He gives some warnings at the beginning of this video about triggering and such so please pay attention before continuing to watch.
can trans men say the t word? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyn8vzWjyG4#)
I don't think trans men or CAFAB trans people should use "tr***y" because it's always used towards CAMAB trans people. I don't feel that trans men experience trans misogyny which is part of what that word is about.
I do agree that more often CAMAB trans people experience objectification and fetishization from outside of the queer community while CAFAB trans people experience it more from within the trans community. The problem I have with the idea of "it's more okay for trans men to be fetishized this way" or how it's not as important to address is because it's equally bothersome and generally bad. I don't feel like I'm a part of the queer community because queer women sexualize me in a way that I'm uncomfortable with. I'm not okay with being treated as female, and I have experienced this from cis straight men so I don't feel it's exclusive to the queer community.
Eh, I couldn't get more into it past the first few minutes of actual discussion. If I were to type up a response to this video it would end up being a book and going into watching it I wasn't completely sure if I'd be able to watch it all (because it's long and intense).
Sooooo that's my answer for right now.
I can't comment on the video because I don't watch videos online, and hardly watch TV, I just can't keep concentrated on it. But on whether or not I think that trans men can say the "t word", I think that it depends on the situation. Baring in mind that at school I'm seen as a lesbian, if I'm just around friends there I will say things that I know could be seen by others as homophobic slurs because I know that everyone around me knows that I'm not being serious. But if I was in a situation where there were people who didn't know who I was, or weren't going to understand what and why I was saying it, then I wouldn't dream of saying stuff like that. Similarly I wouldn't stand for anyone saying homophobic stuff.
On the topic of trans, I feel similarly, only I don't do or say anything that would compromise me. One situation that springs to mind was when guys in my class was calling someone else a "tr***ny" because he allowed girls to put make-up on him and was clearly enjoying it, and they claimed they found mascara in his blazer pocket. I didn't say anything then, because a) it would probably out me when they combined it with my presentation and b) it happened to be towards a person who's done a lot of bad stuff to me before. (I know the last part makes me sound like a douche but I don't want to go into more detail, just believe that it's not just a petty grudge.)
Quote from: Nygeel on June 28, 2012, 12:04:42 PM
I don't think trans men or CAFAB trans people should use "tr***y" because it's always used towards CAMAB trans people. I don't feel that trans men experience trans misogyny which is part of what that word is about.
I just wanted to say here, that it's not
always used towards trans women, there has been at least one case where I've been called a tr***y. It's more common to be used for trans women but I think that could partly be to do with public perception of trans* people and how they automatically associate trans with trans women. I think the word being used towards trans women more than trans men is more likely due to that rather than misogyny, simply because the average person who calls someone a "tr***y" isn't thinking that deeply about it.
I am one of those people who could call myself a tra**y if I felt like,
its not about what you say, its about the contest and they way you say it.
as he say in the video his been called ->-bleeped-<-got in school and at gay clubs but in the queer comunite it wasnt meant to be hurtfull and he didnt decribe to be offended, then its not offensive..
there are black people who go around call themself ->-bleeped-<-s, and there friends say stuff like "your crazy ->-bleeped-<-"
but as soon some reatard start to spit at the person calling them a f*** ->-bleeped-<- then it out of sudden something ells.
---
people should call themself whatever they like, whenever they feel.
------------
No.
Misogyny is not okay.
--Jay Jay
"I look at photos of myself, and I look like such a ->-bleeped-<-!"-Lady Gaga
"I've never sounded more like a ->-bleeped-<- in my life."-Neil Patrick Harris (believing he sounded like Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs)
"So you need to go to Christopher and Hudson and get those ->-bleeped-<-s on the corner there — that would be perfect"-Lance Bass
"Having to tell them (my parents) my fiancé had cheated on me with a ->-bleeped-<- who sold his/her story to the press, was the most uncomfortable moment... It's hard enough to get your head around someone cheating on you, but when someone is a chick with a dick? Up until then I'd always thought that the worst way to get cheated on would be with an ugly girl."-Kelly Osbourne
It's used in a way to degrade and hurt trans women, it has a long running history of being used against trans women and not trans men.
Quote from: Andy8715 on June 28, 2012, 02:27:02 PM
No.
that was the shortest response I ever seen on a forum.
I have a reaction of disgust towards that term and I find it puerile. But I'm not going to stop someone else from using it. It's their right to free speech/expression. It's also my right not to associate with them.
Quote from: Poptart on June 28, 2012, 04:49:38 PM
I have a reaction of disgust towards that term and I find it puerile. But I'm not going to stop someone else from using it. It's their right to free speech/expression. It's also my right not to associate with them.
I could not agree more, especially when that term is used to refer to someone who identifies the way that I do.
Words are just words, and if someone chooses to be offended by them, then that is their right. I use a lot of "offensive" terms when referring to myself because the word itself isn't bad, and I use them within a certain context to get certain points across. An example would be this: in the Japanese language there is exactly one word that is considered to be derogatory on its own, and the term is not longer used. Everything else that can be said in the language is said within in a certain context, and based on the context it is determined whether it was offensive or not.
But, that is my own opinion. I always think of the Louis CK joke on bad words. The context of it implies the meaning, not the word itself. To me its just a word and I refuse to give it power of over me. I wouldn't say something with the sole purpose of hurting anyone, though.
No. Words may be words but they're still said to be hurtful.
(sorry for the confussement)
This kinda made me wonder alot
from where I live we used the word "transexual" adopted from the english word.. exactly the same..
the meaning is slightly diffrent and many transexuals has stop using it and find it "wrong to use."
to point is, In english you got 2 words for gender
"gender" and "sex"
here we only got 1 word who both mean gender/sex, and the word "sex" dosent has anything to do with "gender/sex at all" its only "sex" as in anything "sexual-stuff". Because of that people found it disturbing since it would sound like a "sexual fettish" or something sexually,
Many transgenderes been compared by goverment, or simply ignorants to be sexual criminals or fetish, so they where tired of the statement and many now prefern using a team who in english like "transgender"
so if I am om susan like now I would use the team "transexual" if I go to the nearest meeting I might get the same kind of statement for using the word as the guy who like to use the word T***y about himself.
its kinda the same topic actually. I guess not many people here would find the word transexual misleading at all,
I dont mind the word either that much, even if I do understand the point.
I also understand why people dislikes words like ->-bleeped-<-. But again its really what we put in our words,
theres thing I dislike when people call me very much,
when I grew up I was used to be called "sissy*" (there no proper translation for it but its somekind of cute* word for little girls) My teacher meant no harm, But I am imigrant, and by my other native languarge that "sissy*" was only used to decribe "whores" so sure I didnt like the word, but I didnt mind if my teacher called the other girls the word as I knew there meaning wasnt the same, as it was for me (+ I sure hated the girly word.)
Quote from: Frank on June 28, 2012, 06:03:30 PM
No. Words may be words but they're still said to be hurtful.
And you are free to disagree with me. I was saying that, especially in English, word meanings change all the time. I don't personally find words to be the problem, just the way they are being used. I was just stating my personal opinion about word usage. Take the n word as an example: African Americans call their buddies that word all the time. They re-purposed it to suit their culture. The word has a history of being used to inflict harm, but in this case, they have taken ownership of it. The word isn't hurtful - the context it is used is. That was my train of thought, at any rate.
Like I said before, I would never say something to cause someone else harm, and I would never use a derogatory term to refer to someone else, because that's just human decency.
Quote from: Ayden on June 28, 2012, 06:26:25 PM
And you are free to disagree with me. I was saying that, especially in English, word meanings change all the time. I don't personally find words to be the problem, just the way they are being used. I was just stating my personal opinion about word usage. Take the n word as an example: African Americans call their buddies that word all the time. They re-purposed it to suit their culture. The word has a history of being used to inflict harm, but in this case, they have taken ownership of it. The word isn't hurtful - the context it is used is. That was my train of thought, at any rate.
Like I said before, I would never say something to cause someone else harm, and I would never use a derogatory term to refer to someone else, because that's just human decency.
I wasn't directing that at you but good points anyway.
Frank,
Sorry about that. The coffee hasn't kicked in yet. I was concerned that my comment had offended someone. It's an interesting argument on both sides, though, and I think its not an easy one for people to talk about.
Quote from: Nygeel on June 28, 2012, 03:19:15 PM
It's used in a way to degrade and hurt trans women, it has a long running history of being used against trans women and not trans men.
I encourage people to try to watch what he has to say. I think it's very powerful and worthwhile. I realize it's a somewhat long video. He's really going out on a limb to make it and is baring his soul. Meanwhile, I'll reluctantly take the risk of trying to sum up some of what he has to say at the great risk of not conveying him correctly or leaving important points out accidentally.
He acknowledges that the term has historically applied to trans women in the video. However, he points out that trans men essentially have no history because their existence hasn't really been acknowledged until very recently and people are still largely ignorant of their existence. They've simply been thought of as dykes when that's not correct. He refers to it as "erasure" of their identities. That's
why it's been essentially an insult for trans women. He also points out that people are starting to apply it in an insulting way to trans men now that they are starting to discover them. He himself has been called a ->-bleeped-<- in an insulting way a number of times.
I'm not personally a big fan of reclaiming insults and I would never describe someone with the t-word and I try to educate people that it's not an acceptable word for describing anyone. I know a lot of gay men have tried to reclaim and use the word "->-bleeped-<-" to take the power out of it. Some trans women have done the same with "->-bleeped-<-". But it does seem to be a kind of tactic for solidarity that some people believe in.
If someone calls him that (and they do) can he not say "Yeah, that's right. That's what I am. I'm a ->-bleeped-<- and proud of it and f**k you if you have a problem with it" ? If he can't say that, then what is he supposed to say? I guess I'm skeptical of the point of view that says trans women can call themselves that to reclaim the word and take the power out of it, but trans men can't.
I also think sometimes misogyny is at the root of some trans man hatred-- the idea that some might see them as women pretending to be men and that they have no right. I'm sure there are guys here who have experienced that.
I don't know how you can "reclaim" a word that doesn't apply to us. I understand re: the reclamation of slurs but they are usually not successful. The "N" word isn't really entirely reclaimed, for instance. You hear it in the "hood" perhaps but not on a college campus (at least I never have). College kids may know that it is a derogatory word. If a white person uses it is *always* offensive. BTW, I hear kids use many insulting words like retard, "dog", etc. None of these has any hope of being reclaimed. Perhaps the same could be said of f***t. I would not use this term as I am not a gay guy. I think aside from his little group... Nor will I use the term tr***, in some (mistaken) attempt to "reclaim" it.
(Actually the PUSH people would like kids to stop using the "n" word, as they know that underneath it is offensive. Just because you use it on yourself it doesn't mean it doesn't come from a place of self-hate.)
BTW, I have not watched his 15 minute video. I tried, but he needs to get to the point. I think he should be able to make his case more concisely, if he wants this to gain any traction. I personally think it won't.
--Jay Jay
Quote from: aleon515 on June 29, 2012, 02:50:37 PM
I don't know how you can "reclaim" a word that doesn't apply to us.
This. If you've not had the word used against you, you have no right to reclaim it.
Quote from: dalebert on June 29, 2012, 02:09:09 PM
If someone calls him that (and they do) can he not say "Yeah, that's right. That's what I am. I'm a ->-bleeped-<- and proud of it and f**k you if you have a problem with it" ? If he can't say that, then what is he supposed to say?
I guess thats the thing about being trans, We are not suposed to say anything..
even when people threat us like s*** we still has to be claim and correct.
thats some of the few things, I both understand, but also Hate about being trans.
