Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Last nite iwas watching a crime show that had a transsexual story line and although the authors were trying to be sympathetic to transsexuals it wasn't that great.

The one thing that bothered me was what this woman detective said (she was the character most helpful and understanding toward the TS). She said "I have met lots of >-bleeped-<s"

Am I the only one that finds this term offensive?  To me it's like if someone said, refering to women "I know lots of c***s"

Am I wrong? Is >-bleeped-< a word that is used outside of porn? How do you all feel about the word?





beth

At times I find the "Trannie" label offensive, as it lumped me in with others who had far different goals and motives, anyone who was around here a couple of years ago or longer was highly aware of those feelings and I'm sorry for the stress I caused some of them with my own intolerance, but since then I have come to view it as just another label which actually says so little about me personally, and at times now I actually embrace it in the same way homosexuals embrace the term "Queer" which was explained to me by one I trust and helped me to understand tolerance beyond my own narrow belief systems.

To me a >-bleeped-< is a part of a car.
But then I tend to lag behind normal word usage.
Either way though I really don't see it as offensive, just horrendously ignorant.
I don't mind labels, as they tend to speak volumes about the person speaking.

there are two things that make the term ">-bleeped-<" offensive:

1) the implicit suggestion that a transsexual and a transvestite are the same thing.

2) this may seem like a silly reason at first, but i have found it does actually have this effect.  the rhyming of it with "granny"... which (in conjunction with ageist prejudiced) suggests feebleness... being "weak"... being "lesser people".  worst of all, in some peoples' minds, feebleness caused by "overambitious sexual activities" (which they assume is what gender is all about) (thereby suggesting pervertedness).  that may look like a very long line of connected dots to begin with, but if you think about it, that actually is the impression that's often given out by the term.

myself, i'm bisexual, which makes the decision of whether or not i'd call myself "gay" kinda confusing.  but anyway, if i were just plain gay, i wouldn't embrace the word "queer".  i think that trying to normalise a term that is meant offensively only says to the bigots, "oh, look, they even admit there's something wrong with them".  i think the word ">-bleeped-<" to the transgendered is more offensive than the word "queer" has become to the homosexual... still... i won't be embracing either.  just like i wouldn't expect a black person to embrace "bongo-bongo land" as a second name for wherever they were born.

the trouble is, the term ">-bleeped-<" is getting used a lot.  it gives out all the wrong impressions and strongly needs to be discouraged in my view.

The problem that I have with the word >-bleeped-< is that it there is a Hollywood and media stereo type attached to this word which has been communicated to the public.    Most trannies in the movies  are placed in stereo type roles and not seen in everyday life roles and  that most of us go through.

When people read the newspapers or even books it  may quite possibly be this stereo type that comes  to mind when the word >-bleeped-< is used.

Therefore I don't like to hear this word used or applied to me.

Quote from: Svetlana on May 28, 2005, 01:57:06 PM
there are two things that make the term ">-bleeped-<" offensive:

1) the implicit suggestion that a transsexual and a transvestite are the same thing."

Careful with that Svetlana, though it is true, it stirs up to much emotion in this type of environment.  It is an attempt to seperate ourselves from others for political and social gain, trust me on this, been there, done that and am sorry for it.

Quote
2) this may seem like a silly reason at first, but i have found it does actually have this effect.  the rhyming of it with "granny"... which (in conjunction with ageist prejudiced) suggests feebleness... being "weak"... being "lesser people".  worst of all, in some peoples' minds, feebleness caused by "overambitious sexual activities" (which they assume is what gender is all about) (thereby suggesting pervertedness).  that may look like a very long line of connected dots to begin with, but if you think about it, that actually is the impression that's often given out by the term.

Only if you let it affect you as such and you lack the personal confidence in yourself and your reasons to just be as you are regardless of peoples belief systems.

Quote
myself, i'm bisexual, which makes the decision of whether or not i'd call myself "gay" kinda confusing.  but anyway, if i were just plain gay, i wouldn't embrace the word "queer".  i think that trying to normalise a term that is meant offensively only says to the bigots, "oh, look, they even admit there's something wrong with them".  i think the word ">-bleeped-<" to the transgendered is more offensive than the word "queer" has become to the homosexual... still... i won't be embracing either.  just like i wouldn't expect a black person to embrace "bongo-bongo land" as a second name for wherever they were born.

