News and Events => Opinions & Editorials => Topic started by: Shana A on February 03, 2009, 09:11:28 AM Return to Full Version
Title: Nuance Lost On Some LGBT Journalists Using The Term "->-bleeped-<-"
Post by: Shana A on February 03, 2009, 09:11:28 AM
Post by: Shana A on February 03, 2009, 09:11:28 AM
Nuance Lost On Some LGBT Journalists Using The Term "->-bleeped-<-"
by: Autumn Sandeen
Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM EST
http://pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=5EB9153AE727DB3908CD884983441796?diaryId=9316 (http://pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=5EB9153AE727DB3908CD884983441796?diaryId=9316)
This is part one in a two-part series on trans-related terminology. Part two will be a discussion about how many classic transsexuals don't want to be labeled as transgender, and how new and legacy LGBT media needs to address self-identification when people who could fall under the term transsexual don't want to be unwillingly absorbed by transgender terminology into transgender community.
I believe there should be a lot of nuance to how lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) reporters, LGBT editors, and LGBT new and legacy media organizations using the term ->-bleeped-<-, but in the name of "reclaiming" the term for the LGBT community, the nuance is often lost. Since I've seen two examples of LGBT media using the term ->-bleeped-<- in a defamatory manner in the past week, and the defenses of the using the term ->-bleeped-<- based on the reclaiming of the word by the LGBT community, I believe I need to explain the nuances in ways LGBT new and legacy media can understand.
Let me give you a case study to think about: This is a story I made up to make a concise point, but most of the elements of the story are taken from real life:
by: Autumn Sandeen
Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM EST
http://pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=5EB9153AE727DB3908CD884983441796?diaryId=9316 (http://pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=5EB9153AE727DB3908CD884983441796?diaryId=9316)
This is part one in a two-part series on trans-related terminology. Part two will be a discussion about how many classic transsexuals don't want to be labeled as transgender, and how new and legacy LGBT media needs to address self-identification when people who could fall under the term transsexual don't want to be unwillingly absorbed by transgender terminology into transgender community.
I believe there should be a lot of nuance to how lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) reporters, LGBT editors, and LGBT new and legacy media organizations using the term ->-bleeped-<-, but in the name of "reclaiming" the term for the LGBT community, the nuance is often lost. Since I've seen two examples of LGBT media using the term ->-bleeped-<- in a defamatory manner in the past week, and the defenses of the using the term ->-bleeped-<- based on the reclaiming of the word by the LGBT community, I believe I need to explain the nuances in ways LGBT new and legacy media can understand.
Let me give you a case study to think about: This is a story I made up to make a concise point, but most of the elements of the story are taken from real life: