Susan's Place Transgender Resources

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?

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

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

Quote from: Oriah on February 03, 2014, 09:54:05 AM
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.

Quote from: Declan. on February 03, 2014, 09:43:31 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: ThePhoenix on February 03, 2014, 01:19:54 PM
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.

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

Quote from: Mr Hockey on February 03, 2014, 02:01:47 PM
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.

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

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.

Quote from: dalebert on February 03, 2014, 01:37:10 PM
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. 

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.

Quote from: ThePhoenix on February 03, 2014, 04:48:08 PM
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.....

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-<-".

->-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.

Quote from: missy1992 on February 03, 2014, 05:32:32 PM
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. 

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

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.

Quote from: Oriah on February 03, 2014, 05:36:09 PM
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? :P )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

I'll try to explain this carefully as i'll probably come across as a hypocrite with this post but bear with me.

I hate the word ->-bleeped-<- but have used it on a few rare occassions, a few times i've had to stand up to threats of violence from groups of small minded drunk men, on two of these occassions i've thrown the word ->-bleeped-<- into my response with the line "the first person who tries to throw a punch is going to get their ass kicked by a ->-bleeped-<-".
These people used the word to try to reduce me to an object of ridicule/scorn/sub-human so by saying that this ->-bleeped-<- will kick the ass of the first one to try anything then i'm making them risk ridicule by losing the fight to someone they deem lesser than them.
I've had some training in martial arts so i've been able to say this with absolute confidence when dealing with drunk people & it made them back down each time, sometimes using the exact language that drunk people throw at you can short circuit their tiny booze soaked minds

If people use the word without threats of violence then they just get a stern lecture as to why I find that offensive.
For the record, I DO NOT like violence, any time i've had to fight it has reduced me to tears afterwards, I have not had to resort to violence for over 20yrs as my words & my confidence have always been sufficient to get me out of any situation. I would never refer to anyone else with this word & I do not tolerate people aiming this word at me

It's a slur, but I believe it is okay for people who have the word used against them to take it back. I believe this is mostly trans woman, so I don't think that I, as a trans guy, have the "right" to use it like that. I don't.

--Jay

I guess it's OK if it's used as short for "transformer" and "transmission". 

I think the whole trying to take the word back ideal is a bit silly. I just don't use any kind of slur at all. I call people by their names. I don't use racist words in my vocabulary nor any other kind of slur. As a society we need to move away from so many generalizations and just treat each other with a bit more respect. We have to change our current language for the better. Not continue the same old rhetoric in just a different variation.

Quote from: Lady_Oracle on February 05, 2014, 02:01:12 AM
I think the whole trying to take the word back ideal is a bit silly. I just don't use any kind of slur at all. I call people by their names. I don't use racist words in my vocabulary nor any other kind of slur. As a society we need to move away from so many generalizations and just treat each other with a bit more respect. We have to change our current language for the better. Not continue the same old rhetoric in just a different variation.

You can stop using any word you want, but do you really think society is just going to follow suit?  These words won't disappear just because you don't use them.

I find it offensive when its used aggresively. If someone simply doesn't know the difference or what it means I don't really care.

The issue I have with the word is that I find it is often used to define someone by the condition they are dealing with. Which has very little to do with the person themselves. It often calls into effect a bunch of stereotypes which may be in no way accurate, or representative of the person to whom the word is being applied. And sometimes calls forth a bunch of assumptions, based on those stereotypes, which may be equally inaccurate. It removes the human being and replaces it with a process. An assumed way of life. It can take away the uniqueness of an individual and replace it with a framework by which they are judged.

People aren't conditions. They aren't processes. They're human beings. And, speaking personally, I would prefer to be called Lauren than a ->-bleeped-<-. I would prefer people knew me for what I do, feel and think rather than something over which I had no control at birth.

Quote from: dalebert on February 03, 2014, 02:29:31 PM
I hope you're not getting that from what I said. If so, I've expressed myself very poorly.

I may have misinterpreted what you said.

Quote from: Oriah on February 05, 2014, 11:00:01 AM
You can stop using any word you want, but do you really think society is just going to follow suit? 

Actually, I think with the campaigns against the N-word for people of color, the F-word for gay people, and the R-word for people with cognitive impairments, the higher purpose wasn't to get people to stop using the word but to raise awareness of the humanity of the objects of those slurs and their right to be respected.

I guess how you feel about the word ->-bleeped-<- may depend on your age and how you have heard it used.    Growing up I have always heard the word used dismissively usually by males to other males, as if to say you are less than dirt.    One of the worst things one male can call another male is that they are a sissy,  a ->-bleeped-<-.    This made it more difficult for me to accept that I was really a woman. Since I have come out publicly on Facebook and AARP as a transgender woman,  I have gotten insight into how women are treated by males in our society.    I have had become that the target of that the attitude that some men have toward women.    These men get sticky sweet like you are going to swoon all over them or you become an object of their lust.   One even sent me a link to a porno site as if to say you are a bitch and this is what men do to you.   My emotional response was so what.  I know how some men feel about woman, and I am proud to say that I am a woman and as a woman I expect to be treated by men as one and become an object of their crudity.   Its acceptance of this that helps me realize that I am really a woman and a ->-bleeped-<- and that I accept all of the garbage that goes with it.

This does not make me feel any different about the word ->-bleeped-<-,   I don't like it, because it is one more reminder that us women are seen as property and exist only to satisfy the carnal need of some crude and mindless men.    I accept my womaness and I am proud of it.   But I totally reject that some how I am less of being because of this get me up on my soap box.    And if I have become the object of some men's lustful fantasies it makes be proud and happy to be a woman.   What they think is their problem and not mine.

Quote from: The Post-Trans-Rebel. on February 03, 2014, 05:36:31 PM
->-bleeped-<-? When did this become an automotive forum?

*GIGGLE*  :D No doubt!

I prefer Miss, Ma'am or even Hey Lady myself. Anything other than that is disrespectful and meant to solicit an emotional response.

Quote from: The Post-Trans-Rebel. on February 03, 2014, 05:36:31 PM
->-bleeped-<-? When did this become an automotive forum?

My wife blew the ->-bleeped-<- in her BMW two weeks ago...

Quote from: Jill F on February 06, 2014, 01:47:17 PM
My wife blew the ->-bleeped-<- in her BMW two weeks ago...

Jill, you owe me for a new blouse now. Blouse plus Dr. Pepper out he nose don't mix. You are nuts, we have to party together some time!! ;D

Quote from: Jill F on February 06, 2014, 01:47:17 PM
My wife blew the ->-bleeped-<- in her BMW two weeks ago...

Lucky her? ::)

Quote from: Mr Hockey on February 06, 2014, 02:30:53 PM
Lucky her? ::)

I don't think so.  It cost $7500 to fix.  :D

Quote from: Jill F on February 06, 2014, 03:12:52 PM
I don't think so.  It cost $7500 to fix.  :D

Is it the joke, or do I just have a dirty mind? ::)

Quote from: Mr Hockey on February 06, 2014, 03:23:17 PM
Is it the joke, or do I just have a dirty mind? ::)

You just have a dirty mind.

*Goes back to writing anthro porn*

i dont care for that word. its a car part anyway. i only feel someone is trans anything if they have not achieved what they believe is themselves. trans means crossing over or switching.. well when your finished.. you just are you. for me female.

Quote from: lovelessheart on February 07, 2014, 07:12:26 PM
i dont care for that word. its a car part anyway. i only feel someone is trans anything if they have not achieved what they believe is themselves. trans means crossing over or switching.. well when your finished.. you just are you. for me female.

Indeed, trans is a prefix meaning changing from one state of being to another, be that radio and car transmissions, or ->-bleeped-<-, or transsexuals... or Trans-Atlamtic flights, or a Trans Am... OK I am done for now.

I do not use slurs and I do not want others using slurs around me.

I am exposed to slurs every day. Some are directed toward me. "->-bleeped-<- stories" with negative consequences have been said at the lunch table by an individual several times and I believe it is directed toward me. I just sit there. I identify with some of the stories and it sucks and even though I will out myself, next time I will put a stop to it.

I have heard ->-bleeped-<- used to me by another in an non-offensive way (not used as a slur), in private, and I do not take offense. However, when he uses the word it gets my attention. I thought about pointing out the word is derogatory. It is used in conversation by him when he is discussing his relative and another mutual friend he knows as trans*. I have a very close relationship with this person and I have no secrets from him. I have known him for 26 years.

If the word is used as a slur then I do not like it. If it is used by an ally or another trans I know then I do not take offense if it is used as a neutral descriptor.  However, in the future I will inform then of the nature of the word.