It has nothing to do with what others believe Lana,  and yes, there are many homosexuals who do not like the term "queer", but overall, it is about taking ownership of the term and removing the personal sting from it.  It is like saying, "YES, I am a gay man or a Lesbian Woman or in the case of Transgendered, a person who sees themselves as opposite of their birth sex, and proud to be so, so what concern is this to you?"  It is an admition of your orientation, or gender role,  not of peoples beliefs about it.  What you know of yourself is more important then what others believe in such cases.

Quote
the trouble is, the term ">-bleeped-<" is getting used a lot.  it gives out all the wrong impressions and strongly needs to be discouraged in my view.

A view I once held and was very vocal about it, as well as a personal definition of who was more deserving then others of public respect and recognition.   It was typical of me to suggest that without the "rainbow" involved, transsexuals would find it far easier to exist and get treatment.  Ask Jamie_Lauren or Susan how popular that made me and how many locked threads and hurt feelings it produced.

Personal views are one thing, where and how they should be expressed is another.

 "Type ">-bleeped-<" into Google and see what you get."

Try typing transsexual into google and she how many positive references you get.  I could learn to hate that label, the one that in it's original meaning, is what I actually am, just as easily based on what most people searching the internet will discover.

Its all about being confident in what you are and knowing you may or may not be what others believe you to be, as it is only YOU who can change peoples conception of what you personally are.

i disagree on your first point there.  whether i am the most confident woman in the world who wouldn't give a damn what anybody called me, or whether i am the most inward wreck who would die if somebody was to suggest i wasn't perfect... either way, doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to what somebody thinks when they hear the word ">-bleeped-<".

on your second point... well, taking a word and removing the sting from it is one way of doing things, but it's seldom the most practical.  should we call each other "c***s" in an attempt to remove the personal sting from that word?  i don't think so.  in most cases, i think that the thing of taking the sting out of a word is rathermuch the scenic route if you will, and the thing of trying to get people to use words that are good and descriptive, with no sting attached, instead, is a much better plan (ie. "t-girl" or "t-boy"... they are fine).

what you know yourself to be is more important than what others see you as, but nevertheless what others see you as still remains mighty important, if we are each to live in a world occupied by said others.

i don't know quite what you meant by "the rainbow".  i'm guessing, it means the "spectrum of gender / sexuality issues" and the way they are often grouped.  if i'm wrong with that guess then please correct me.  otherwise, i would say this: i personally disagree with the wide grouping on a moral basis, but on a practical basis, accept it as necessary, and thustowards, am not begrudging of it.  i didn't mean to give the impression i might begrudge it.

if my assumption of the meaning of "the rainbow" was correct, that might give me an idea of what you were saying about your comment when you told me to be "careful with that".  i didn't mean to stir up emotion, and if i did, then it was as only a side-effect to the actual meaning, which was only to try and describe the misconnections of the prejudice we encounter.  whatever you think, having people believe that a transvestite is the same as a transsexual isn't good for any of us.  it isn't good for a transvestite and it isn't good for a transsexual.  sure we can attend groups together and call each other transgendered as an umbrella term, because that's a practical way of coming together to solve many problems each of us have that do happen to be of similar natures.  but i don't think i'm going to offend anyone by suggesting that it's not good for people to think both categories are the same.  and if i do offend anyone, then i apologise, but with that, please expain how and why, so that i can learn from it.

i also strongly disagree that it's only you who can change peoples' conceptions of what you are.  that is something that you can do, sure, but it's not the only thing.  the mass media changes a lot of peoples' conceptions of what a lot of people are, and lots of the time people can't reasonably be expected to be able to counteract all that mud-slinging by themselves.  anybody can change somebody's opinion of anybody.  there's no bad thing about trying to influence other people to give yourself a good image.  that's just part of how it all works.

it is a lot about being confident in yourself, but it isn't "all" about that.  whatever you think, we each have to live in this world.  and if all and sundry think we're perverts, and we don't care about what any of them think, sooner or later they are going to think they are justified in their misconceptions and seek to distroy us, which is kinda what's already happening.  besides which, i do care if somebody else thinks that of me, regardless of whether or not they'd have the influence or the will to do anything about it.

 

Quotei think the word ">-bleeped-<" to the transgendered is more offensive than the word "queer" has become to the homosexual...

2004 Pride celebration in Portland Oregon, the theme was Queer We Go Again

If you take the word away from those who use it in a negative manner and use it yourself then the word has no power.

I am lesbian but I am part of the Queer community.  Partly by my choice and partly because society places me there.  I have over heard people in stores refering to me as a f'ing Dyke.  And there is a problem with this?

Words can only hurt or harm you if you allow it.  

Leigh

 "i disagree on your first point there.  whether i am the most confident woman in the world who wouldn't give a damn what anybody called me, or whether i am the most inward wreck who would die if somebody was to suggest i wasn't perfect... either way, doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to what somebody thinks when they hear the word ">-bleeped-<"."

Sorry Lana, I only speak from the experience of one who has seen many sides of the issue over 5 decades and grew up through the beginnings of the present environment, living within it and without it, and is still trying to learn from it all.  You are welcome to disagree and learn by your own experience and interpetation of it.

Quote from: Cailyn on May 28, 2005, 02:26:26 PM
Type ">-bleeped-<" into Google and see what you get.  All the sponsered ads are for porno sites and most of the websites listed are sleezy except for the auto/truck transmission sites.  I think this word along with ">-bleeped-<" is offensive and is about the objectification of transwomen as sex objects and subjects of perversity.  If we want people to believe this is medically inherent then this exposure degrades us all. T-girl, t-woman, transwoman, or transsexual, or just T are fine but these other words are no more acceptable than bitch, ho, slut, or c***. 

Cailyn

*claps

Has some of you know I live in México and here we are way bhind in words of tolerance and acceptation, so far Homosexuality is barely being accepted and wiew has a normal thing.

Now I really fear the word ">-bleeped-<" implications in sexuality, cuz that will target me and other ppl to think of us has sexual object or simply believe we are perverts or sexual misplaced. Short minded person exist in this world, and certainly media dont help at all, by difunding streotypes.

The best we can do is to talk to whorever lend an ear. After all, if someone dont know about us, how can we expect them to try to understand?

QuoteIt has nothing to do with what others believe Lana,  and yes, there are many homosexuals who do not like the term "queer", but overall, it is about taking ownership of the term and removing the personal sting from it.  It is like saying, "YES, I am a gay man or a Lesbian Woman or in the case of Transgendered, a person who sees themselves as opposite of their birth sex, and proud to be so, so what concern is this to you?"  It is an admition of your orientation, or gender role,  not of peoples beliefs about it.  What you know of yourself is more important then what others believe in such cases.

Does  this means someone born a woman who is proud of it and is comfortable with herself should be ok with being called c***? And Afro-Americans should be ok with the N word? It dos not matter as long as they know who they are?  I see no reason being offended with a term used to describe you is somehow your fault. If a term is offensive to a group, then it should be dropped by society, not embraced by the group.


If you google transsexual you get Susan's but not if you google >-bleeped-<.

QuoteIf you google transsexual you get Susan's but not if you google >-bleeped-<

actually maybe you do now that i've brought up the term here >:(






beth

Quote from: Terri-Gene on May 28, 2005, 03:30:37 PMSorry Lana, I only speak from the experience of one who has seen many sides of the issue over 5 decades and grew up through the beginnings of the present environment, living within it and without it, and is still trying to learn from it all.  You are welcome to disagree and learn by your own experience and interpetation of it.

picture the scene.  some idiot sitting in front of the television box, munching a bag of chips.  sees some television program documentary which looks at ">-bleeped-< porn".  this is a violent and self-righteous person who owns a hand-gun.  finishes watching the program, goes out for a walk.  observes me minding my own business, walking right by his house, where his children could see me if they were outside playing, bringing down the tone of his neighborhood which he is proud of.

shouts over to me "oi, are you a f'ing >-bleeped-<?"  do you really think this person is going to see me being proud of myself and say "oh, nevermind.  i had the wrong idea.  i'll just leave you be, and be on my way.  apologies for the inconvenience."  do you?  or is he going to beat the hell out of me, or alternatively shoot me in the head?

excuse me if that does not seem realistic.  the impression you give other people of yourself is not the only one which will matter, and it does matter what other people think of you.  this idiot watching his television box will have no clue as to who i am or what i think, so it won't make an ounce of difference however the hell much or little i believe in myself as to what he will think all "trannies" are like.  to simply go around being proud of oneself without being cautious about outside influences upon others' impressions, i think could be recklessly dangerous in certain circumstances.  that's the only reason i continue to argue the point.

"Does  this means someone born a woman who is proud of it and is comfortable with herself should be ok with being called c***? And Afro-Americans should be ok with the N word? It dos not matter as long as they know who they are?"

How words affect you has more to do with what kind of person you are then what people believe you to be and no matter who you are, there is always room for negative comments which will hurt.  The cause of the hurt must be addressed of course, but one must also learn to accept that people often hurt others in so many ways it is impossible to make yourself totally invulnerable so you must to some extent at least learn to be immune to things which you don't believe to be true though many may believe it.

as to words like "c***", well, I can remember the days when I referred to women as "slices" myself, as that was the commonly used term in my environmental culture at the time which ment about the same thing.  I didn't use it to make any kind of statement, just it was a common term applied to women, as a species, and I did use it within those circles, so I cast no personal blame at persons who use such language in present days, though yes, it does have some personal effect, though I refuse to let it bother me more then superficially.  It not right, but it is a fact of life I must deal with in a mature manner.

ps. if some homosexual people have managed to turn around the word "queer" from an offense to a discription, then all power to them.  that's quite an achievement.  would've been a lot more productive to try and stop people calling them queer in the first place... but never mind.  actually, i don't think they've achieved it at all.  i think that "queer" is still used as a derogatory term by many many people.  i don't think the power has been taken away from it, and if i knew any of my friends' sexualities, and one of them was homosexual, and told me he/she was happy being called queer, i still wouldn't call him/her queer.  even "gay" is still used as a derogatory term.  take note of the sheer frequency by which schoolchildren will use "gay" to mean unsatisfactory, undesirable or pointless.  so even "gay" hasn't been conquered, nevermind "queer".

no, i think that whole approach only produces a confusing mess at the end of the day.  give me but one example of an insult word which has been completely turned around, if you can find one.  then tell me how long that took.

nobody should simply "put up and shut up" with the "way of the world".  many people often forget that the "way of the world" can be changed.  it was changed many times to get to the state it's in at the moment, for goodness sake!  don't be so defeatest.  you don't simply "have to put up with it" and accept all those insult terms creeping into everyday language use.  it should be changed.

No more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I appologize Terri-gene,

I understand now what you mean now. If someone on the street calls me >-bleeped-<, then it wouldnt bother me because i know they are just ignorant and in that sense (being called a name) the term would not bother me.

It does bother me when it is used on television because it just adds to the ignorance that is out there.

Thank you Beth, but as to your second sentence I won't comment as I have said what I can on this matter, and more would not be productive.

Quote from: Leigh on May 28, 2005, 03:28:39 PM
If you take the word away from those who use it in a negative manner and use it yourself then the word has no power.

By implicit definition any given word has no power. It is not what a word means it is how we interpret it.

Am I supposed to be ashamed when someone calls me a bad name? *shrug* It's their opinion, and as I see it if they can't be polite there opinion isn't worth the effort they used to express it.

Quote from: Leigh on May 28, 2005, 03:28:39 PM
Words can only hurt or harm you if you allow it. 

Exactly my point.


Dorian, for what it is worth:
My view on sexuality is that it has so little relevance that any attempt to use it to chastise or categorize is amusing at best.



What I find amusing with bad words is that they are all supposed to be, well, 'bad', yet a lot of them had a very mundane everyday meaning, for example. (from dictionary.com)

• queer: "1. Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation."
• gay: "2. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry."
• fagot: "1. A bundle of twigs, sticks, or branches bound together.", 2. Also.
• '>-bleeped-<' has no entry; fwiw, so from my local Encarta "2.  Transsexual", "3.  Transvestite"

Why am I supposed to be offended?
Because the implied aggression of the person using them.

The way I see it is that the words are just the messengers (expression of don't shoot the messenger seems relevant), what we do with the message is what should be the concern, I think.

just to note that i have some more things that i want to say on this.  considering the "no more!" statement, i will only say them if i'm told it's okay.

Post away as long as you abide by the rules.

I think the "no more!!!!" comment was a tad harsh, considering the circumstances.

Unless my eyes deceived me, no one actually "said" a bad word - in fact, they were bleeped out and censored (i.e. F***). Furthermore, they were being used to make a point and used in the context of an adult conversation - I certainly did not receive the impression anyone was slinging fire at the other.

Rose

Actually they did.  I censored the words.  Look at the bottom of those posts!

It does not matter what the context was,  the fact of the matter is that this forum is basically for all ages and groups. 

Leigh

 
fagot: "1. A bundle of twigs, sticks, or branches bound together.",

Try it with two g's

As far as I know they were censored after the fact, fwiw.
Erm, Leigh just said that for that matter. Eesh I type to slow.

Fwiw faggot has the same definition by the by; how I spelt it initially.

fag·got 2    (fgt) KEY 

NOUN:
Offensive Slang
Used as a disparaging term for a homosexual man.

Quote from: Rose Dawson on May 28, 2005, 09:33:58 PM
I think the "no more!!!!" comment was a tad harsh, considering the circumstances.

Unless my eyes deceived me, no one actually "said" a bad word - in fact, they were bleeped out and censored (i.e. F***). Furthermore, they were being used to make a point and used in the context of an adult conversation - I certainly did not receive the impression anyone was slinging fire at the other.

Leigh was right on in this if she had to mask the words as she said she did. So I back her 100%

Knowing that Leigh had to mask the words because they were written in full by the original author, then yes, I agree. But at least on my end, I can't see what exactly has been edited in the original post, so I had no idea. A mere misunderstanding.

Quote from: Leigh on May 28, 2005, 10:42:59 PM
fag·got 2    (fgt) KEY 

NOUN:
Offensive Slang
Used as a disparaging term for a homosexual man.

Yes that is true and I believe all the terms (well >-bleeped-< didn't) had the newer 'bad' meaning as well.

My point is that the terms did not originate as being bad and their definitions even still reflect that.

"Knowing that Leigh had to mask the words because they were written in full by the original author, then yes, I agree. But at least on my end, I can't see what exactly has been edited in the original post, so I had no idea. A mere misunderstanding."

Actually the editing may have been somewhat unnoticable to some as a word or two we had been using was stared out as in ****.  I din't give the word, which had already been used, much thought and just reused it and I gtuess Lana did the same.

It wasn't caught for a while since some of us had been online a while and replying to new messages before a moderater had a chance to see it, thus the apparent delay in rhe editing.  Those of us who had used the word should have had more respect and were thoughtless when we used it.  The editing was warrented.

As to any heat, no, there really wasn't, but the staff here is aware of my own volital nature in the past and with that in mind, could very well, come in somewhat earier then they normally would in any conversation I'm involved in which their experience tells them is headed that way, which I couldn't blame them for if they did, and if such had been the case, it would have been a preventive move rather then any statement about what was going on at the time.  I am only back here because of a lifting of bans by Susans and I would understand.

As it was, all that was happening was different points of view which were hopefully being discussed reasonably, but with inappropriate words being thrown out which are inappropiate to a public setting.  Thoughtlessness at best.

I used the word first. After i saw it being reused several times i realized i had made a mistake and i asked Leigh to edit my posts and thankfully she did.










beth

*still thinks the words in question are basically pointless* ;)

But there seems to be no commentary as to be for or against the thought.

Bad thought or is everyone just distracted ?

More likely uniterested.  It wasn't exactly the height of literary or philosohical achievement and really made no concrete proof either way, just different ways of seeing things based on different cultural, geographic, environmental points of view.

For my side of it, I live in, around and associate in a culture and climate where being called a "trannie" or a "queer" is so second nature  and unthreatning, it is hardly noticed and we call ourselves as such and see no shame in it.  Of course I would take the view I did, as would most up and down this coast who are in for keeps.  Others in less exposed areas and cultures might naturally feel differrently.

Depends on where your from, who you primarily associate with and how you relate to people and yourself I guess.

Quote*still thinks the words in question are basically pointless* ;)

But there seems to be no commentary as to be for or against the thought.

Bad thought or is everyone just distracted ?

I dont think the definitions in a dictionary are relevant. If a term is found offensive to a group or part of a group it is offensive regardless of any definition.

"If a term is found offensive to a group or part of a group it is offensive regardless of any definition."

Personally, now that I run around picking up and delivering Medical Records and Lab Specimens, I find the word WORK to be offensive, after all, it is a 4 letter word.  Does that mean nobody on the job can use that offensive word around me?

Or how about the popular car, the PT Cruiser?  I just bet that those whip smart colledge kids who named it don't have a clue what a PT was when I was in school.  PT was an insult to a girl, probably as bad or worse then calling her a whore, slut, or like in Nevada, a Flat backer.  Yet these cars are on the road by millions with PT Cruiser in crome letters on the side.  I almost fell on my face the first time I saw one of those.   Such a car when I was young would have brought the company to it's Knees.  Talk about Obsenity and Offensive.  And I see women driving them around proudly showing them off.  Ignorance I guess, but to many of the older generation to be seen driving something with PT Cruiser on the side would be like getting naked on main street.

All right, valid points.

Still if we only go by what our current environs use the words as communication over distances is going to be a mess isn't it?

PT is like what has happened to gay, etc. The common definition has changed. By the by it's Physical Therapy to me. Though apparently they think it means "Personal Transportation (http://www.ptcruizer.com/ptcruiser-development.html)." (a google on "Personal Transportation Cruiser (http://www.google.com/search?q=Personal+Transportation+Cruiser)" seems to support this).  I thought it was Plymouth townsend or something like that, but cars are not something I've ever paid much attention to.

