticed. Like many fans of the Beatles,  I recall a short film, where John Lennon, on stage with the Beatles in 1963, poked fun at physically handicapped people. Different times, different standards.

So, it seems to be a factor in human society, that we take the initiative to say, this is unacceptable, that that is wrong.

Quote from: tekla on February 06, 2012, 11:07:28 PM
recognize for now that journalists and other controllers of media should be held to higher standards

I don't.  I don't see where any legal or moral standard would hold them to any higher standard either, matter of fact, it might even be less legally speaking.  They might be bound by whatever professional ethics their publication holds to, but in an era of Fox News, I don't see where anyone really thinks that the media is held to any standards - other than 'make money' - at all.

Fox News doesn't have what I would think of as journalists. :laugh:
Anyway, I do. I think it's dishonorable to report the news in ways that are inaccurate or unprofessional.

Quote from: Felix on February 07, 2012, 10:00:06 PM
Fox News doesn't have what I would think of as journalists. :laugh:
Anyway, I do. I think it's dishonorable to report the news in ways that are inaccurate or unprofessional.

We're probably getting a little off subject here, but are we really? Perhaps the real issue isn't so much the subject matter as it is the manner in which it is presented. I have been around for awhile and have taken note of the fact that what passes for journalism now isn't journalism at all, but is more akin to skewed disinformation and group-think aimed at an entire generation who cannot make decisions on their own. Real journalists simply present the facts of a story in an unbiased manner which allows each reader or viewer to come to their own conclusions. I resent being told how to think and how to vote, what is proper and or what is politically correct. I am an adult!

Quote from: Shantel on February 08, 2012, 03:23:15 PM
We're probably getting a little off subject here, but are we really? Perhaps the real issue isn't so much the subject matter as it is the manner in which it is presented. I have been around for awhile and have taken note of the fact that what passes for journalism now isn't journalism at all, but is more akin to skewed disinformation and group-think aimed at an entire generation who cannot make decisions on their own. Real journalists simply present the facts of a story in an unbiased manner which allows each reader or viewer to come to their own conclusions. I resent being told how to think and how to vote, what is proper and or what is politically correct. I am an adult!

Yes. Headlines are written to get attention, and news stories are simplified and shaped to influence us in certain ways. My pet peeve is science writing. Even the most respected news outlets mangle the hell out of almost every science-related bit of information they come across.

That's why there are levels of publications, general, and lay science, and professional science and a real scientist is going to want to read the full paper anyway if it's in their field.

Apologies for this being off topic. But the link provided by Maya has reminded me of something really quite funny.

It was a number of years ago, I was listening, along with a number of others, to some physics boffin, talking about these dimentions and what they might do. He suggested that, in theory, time travel was possible. While most of us were taking in this rather startling news he said that, he can say, for definate, that it's possible to travel forward, but not necessarily back.

It took me, at least, several minutes to figure that one out. Still chuckling about it today. Some of these physics types seem to have a rather devilish sense of humour.

"Gender confused" is typically used by Focus on the Family types who think that people can and should be de-transified and that children should be raised to be "confident" about being their birth-designated sex. Because of the way this organization uses the term (and for all I know, they may have brought it into popular usage), I do find the label offensive. Especially when the trans person in question is not confused at all.

So when I see that term being bandied about, I am immediately suspicious of the point of view that goes along with it. Sometimes the label is used pretty innocently, by people who aren't nutjobs. But I abhor it when it's applied to a trans person who knows exactly who he or she is.