>If someone calls him that (and they do) can he not say "Yeah, that's right. That's what I am. I'm a ->-bleeped-<- and proud of it and f**k you if you have a problem with it" ? If he can't say that, then what is he supposed to say? I guess I'm skeptical of the point of view that says trans women can call themselves that to reclaim the word and take the power out of it, but trans men can't.
Yeah Dalebert, I don't see anything wrong with that. If someone is intent on hating it sounds like a possible way of deflecting some insult. But it's another thing to go promoting it. There's always some insult and trying to find all the words and make them neutral is quite a task-- and not entirely so successful (see my comments on the "n" word-- I don't actually think it works).
--Jay Jay
Quote from: aleon515 on June 29, 2012, 03:16:48 PM
Yeah Dalebert, I don't see anything wrong with that. If someone is intent on hating it sounds like a possible way of deflecting some insult. But it's another thing to go promoting it. There's always some insult and trying to find all the words and make them neutral is quite a task-- and not entirely so successful (see my comments on the "n" word-- I don't actually think it works).
I'm mostly with you there. I'm not a fan of it. I don't call myself a ->-bleeped-<- and "->-bleeped-<-got" is particularly hateful-sounding to me. Don't want to have anything to do with it.
I understand where he's coming from in the video and he has in my mind the right to say whatever the heck he wants. I have been called a Dike lesbian ->-bleeped-<- queer all kinds of somewhat similar terms I don't really like or feel comfortable with. Personally I have have been beaten up and raped and hurt. Though I wouldn't want to call myself ->-bleeped-<-. Usually when people start calling me names i just simply say So no matter what they call me but thats just me personally but its not like trans men don't get harassed too maybe not as much but they do.The thing is that other than maybe a few small groups or a few close friends most trans men I know don't let people know or just learn to take it. Probably a lot of people wont agree with me but i don't care what someone wants to call themselves especially since words change.
for example : It was a very queer and mysterious night that night when ..... ( queer=unusual) when nowadays most people use queer to describe someone who is gay.
I read all of these replies and they pretty much summed up the video, so I didn't watch it.
Anyways, I use the word ->-bleeped-<- and I have no problem with close friends using it as long as it's not in a derogatory way.
I mean it's like the same thing with the "n" word (as everyone referred to). Most of my friends/closest family are black and toss the word around a lot. Now I don't use the word much at all and when I do, of course I don't mean it serious and I only use it around the people who know me on a personal level like that. To get to the point, I don't/wouldn't use it around any black people (or anyone) I'm not close to since they'd more than likely find it offensive because it's just not normally acceptable for European people to use the "n" word (because of the history between the two).
I feel the same way with cis people using the word ->-bleeped-<-. It's just normally not acceptable because of the negative history between cis people and the word. However, like I said, if I'm close to them, or know it's not being used in a derogatory way then I don't really care.
As for people using it offensively, well I don't like it, but at the same time they have their freedom of speech.
tldr;
Personally, it's just about respecting the people around you and watching what you say, where you say it.
Just wanted to say that saying nigga is not the same as saying ->-bleeped-<-.
Quote from: Andy8715 on June 29, 2012, 09:59:43 PM
Just wanted to say that saying nigga is not the same as saying ->-bleeped-<-.
Yeah I was gonna point that out, but then I would've had to write another paragraph, so I was like . . . nah whatever
Quote from: Nygeel on June 28, 2012, 03:19:15 PM"Having to tell them (my parents) my fiancé had cheated on me with a ->-bleeped-<- who sold his/her story to the press, was the most uncomfortable moment... It's hard enough to get your head around someone cheating on you, but when someone is a chick with a dick? Up until then I'd always thought that the worst way to get cheated on would be with an ugly girl."-Kelly Osbourne
I never cared for Kelly Osbourne until I read that online a while ago. It went from neutral to pissed off in a nanosecond. She really showed some bold stupidity on that one. ::)
Anyway, although I have been called a '->-bleeped-<-' before, it's not a word that I feel comfortable with using/being used to refer to me personally. If someone else wants to use it for themselves, whether they are transmen or transwomen, it's their call. When someone's saying "->-bleeped-<-s" referring to a group/ more than one transperson, doesn't really sit right for me. But each to their own.
Regarding the erasure that he speaks of about trans men, I'm losing count of how many times I've had to explain to someone the difference between trans men and trans women. Lots of people think both refer to trans women. There's a lot of educating to do. Trans men are still largely invisible. I know I've heard stories here and by the person who made the video about how when they say they're trans, some people have said "So you want to become a woman?"
Quote from: Papa Taco on June 28, 2012, 04:41:16 PM
I just think to myself that that is probably the last word some women heard as they were being beaten, raped, and/or killed.
<3 Thank you
Quote from: dalebert on June 30, 2012, 06:25:09 AM
Regarding the erasure that he speaks of about trans men, I'm losing count of how many times I've had to explain to someone the difference between trans men and trans women. Lots of people think both refer to trans women. There's a lot of educating to do. Trans men are still largely invisible. I know I've heard stories here and by the person who made the video about how when they say they're trans, some people have said "So you want to become a woman?"
or dressing up as one..
danm I got SO many guys who are like "your hot, but can I see you when your dressing as a girl"
me: "NO! >:("
I haven't read any posts, but watched the full video.
I have to say that he makes a good argument. I was previously of the opinion that trans guys do not have the right to say ->-bleeped-<- as I've never heard it applied to us. But how am I going to deny his right to use the word when it has been directed towards him?
So this video has changed my opinion. I'm cool with trans women and men using the word, although I'll never use it myself.
Thanks for posting this.
Quote from: aleon515 on June 29, 2012, 02:50:37 PM
The "N" word isn't really entirely reclaimed, for instance. You hear it in the "hood" perhaps but not on a college campus (at least I never have). College kids may know that it is a derogatory word.
I knew plenty of educated African Americans who claimed that word, so saying that someone who is "educated" versus coming from "the hood" is the difference is incorrect. One of my father's supervisors at the hospital he worked in (the man who ran the entire hospital operation for the Air Force) was a doctor, and he used the term in reference to himself without any self hate at all. I knew a few guys at my university that used that word to refer to themselves and even call me (a white person) by it as a term of endearment. I was their "little cracker n*****".
Quote from: aleon515 on June 29, 2012, 03:16:48 PM
Yeah Dalebert, I don't see anything wrong with that. If someone is intent on hating it sounds like a possible way of deflecting some insult. But it's another thing to go promoting it. There's always some insult and trying to find all the words and make them neutral is quite a task-- and not entirely so successful (see my comments on the "n" word-- I don't actually think it works).
--Jay Jay
What about queer or dyke? Those two have been reclaimed rather dramatically. I wouldn't say they are exactly neutral, but they get used by and for queer folks more than they get used against these days. Hell, wikipedia's page for "Queer" begins: "an umbrella term for sexual minorities" and doesn't even get to the insult part of it till the second paragraph. And nobody really questions a gay woman's right to call themselves and any other gay women dykes - despite how brutal an insult that word also is. I mean we have "Dyke March"... but no corresponding equivalent for the trans* or gay male communities.
Don't know what makes 'em different that that worked, but it isn't true to say it never works.
Quote from: Sarah7 on July 05, 2012, 07:17:10 AM
What about queer or dyke? Those two have been reclaimed rather dramatically. I wouldn't say they are exactly neutral, but they get used by and for queer folks more than they get used against these days. Hell, wikipedia's page for "Queer" begins: "an umbrella term for sexual minorities" and doesn't even get to the insult part of it till the second paragraph. And nobody really questions a gay woman's right to call themselves and any other gay women dykes - despite how brutal an insult that word also is. I mean we have "Dyke March"... but no corresponding equivalent for the trans* or gay male communities.