Hum. Still seems to me that it is more reasonable to be perturbed at someone for trying to perturb than the words they chose to use. *shrug* I guess I don't have a clue, don't mind me (=

Sand and the wind as I'm fond of saying ;)

PT as in what JFK served on in WWII was my first thought.

Don't sweat it 4 years.  anyway, back in the 60's and I don't know for how long afterwards PT ment, forgive me "P**** Teaser".  It was applied to a girl who was prone to heating you up and then not putting out.  It was considered to be worse then a flatbacker since PT's didn't play fair.  Dumb Juvinile thing, but thats what it was, and highly offensive to the girls as the term ment the lowest of the low concerning them, worthless, good for nothing, deserving a good g***b*** etc.  Anyway, offensive word.

What about all of the sexual inuendos in computer jargon,  such as when yu click on the menu yu get a "drop down box."   Mention it in any eigth grade class and they catch the meaning.   In the 50s and 60s the word box in slang referred to a female's private parts," at least it did in the Dakotas.

yeah, if were going to get offended about commonly used words that probably the greater majority of us do not see as offensive then perhaps we need to make aout a mile long list of commonly used offensive words.  We all use them every day and probably offend all to many people who are just to polite to say anything when we do.  in fact, lets ban books, videos and any kind of media as I'm sure no matter what it is, someone will take offense at it, so just get rid of it all and we can have a happy peaceful world where nobody is offended, of course theres nothing left to offend anyone with, but thats the point, right?

Hell, jsut a dumb Gender Queer Trannies opinion so trash it.

If this forum was not open to the underage public I would personally have no problem with words however they might be used unless they were directed at me and the context used.

However, this is not the case with Susan's.  Please remember that we are, according to a large % of society, the

QuoteImmoral Minority

and do not think that they would not shut us down if they could. 

well just to compare, somebody seeing "drop down box" on a computer screen isn't going to make them feel sufficiently threatened enough about a certain perceived "type" of person to want to go out and beat somebody up for it.  ">-bleeped-<", in some cases, does.  there's your difference.

of course i don't give a flying monkey's what the word is or to any significant degree even what some dictionary might or mightn't say that it means... language is only invented to have persuasive effect on people... and it's those effects i'm concerned about.  if that fictional "idiot" i was referring to before (alike which there are plenty of real ones out there) saw all these media and heresay interpretations and associative links of "trannies" and didn't connect them to me at all, then of course i wouldn't be worried.  and believe you me, i'm one of the people who most holds the view that with all the horror that goes on in the world today, "naughty words" are the very least thing anybody aught be concerned over.  but in this case it's not "naughty words", it's slander i guess.  and i'm not just categorising it as that; i mean it as a fundamental difference.  you see what i mean?

Very well said Svetlana!     :)


I see what you mean.






beth

Well, what we need then is to all pitch in and hire an advertising agency to "clean up" our imange and give us a catchy new name that people will instinctively like and our problems will be solved.

As to Queer and Trannie,  In general, all up and down the West Coast, admittedly the heaviest population of full time day to day Queers and Trannies in the nation it's pretty acceptable language and we don't think a thing about it or take any offense, it's just what we are and we do not fear or feel humiliated by what we are.  I believe it is common language in NY also, though I don't live there so can't be sure.

One of the hottest Premier Transgender nightclubs in San Francisco is even named "Trannie Shack" and even has an excellent web site to promote itself.

Anyway with not only with possibly the most Homosexuals and Transgenders in the nation, but the most outfront and so the ones who actually are the most exposed and most at risk, the West coast of California, Oregon and Washington I guess, is perfectly happy with the terms and they don't cause us anymore heat then if we didn't call ourselves anything. We don't even see any conflict and were the ones most affected, so what is the problem?

So far all I've seen is that it identifies us as a group and so makes us a target.  To my way of thinking a target is a target and so who cares what you call it, our point is they can't hurt us by calling us Queer or Trannie, it's like calling us Transgender or Homosexual but shorter.

As to getting beat up because someone heard the word Trannie and associated it with someone acting like the opposite sex, well, does that mean if the word hadn't existed they wouldn't do the same on seeing us in their neighborhood?  Or for a good one, just look at the word Transgender, thats a label and people see it all day long.  Does the word Transgender make them feel any better about us as opposed to the word Trannie?

come on now, If you object to the word Trannie, then you have to object to the word Transgender for exactly the same reasons.  There is no argument I can think of against that as both are just labels for a specific type of people.