(I don't know what was said on page two of this thread because work has decided that that page is worthy of being blocked.)

It depends on the context.  I don't use it for myself, because I don't particularly associate with being trans, and it's more often associated with women, so I don't feel like it's really my word to reclaim.  Very, very, very occasionally I'll say it tongue in cheek when referring to myself and I'm with people that I know won't take offense from it, or take it the wrong way, but that's it.

When other people use it I have to remind myself that it's probably simply because they're uneducated on the offensiveness of the word, similar to the way that they often say "->-bleeped-<-" when meaning "transsexual", or "hermaphrodite" instead of "intersex", because of being uneducated.  It's not something which is commonly come across for most people, and trans people are still seen as something other and rare in a lot of cases which doesn't help.  The majority of people don't know, or don't know that they know someone who's trans, so it's hard for them to get a grasp of it being something which happens in reality.  If I know that it's highly likely to just be a lack of education causing them to carelessly use the word then I don't mind it so much, but I do always get a twinge of discomfort at the fact that they could be using it in a derogatory way.

Like any reclaimed word, it's personal and context is always key. I go back and forth on it myself. What actually irritates me the most is when people who are somewhat educated about trans people (enough to think they know all about it, when they really just have a vague idea because they know a couple of trans guys/girls) start thinking they can throw the word around like it's nothing and completely ignore when people are uncomfortable. I'm still pretty young and I went to an arts school, where a couple of friends still go.  Knowing only about trans politics in that young, artistic, and mostly accepting atmosphere can make some people forget that the world doesn't quite work the same way on the outside. My way of looking at it is that I have no judgment for trans people using it, but it irritates me to see cis allies throw it around casually.

As for whether trans women have more of a right to the word then men,  I respect that t girls have in history been the recipients of that slur on a much larger scale than trans guys, I get that it hits closer to home for the girls. Our struggle has been more with just not being seen. We still have a right to it though, imo.  I think more trans guys refer to themselves as ->-bleeped-<-s in reaction to being invisible in society, a way of claiming their identity publicly. A way to say, "I fit here too, I'm not just androgynous/boyish/butch or whatever you label me"

this makes me chuckle inwardly as ->-bleeped-<- and ->-bleeped-<-got are the two words i use most often to describe myself as far as gender and sexuality.

then i was never one for political correctness.

The word itself doesn't bother me, it's how it's said.  At the same time though, it's never a term of endearment so maybe it's not such a great word to use regardless of the sentiment behind it.

I routinely refer to myself as a ->-bleeped-<-.  It's just easier to say than "transwoman".  If there were a magic pill to make me a ciswoman I wouldn't take it, I'm proud to be trans.

I agree with other posters, I'm taking ->-bleeped-<- back from porn.

-AM

Words don't really offend me. Actions toward and the way you treat me do. What about the word "redneck"? I have been called this too because I am from the south and as a male with long hair and dressed down, it wasn't a compliment for sure. ->-bleeped-<- is just a shortened version of transgender. It can be used either way. ->-bleeped-<- doesn't really bother me either. These two words seem to be prevailent in the porn industry so there must be whole lot of people either curious or interested whether they admit it or not. But I am definitely not an "it", that takes away a person's humanity and that one really offends me and those who use that word are the lowest of the low.

not offended by it in the least. 

I guess maybe if someone used it with explicit malicious intent I'd be pissed off (as with any anti-trans behavior).  I also don't mind the word ->-bleeped-<-got, but when the drunk southern lady who stole my room mates cab after work called him a ->-bleeped-<-got it pissed me off (and I was quite pleased that he threw his 32 oz fruit punch on her white shirt). When I hear the song ->-bleeped-<-got by MSI I am not at all offended.  When I call my room mate a ->-bleeped-<-got [or visa versa] neither of us are offended =p.  We're a bunch of queers in my house, and we prefer it that way. 

I'll tell people that I'm a ->-bleeped-<- all the time.  Its a short word for transexual, and it sounds less clinical and finicky than any of the other trans descriptors I can think of.  Also, as with any non-pc words use will only take the power out of it.  If ->-bleeped-<- is only ever used by haters than that is the power the word will take on.

I also agree with Androgynous_Machine.  I'm proud to be trans.  I took my life in my own hands and refused to live the way my genetics predisposed me to live.  I'd certainly take a pill to wake up tomorrow with a functioning dick, but not to erase the past.