Don't know what makes 'em different that that worked, but it isn't true to say it never works.
Just bolding the bits I'm going to address.
I'm not sure if you're asking trans men if it's okay to call themselves those two words, or just asking about those specific groups reclaiming those two words.
Since the word "dyke" has been used and has a history with women who are interested in women it's appropriate for them to reclaim the word as it's theirs to reclaim. "Tr***y" does not have the same history with trans men but does have a similar history with trans women, and is theirs to reclaim.
And in general gay male is seen above gay female in terms of who is pushing for rights (especially if they are white, cis, and middle-upper middle class). At the last pride parade-which I think is the most mainstream event within the LGBTQ community-it was all about the gay men. They have their own market! Anyways...where I am, we have trans march. I've never been to a dyke march but I have been to a dyke ball, and have seen the unfortunate effects of the most recent dyke march.
Nygeel, the post I was responding to was arguing that reclaiming slurs doesn't work, I was pointing out two cases where it did work, at least to a degree. Sorry, I guess that wasn't clear.
The point about the Dyke March was specifically the use of a reclaimed slur in the title. And the lack of similar usage for, say, "->-bleeped-<-" or "->-bleeped-<-." I'm aware of the history.
I've seen "->-bleeped-<-" being used against FTMs, lesbians, and masculine looking women.
I think the fact that there is a longer history, or more noted, of the word being used against those whose first birth certificate said male, is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
Quote from: Julian on June 29, 2012, 03:04:49 PM
This. If you've not had the word used against you, you have no right to reclaim it.
What if it is used against your demographic, but you've never personally had the word used against you?
Quote from: Papa Taco on June 28, 2012, 04:41:16 PM
I don't think it's OK, and I don't use it. For reasons others have said, it's a word that's been used to dehumanize our sisters. We, as transmen, can't "reclaim" something that usually isn't used to dehumanize us.
I just think to myself that that is probably the last word some women heard as they were being beaten, raped, and/or killed.
How often does a word have to be used against you before you can reclaim it?
Quote from: Ayden on June 28, 2012, 06:26:25 PM
And you are free to disagree with me. I was saying that, especially in English, word meanings change all the time. I don't personally find words to be the problem, just the way they are being used. I was just stating my personal opinion about word usage. Take the n word as an example: African Americans call their buddies that word all the time. They re-purposed it to suit their culture. The word has a history of being used to inflict harm, but in this case, they have taken ownership of it. The word isn't hurtful - the context it is used is. That was my train of thought, at any rate.
Like I said before, I would never say something to cause someone else harm, and I would never use a derogatory term to refer to someone else, because that's just human decency.
There is a difference between nigga and ->-bleeped-<-.
A lot of people don't like the term African American, since many have never been to Africa.
Quote from: aleon515 on June 29, 2012, 02:50:37 PM
I don't know how you can "reclaim" a word that doesn't apply to us. I understand re: the reclamation of slurs but they are usually not successful. The "N" word isn't really entirely reclaimed, for instance. You hear it in the "hood" perhaps but not on a college campus (at least I never have). College kids may know that it is a derogatory word. If a white person uses it is *always* offensive. BTW, I hear kids use many insulting words like retard, "dog", etc. None of these has any hope of being reclaimed. Perhaps the same could be said of f***t. I would not use this term as I am not a gay guy. I think aside from his little group... Nor will I use the term tr***, in some (mistaken) attempt to "reclaim" it.
(Actually the PUSH people would like kids to stop using the "n" word, as they know that underneath it is offensive. Just because you use it on yourself it doesn't mean it doesn't come from a place of self-hate.)
BTW, I have not watched his 15 minute video. I tried, but he needs to get to the point. I think he should be able to make his case more concisely, if he wants this to gain any traction. I personally think it won't.
--Jay Jay
Where I live I hear nigga every day, it isn't considered offensive. I have had friends call me nigga, I am 100% white. Although, there are people on my Italian side who don't consider themselves white, but that's another story. I have seen both white and black people being beat up for saying ->-bleeped-<-. My campus isn't in the hood, but a lot of people from the hood go there.
Quote from: Ayden on July 05, 2012, 06:59:30 AM
I knew plenty of educated African Americans who claimed that word, so saying that someone who is "educated" versus coming from "the hood" is the difference is incorrect. One of my father's supervisors at the hospital he worked in (the man who ran the entire hospital operation for the Air Force) was a doctor, and he used the term in reference to himself without any self hate at all. I knew a few guys at my university that used that word to refer to themselves and even call me (a white person) by it as a term of endearment. I was their "little cracker n*****".
Another point...
You can be educated and be from the hood!
Because I was poor I got most of my undergrad covered with need based aid, and then my mom married way up and they are screwing my free ride till I'm 25.
And as I was writing this I seriously just got an email from http://www.hood.edu/ (http://www.hood.edu/)
Quote from: Jesse7 on July 05, 2012, 01:03:44 PM
Another point...
You can be educated and be from the hood!
Because I was poor I got most of my undergrad covered with need based aid, and then my mom married way up and they are screwing my free ride till I'm 25.
And as I was writing this I seriously just got an email from http://www.hood.edu/ (http://www.hood.edu/)
That's true. I went to a community college where I did hear this stuff from black students. OTOH, I went to a tech school and never heard it. It was kind of uncool at the tech school where everyone was being as nerdy as possible. :-)
--Jay Jay
Quote from: Jesse7 on July 05, 2012, 12:29:08 PM
There is a difference between nigga and ->-bleeped-<-.
A lot of people don't like the term African American, since many have never been to Africa.
Where I live I hear nigga every day, it isn't considered offensive. I have had friends call me nigga, I am 100% white. Although, there are people on my Italian side who don't consider themselves white, but that's another story. I have seen both white and black people being beat up for saying ->-bleeped-<-. My campus isn't in the hood, but a lot of people from the hood go there.
My point was that context denotes meaning between words. If nigga doesn't work for you, then replace it with Jew which is used both in the literal sense for someone of Jewish descent or as a derogatory term.( I know that isn't perfect either, but I have had Jewish people tell me to use the term Jew when referring to them.) And yes, I know some people get offended by the term "African American" just like some get offended when someone uses "black", "dark skinned" etc. There is no way to avoid offending people if they allow it to bother them. I know some of the guys on this forum do not consider themselves trans men, but just regular guys, whereas I don't consider myself a normal guy because I didn't have those same experiences.
Context denotes if the word it being used hurtfully. A word is just a word. Humans give words meanings. Like my husband said, there is no wisdom in a library without humans to act upon it. But, this is just my personal opinion and by no means does anyone need to agree with me.
I have many thoughts which pertain to this subject. I apologize if my thoughts seem disorganized.
The concept of a group of individuals "reclaiming" a word which has been used to demean, insult, or otherwise menace members of that group is one with which I have grappled for some time. In ways, I can understand such an inclination. And at times, I have jokingly yet proudly proclaimed myself to be "Queer as a 3-dollar bill." In truth, it is not the word(s) which we are reclaiming - it is the dignity which those who use them in hateful ways are trying to take from us. And it is with respect to that dignity, that I assert that any word which has been used harmfully against a group - which "->-bleeped-<-" has, indeed, been used harmfully against transmen, even if it is less known or unheard of by most - is a proper tool for such individuals in reclaiming that dignity. That is, if this is a way in which they chose to do so. At the same time, I personally tend not to chose this method of reclaiming that dignity, as there are other ways which I find more useful.
This is the first time I have ever heard of this particular argument - that the term "->-bleeped-<-" inherently implies a misogynistic attitude and as such does not apply to people who do not experience misogyny. (If I am mistaken with regard to what the actual argument is, please correct me.) I was honestly surprised to find this particular line in the sand. But upon further thought I suppose it shouldn't have surprised me. Many people cite a word's historical usage when attempting to affix a definition. And since transwomen have been (and continue to be) more visible in society (I have many theories as to factors which attribute to this fact), its known historical usage has indeed been towards transwomen. This I understand. However, if I may, I'd like to make an argument by analogy against the idea that transmen cannot reclaim the word "->-bleeped-<-" because of the misogynistic attitude it conveys.
There is an argument which asserts that same-sex (or, if you prefer, same-gender) marriage cannot be considered marriage because historically, marriage is a bond which unites a man and a woman. So, whatever bond two people of the same sex have, it can't be marriage. That word is already in use for something else.
Now, I have a feeling that many of us here disagree with this argument.
If these are the kinds of lines we wish to draw, - or erase, as the case may be - let us be consistent.
As for the word "->-bleeped-<-" itself, there is no part of the word which, linguistically, can be tied down specifically to a reference to women. At it's base is only the prefix "trans," which is obviously not gender-specific. Also, it seems to me that the underlying reason for the slur is to attack the very nature of being trans-gender - to imply that transcending society's binary, concrete concept of gender is shameful, wrong, and all the other things which go along with these kinds of hate-thought.
So, it seems to me that anyone who transcends this binary, concrete gender structure imposed by society is a potential victim of the slur "->-bleeped-<-." And as I said in the beginning, it seems only fair that any tool which can be used against you, should be fair game to take and use in your defense.
So, at any rate - if there are other reasons beyond the claim that this particular slur has (as far as widely-known historical usage is concerned) been used primarily against transwomen, that it should be deemed inappropriate for transmen to "reclaim" it, please let me know. Otherwise, that argument doesn't really hold water with me.
Also, strictly speaking, the very fact that transmen are ignored in society indicates to me that either A) it is somehow more socially acceptable and less noteworthy because it is reasonable for a woman to wish she were a man, since men are superior - a sexist and misogynistic view, or B) we're not really men anyway and as such don't really count and it doesn't matter what we do - another sexist and misogynistic attitude. So, I would argue that to some extent transmen can and do experience misogyny, based on the fact that by many we are viewed as flawed or insane women. In turn, transwomen can and do experience misanthropy, when they are viewed as flawed or insane men.
That is, of course, if we take "misogyny" and "misanthropy" to mean the hatred, distrust, or dislike of women/men respectively.
I'm just sayin'.
//EDIT//
Forgot to mention that I realize that many of these ideas and sentiments have already been expressed by others on this thread. But I also think that sometimes multiple people saying the same thing in different ways helps to point out other ideas that none of them maybe have noticed before. :3
I say it whenever.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the word itself.
To me, and many of my friends; it's all about how you use it.
Me and my friends call each other the N, F, and T word all the time.
(Not going to say the words, because I know how people are here.)
We think it's okay as long as it's used nicely and not to harm anyone.
If it's used to be hurtful, than that becomes a totally different story.
As in someone would get hurt xD
I personally don't know why a trans man or a trans woman would want to use the word. I am transitioning to be able to live as closely to cis as possible, not to have everyone know about my history. My condition is not an identity, it is an unfortunate condition that I wish I did not have.
I don't believe that the society around us is properly acclimatized enough to the idea of transsexuality for a reclamation of the word "->-bleeped-<-" to be feasible, beneficial, and empowering.
Therefore, until we are more accepted than not, I don't feel that it would be strategic for transgender individuals as a group to use the word.
... To answer the question, though, then... assuming the world was in a better spot for it, I would still be reserved about trans men saying the "T word". "->-bleeped-<-" is used against trans women enough for it to bring imagery of trans women (or images perceived as trans women, such as badly done drag in men) alone to the majority of people as opposed to trans woman and men or trans men alone. This is my guess, of course, but I believe it's very likely to be the case.
I hope that makes sense - it's not my clearest paragraph ever.