But then perhaps thats why over hear we don't worry so much about people "beating us up".  We use the words ourself so much they aren't sure if it's a compliment or an insult and more and more we don't hear it so much from anyone but ourselves.

"beat up"?  Over a million women a year suffer from physical abuse and rape and how many transgender people compaired to that get beat up?  No one has beaten me up for a lot of years, and I don't exactly live around snob hill either,  I know that.

Sorry, but I haven't seen anything mentioned here that would cause me to worry about my safety or anything else, but then perhaps thats because I"m not in an armchair playing quarterback.

Quote from: Terri-Gene on May 29, 2005, 08:21:06 PM
One of the hottest Premier Transgender nightclubs in San Francisco is even named "Trannie Shack" and even has an excellent web site to promote itself.

I don't take offense at the word however I do not chose to use it. I consider it less than tasteful.  There is a world of difference between >-bleeped-< and trannie. They may sound the same but are two different words.

Since transsexuals are 16 times more likely to get murdered, i would imagine we are more likely to get assaulted also.

Terri-gene, you seem to be the champion of the use of the word >-bleeped-<, why is it that you have never used the term here until now?



beth

Quote from: Terri-Gene on May 29, 2005, 08:21:06 PMAs to getting beat up because someone heard the word Trannie and associated it with someone acting like the opposite sex, well, does that mean if the word hadn't existed they wouldn't do the same on seeing us in their neighborhood?

yes, in my experience, it does.

QuoteOr for a good one, just look at the word Transgender, thats a label and people see it all day long.  Does the word Transgender make them feel any better about us as opposed to the word Trannie?

again, yes.  the word ">-bleeped-<" (and i'm not aware of the difference in meaning via spelling that susan pointed out, so i use it as though interchangeable with "trannie") conjures up images of perverted sex workers, because that is what it is specifically portrayed to mean.  terms like "transgender" or "transsexual" or "transitioner" aren't portrayed that way.  that is the difference i am trying to explain and it does genuinely make a lot of difference.

i haven't been beaten up, but i have been assaulted in other ways, and not just verbally either, due to these views.  i specifically asked one person afterwards why he was having such a go at me.  he replied "because you're a f*cking >-bleeped-< and you're not welcome around here."  i then, slightly angrily, corrected him, saying "i'm not some '>-bleeped-<' as you call it.  i'm a transsexual woman."  he said "don't f*cking make excuses you f*cking >-bleeped-< or i'll beat the cr@p out of you, you sick little pervert".  if those (from memory) are not the exact words, then they are mighty close.  more insults followed, the usual, then he got bored and walked off, thankfully.  other times, there was worse trouble than that - that's just a good one with the words used, for the example i'm making.

QuoteIf you object to the word Trannie, then you have to object to the word Transgender for exactly the same reasons.

i hope the above example explains that that isn't true at all.  they are very seperate reasons.

QuoteBut then perhaps thats why over hear we don't worry so much about people "beating us up".

you say that where you live must be the riskiest place.  to me, from what you've said, it very much doesn't seem that way at all.  it seems like one of the very safest places.

QuoteOver a million women a year suffer from physical abuse and rape and how many transgender people compaired to that get beat up?

and you still insist on considering "normal" women seperately from transitioning women.  why?

QuoteSorry, but I haven't seen anything mentioned here that would cause me to worry about my safety or anything else, but then perhaps thats because I"m not in an armchair playing quarterback.

sorry i'm not very familiar with american football, so if you wanted to, you'd have to explain that one to me.

I think it is perfectly fine if some are offended by the word and some are not. That is what i expected and the reason i started this thread was just to find out.

I do find it disturbing that some would think those offended were somehow not as committed or not as sophisticated or in some how defective. It is certainly ok to be offended and it in no way disparages those who are, just as it is ok to be fine with using ">-bleeped-<".


To imply that the majority of transgendered embrace the word is a falacy. I have never seen the word used by anyone in this forum or the old forum to describe themselves or others. Thanks for responding all.


beth

well personally i don't think it's quite fine to be okay with using the word, as that spreads it around, with all its negative baggage, and keeps it going.  jmo.

 "I do find it disturbing that some would think those offended were somehow not as committed or not as sophisticated or in some how defective"

Please don't for a moment get that idea beth, as that has nothing to do with it at all and should never enter into it as it would be an internal descrimination.

It is quite natural that some would embrace it and others not, even here, it is just that so many of us don't see it as threatning in any way, but that is our opinion, not necessarily the actual fact.  Actually for myself, because of some local associations I have personally come to identify more as Queer or Gender Queer, though I suppose that would be objectional to some also.

As to the difference between ">-bleeped-<" and "Trannie" I am not aware of any difference in the context and see it spelled both ways in this local.  I just prefer the ie spelly over the y spelling for the same reasons I replaced the Y for I in my own name and commonly identified by that label along with a lot of others prior to more current influences.

I think probably a lot of the midwest and southeastern attitudes about the term come from the popularity of the term by the Night Club Set,  which is frequented by people more into a "lifestyle" rather then a gender goal, where yes, the term is probably most prevailent, but for a lot of us, we use it in the same spirit as Homosexuals use the term Queer, and to most averae persons, around here, at least, it is perfectly interchangeable with and means the same thing as Transgendered.  Near as I can tell, it is simply looked upon as a short form of Transgendered, for what I run into anyway. 

But as to that "NIght Club Set" who Identify as ">-bleeped-<" or "Trannie" are we to discriminate agaist them to keep any negitive attitudes about them from affecting us?  Are we to discriminate against them to further our own political and social goals?  Sounds like the old TS vs. CD thing to me for the same reasons.  Discrimination is descrimination and we are dangerously close to it ourselves here.


And in a way you are right Lana, overall, the west is a much easier place compaired to many other parts of the country for trans people and homosexuals, but give some credit to why that is, what with our more outfront attitudes.  We can't be ingored as we are openly  living next door, and because we have made friends of those neighbors and they do not see us as a threat, it is harder to condon actions against us.  I have no idea how many Transgendered people are in california, a fantastic number to be sure, but during the elections I remember a figure of around 400,000 or almost a half million registered Gay and Lesbian voters being mentioned as a lobby target for poloticians.  To put this in persective, for me at least, thats almost half the population of Nevada.

If you look at statistical records though, not just headline news, our record of actual violence against TGs and homosexuals, the type that doesn't make the news, is actually as high as anywhere else, but less publically condoned.  When viewed objectively we are as safe as many other minorities who suffer from discriminatory action.  Always remember, discrimination wasn't invented just to harrass us with.  Actually, a Transgender is statistically much safer then a homosexual. 

TG

Quote from: Terri-Gene on May 30, 2005, 09:13:47 PMBut as to that "NIght Club Set" who Identify as ">-bleeped-<" or "Trannie" are we to discriminate agaist them to keep any negitive attitudes about them from affecting us?  Are we to discriminate against them to further our own political and social goals?  Sounds like the old TS vs. CD thing to me for the same reasons.  Discrimination is descrimination and we are dangerously close to it ourselves here.

it's not discrimination to call two different things by two different names.  that's not discrimination, it's just practical english.  this "night club set" can do their own things and i won't interfere in that.  but i don't want to be connected with it, and that should be a choice i have.  after all, it's not exactly like i'm trying to distance myself from an orphan's charity here, is it?  i'm sure anyone can see why somebody would feel uncomfortable being constantly falsely associated with the "sex crowd".  and yes, i think there are certain elements of that lifestyle that fully deserve distancing oneself from.

QuoteActually, a Transgender is statistically much safer then a homosexual.

i'll be sure to put that on my headstone when i get killed by some angry mob who think i'm a sex menace.

 "it's not discrimination to call two different things by two different names."

Right, just like it wasn't discrimination when I wanted to seperate TS from TG for exactly the same reasons you have professed.  Discrimination is discrimination no matter how you justify it.

And I'm sorry you don't like statistics, but the facts are the facts, thats not to say anyone of might not be next.

TG

so this is getting ridiculous, now.  if i don't call a duck a kangaroo, apparently i'm discriminating against kangaroos.  maybe we should just have done with it and call anything at all, everything?  very useful communication with each other we'd have then.

show us these "facts", then.  let's see them.  bet they're full of holes, just like most any statistic.

Go to the FBI website

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/pdf/03sec2.pdf

Better yet check with your local police force.

that's some wad of text to wade through.  give us some directions to the relevant bits please.

Hey Lana, your a smart colledge kid, figure it out, If your interested in finding out that is.

TG

nice hit, you got me right in the gut there, my eyes are watering.  well done.  *clap*

*coughs loudly*

We are playing nice yes?

  "We are playing nice yes?"

Of course, but like every thing else, it seems like perception gets in the way.

TG

Strictly speaking I think the entire point is perception.

By the by the series "The Day the Universe Changed" (1986) by James Burke is interesting in this respect.

But anyway (=

I think this topic's gone about as far as it can sensibly go. Quick someone suggest a new topic!  :icon_bunch: