I had a thought the other day as I was re-reading the Newsweek article about transgendered people. It struck me that if more "normal-looking" or "passable" TS people were portrayed, it might help us become more accepted. It seems like most articles (though not the Newsweek one) try to find the least passable transsexuals and put them on the front cover to draw attention and sell copies. ("Oh, no! That guy's wearing a dress!") There are many passable transsexuals out there, and it shouldn't be too hard finding us. If people could see that most of us are normal-looking, normal-acting people, it might help them accept us more. This also applies to portraying successful, healthy transsexuals instead of prostitutes or drug addicts.
Then again -- and here's the counterpoint -- "unpassable" transsexuals also need media exposure. Stereotypes of transsexuals as "beauty queens" or the like might stigmatize them even further. If every transsexual in the media is straight, beautiful/handsome, and young, it could create an environment in which transsexuals are only welcome if they conform to society's norms. We also don't want to overlook poor transsexuals, those who have been forced into prostitution, or those with AIDS by portraying only healthy, successful transsexuals.
So, on one hand, we want to create a positive, healthy image of our community. On the other hand, we don't want to stigmatize people because of their looks, job, or AIDS status. What are your thoughts?
hehehe.. hey Andrew, the passable topic is a timebomb round here. boom! hahaha...
in regard to spokespeople or the "face" of tsfolk, you'd probably want to have both sets because passable and unpassable ts people face different sets of obstacles, with the ones for unpassable quite onerous.
however, in my mind, if i'm passable, i would take the advantage and melt back into society--no need to draw attention and be the focal point of hate and stalking.
but, that leaves the trailblazing and fight to the unpassable ilk, whom already have it tough enough.
Graciously, I think there are all types out there representin', and the internet has been huge. Anyways, I think you're on target about who the media pick to speak. It is about drawing headlines, and regular looking passable tfolk doesn't get the Springer crowd going whoop whoop.
This has always been the case and rarely are transsexuals portrayed in a good light. This is usually the case for male to females and the images are not favourable to what a female looks like which enables the public to be less excepting or take gender dysphoria seriously.
The main reason is that the passable transsexuals do not want to expose themselves on TV or in the media otherwise their lives are ruined. The less passable are happy to go on TV and earn some money out of it as they are still seen as men in a dress...
I've been watching a program on U.K TV called 'Sex change doctor' which I think is an American import and each week they do GRS on a man who looks like a man and many have male mannerisms but try to act feminine.
All the people in the program seemed very nice but the public perception of transsexuals is the programs they see on TV which isn't going to change overnight.
I agree with Redfish, It's a double edged sword....if TV companies had gorgeous feminine Transsexuals on their programs people would be more aware that there are passable transsexuals around and it would open things up to closer scrutiny......
I think I would like it if the full range of TS men and women were portrayed. From passable to struggling. I am against TG people being "marketed" for easier public consumption. I would rather we be portrayed honestly in all our diversity.
Quote from: Andrew on September 03, 2007, 05:10:18 PM
I had a thought the other day as I was re-reading the Newsweek article about transgendered people. It struck me that if more "normal-looking" or "passable" TS people were portrayed, it might help us become more accepted.
QuoteI think I would like it if the full range of TS men and women were portrayed. From passable to struggling. I am against TG people being "marketed" for easier public consumption. I would rather we be portrayed honestly in all our diversity.
That's about what I thought. A balance between what society would see as "outside the norm" and "within the norm." Acclimate them to the diversity of the trans spectrum, but make them aware that we walk among them unnoticed, to.
Quote from: redfish on September 03, 2007, 08:20:30 PM
There is another element to this. The more exposure/knowledge that people receive about passable TS people, the higher the bar will be to actually pass.
There exists another spectrum between acceptability of not passing and ease of passing.
I really don't buy into this myth. And thats exactly what it is a myth.
The idea that increased media exposure calls out to people what a passing TS looks like, thus raises the bar to passing is silly. People will see what they want to see, and very few people will read you one way or the other. Most people do not even read gender consciously.
With passing TS, you know what most peoples thoughts are, not that is what they look like, but rather I can't even tell they were every a boy/girl beforehand.
People are not looking out for signs of somebodies past life, honestly if you don't pass with somebody, you don't pass, if you do, you do, and greater awareness of TS is not going to change that circumstance.
The people who are able to pick up on it will ALWAYS be able to do so. Its not something they gained from watching a television program. This does not raise the bar for passing in the very least and if you really think it does you are mistaken and need to get out a bit more.
Quote from: Amy T. on September 19, 2007, 12:08:59 PM
Quote from: redfish on September 03, 2007, 08:20:30 PM
There is another element to this. The more exposure/knowledge that people receive about passable TS people, the higher the bar will be to actually pass.
There exists another spectrum between acceptability of not passing and ease of passing.
I really don't buy into this myth. And thats exactly what it is a myth.
I think Redfish is spot on with her comments.....I don't understand what you mean about it being a myth Amy?
Berleigh, it is. Read my above expanded commentary. If you don't pass you don't and greater awareness and media exposure is not going to change that. I think this is just the fear of this raising the bar for passing is another fear perpetuated by some in the Trans community, which is exactly that, a fear.
There is often something that was making it more difficult to pass in the first place. If anything it may make somebody more SELF AWARE, but not necessarily society more aware. Those who may read you, honestly will have always read you one way or another. And honestly people are not seeking out people who are TS to begin with. The truth is if you are ACTUALLY passable, you are just as likely to be read as somebody who is not trans at all. Basically the situation is the same as before.
Positive media exposure is a good thing, if you think it is a barrier to passing and raising the bar you are mistaken. I have no clue what your experiences may be, but there maybe something that is keeping somebody from passing in the first place.
I am not saying passing is everything, but I am very sorry the whole increased media exposure raising the bar for passing is complete bull and reflects some of the generally paranoid attitudes of those who profess deep stealth above all else.
Quote from: Amy T. on September 19, 2007, 12:28:46 PM
Berleigh, it is. Read my above expanded commentary. If you don't pass you don't and greater awareness and media exposure is not going to change that. I think this is just the fear of this raising the bar for passing is another fear perpetuated by some in the Trans community, which is exactly that, a fear.
Positive media exposure is a good thing, if you think it is a barrier to passing and raising the bar you are mistaken. I have no clue what your experiences may be, but there maybe something that is keeping somebody from passing in the first place.
I am not saying passing is everything, but I am very sorry the whole increased media exposure raising the bar for passing is complete bull and reflects some of the generally paranoid attitudes of those who profess deep stealth above all else.
I always thought the one's who pass don't ever want to ever go on TV shows and expose their whole life to the media and it would ruin it forever. They can intergrate and are not known as transsexuals so why would they want to create problems for themselves?
I was once asked by a TV company of they could make a documentary on my life story......I said no way.... but I would like to make a documentary on the U.K NHS GIC system which they declined......they wanted superficial sensationalism not the real issue's that we as transsexuals face.......
I appeared on TV a almost month or so after I went full time. I didn't look that great, but a lot of people said I did. I was on TV being interviewed the about school shootings that happened in Montreal. They interviewed me because I'm part of the "goth" community and they wanted to see what local goths thought, etc.
I was proud of myself -- but it was hard. I struggled for a bit because I wasn't sure if I should go as the old me or not. I mean, I just started HRT a month ago and I wasn't full time for long. But I did it.
I remember seeing myself on the news, aired several times that day. "Natalie Morrissey" was splashed across the screen as millions of people were watching me... the goth looking transsexual telling the world that violence is bad. I did a good interview. I knew that some people would recognize me as TS, while others might not. I know that TS people saw the video because the following month I actually had a couple of people remember me from the news and said, "Thanks."
I think that people who saw it saw a normal girl who wasn't any more different than them (ur, except my hair was black with red chunks, and I was wearing cool make up).
--natalie
Posted on: September 20, 2007, 11:28:12 AM
Although youtube isn't traditional media, I'm also on there. I put my self on a big limb doing that, actually. It's not easy, especially since I'm outing myself.
You should be VERY VERY proud of yourself it takes courage to not only expose yourself in that way but to stand up for what is right. Kudos!
Quote from: gothique11 on September 20, 2007, 11:30:19 AM
I was proud of myself -- but it was hard. I struggled for a bit because I wasn't sure if I should go as the old me or not. I mean, I just started HRT a month ago and I wasn't full time for long. But I did it.
I don't think passability or unpassability is really much issue in how ts people are portrayed in media. I see both kinds of images in about equal measure.
I do agree with what Julia Serano had to say in her book, The Whipping Girl -- the media often depicts transwomen putting on makeup, dressing their hair, etc., images that seem contrived to communicate the idea that the femininity of transsexual women is artificial. Articles about transpeople that include photos almost always include 'before and after' shots. As transpeople, we want to see them because we want to know what HRT and surgeries might do for us. But the photos that get published tend to be selected for drama -- the 'before' picture shows the pre-transition woman looking her most masculine, (here she is, smiling naturally and wearing a tie and mustache) and the after shows her dressed up for glamour (here she is in a cocktail dress and evening-wear make-up, posing like a model). Again it seems to communicate the message that the femininity of the woman is artificial and her past masculinity was 'natural.' The self-selected 'before and after' shots posted by Susan's members usually create a different impression, and a more accurate one -- 'before' shots often show the uncomfortable sad girl behind the male face, the after-shots show a woman who is much more at ease and natural-looking.
It's those kinds of pictures that we need to get out into the media. It doesn't matter how well the 'after' image passes, what matters is that the selected images reveal the fact that the 'after' image is the natural home of the person.
Doc I agree with you completely. I read Serano, I read whipping girl long before most people, and in fact email Serano back and forth quite bit.
I completely agree with you with regards to what the media uses in imagery. But the very fact it seems like a more honest portrayal of trans people is begining to emerge with the focus on younger transitioners. The Newsweek story, and transgeneration and have largely put forth of a more realistic portrayal of trans people. Thus my word "positive" portrayal of transpeople, one which avoids the stereotypes that were so typical in the media before and actually puts forth a realistic dialog.
With regards to making it harder to pass: Most people do not care. Once you realize this, you will stop being so concerned about these portrayals making it harder to pass by raising the bar. Gender identification is a subconscious thing for most people. Once you realize the fact that people are not actively looking out for trans people and that people by in large care you should quit being so stressed about this.
Quote from: Berliegh on September 19, 2007, 06:32:34 PM
Quote from: Amy T. on September 19, 2007, 12:28:46 PM
Berleigh, it is. Read my above expanded commentary. If you don't pass you don't and greater awareness and media exposure is not going to change that. I think this is just the fear of this raising the bar for passing is another fear perpetuated by some in the Trans community, which is exactly that, a fear.
Positive media exposure is a good thing, if you think it is a barrier to passing and raising the bar you are mistaken. I have no clue what your experiences may be, but there maybe something that is keeping somebody from passing in the first place.
I am not saying passing is everything, but I am very sorry the whole increased media exposure raising the bar for passing is complete bull and reflects some of the generally paranoid attitudes of those who profess deep stealth above all else.
I always thought the one's who pass don't ever want to ever go on TV shows and expose their whole life to the media and it would ruin it forever. They can intergrate and are not known as transsexuals so why would they want to create problems for themselves?
I was once asked by a TV company of they could make a documentary on my life story......I said no way.... but I would like to make a documentary on the U.K NHS GIC system which they declined......they wanted superficial sensationalism not the real issue's that we as transsexuals face.......
Berliegh not everybody thinks this way. In order to change the world you need people to speak up for their civil rights whether they pass or do not. Some of us have a mindset of a feminist or social justice crusader, and are sick and tired of the world making us hide in the shadows, trying to make us look crazy or demonize us, and metaphorically speaking "sit in the back of the bus". As much as you stress this idea of stealth, many of us think that the only way society will change is to start speaking up for our own civil rights and educating in a public manner. It is also the only way that life will improve for trans people who will transition in the future.
Quote from: Amy T. on September 24, 2007, 02:10:52 AM
Berliegh not everybody thinks this way. In order to change the world you need people to speak up for their civil rights whether they pass or do not. Some of us have a mindset of a feminist or social justice crusader, and are sick and tired of the world making us hide in the shadows, trying to make us look crazy or demonize us, and metaphorically speaking "sit in the back of the bus". As much as you stress this idea of stealth, many of us think that the only way society will change is to start speaking up for our own civil rights and educating in a public manner. It is also the only way that life will improve for trans people who will transition in the future.
I agree in speaking up for your rights and have done though various organisation mouthpieces, but in the majority of cases rightly or wrongly transsexuals are percieved by the media that they respresent the same image as a dodgy ->-bleeped-<-. This is then fed to the public.........But very gradually the public image is changing and the public is starting to become aware that not all transsexuals look like men dressed in drag......
I do know of some transsexuals who are very active in civil rights but they still seem to fit the stereo type public image I mention above.......why?.... possibly because the stealth transitioners are not in any need of proving themselves or have to. I'm not saying that's right but that's what usually happens..
QuoteIt doesn't matter how well the 'after' image passes, what matters is that the selected images reveal the fact that the 'after' image is the natural home of the person.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point. I've often thought that the transsexuals portrayed on cheesy "Springer" or "Ricky Lake" type talk shows never seemed comfortable in their roles. Sometimes I wonder whether they're "real" or whether they just paid some hick to put on a dress. When they did look "real," they seemed to be constantly trying to "justify" their transition instead of accepting it as natural. This isn't the image we want for ourselves! We want people to accept us as our natural gender, not to constantly have to confirm its reality.
BTW, I'm sure most of you have seen pictures of Jan Morris, the British transsexual. She's not exactly beautiful, and one might question her gender upon first meeting her, but all of her pictures display an image of a warm, kindly "great-aunt" type. Doc's comment about the "natural home of the person" is right on target here. She may not be a glamor queen, but she's comfortable being who she is -- and that's how the media should portray us, whether or not we're passable.
The line of inquiry in this topic is intriguing. Especially the part about the very-passable never making an appearance on the various shows -- mostly shock TV -- where transsexuals are seen. Also there is the angle about the damage the marginally-passable and the blatantly unpassable are doing to the TG community via their appearance.
I'd like some feedback, please;
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flashofinsight.com%2FTransition%2FImage009.jpg&hash=d42f19cb6472438c59d690d76f60deae0be8117e)
(photo taken this morning with my cellphone camera)
If there were a committee that approved transsexuals to appear on TV, with the goal of manipulating the public image via presenting only the ones among us who meet some minimum standard of passability, what would those standards be? How high the bar?
Further, if you were a member of this committee, would you vote for me to appear, or not to appear, based on the above picture? Do I present a positive enough image for the trans community, or not?
Why?
I do understand the desire to present a good image. Saturday night, I attended a local event for some of us trans-women. Some were blatantly unpassable, and got the rest of us read. One asked a waitress if the waitress found her attractive, and when the waitress said (politely) 'yes', asked her for a date. You don't think her actions reflected badly on all of us, even the very-passable, well-dressed, well-behaved among us? The only thing I could do was damage control by being very polite and well-mannered to the staff, and thanking them for accommodating our party on short notice with no reservation. And that the assembled members exceeded the 18% gratuity added to the bill by a significant amount helped.
Pardon my long winded, melodramatic post. I hope I've made my points that: While controlling our image would help, it raises some other issues such as what standards will be used to govern access to the media; and I feel we must take into account event the marginally passable and unpassable in constructing the image we wish the public to have about us.
I hope this stimulates thoughtful debate;
Karen
I'd vote for you to appear because you seem confident, self-assured, and successful -- not because you're passable. The main point of this post wasn't really supposed to be about passability. It was about the appearance of success and sanity. "Passable" transsexuals are typically those who are self-assured in their roles: they take care of themselves, they have steady jobs, they don't dress like slobs, they walk with their heads high and look you in the eye. Those are the people we want to represent us, whether or not they're "beautiful" or conform to gender norms.
I wish they would show more FTM. Don't really know why MTF is always the transgender flag bearer for these photos, but I think on the whole my general problem with the media coverage isn't about the whole passable unpassable thing, but it's more about showing diversity. The people they show are generally white and MTF.
Plus if the focus were shifted to FTM I think the emphasis on passability would somewhat dissipate, because I don't think the emphasis is there in FTM to the extent that it is in MTF, because guys aren't really evaluated aesthetically, so much as by their presence, attitude, and character. So coverage skewed that way would seem to be something of an antidote to the Springer-ist coverage we all endure right now.
Quote from: Berliegh on September 24, 2007, 06:01:46 AM
Quote from: Amy T. on September 24, 2007, 02:10:52 AM
Berliegh not everybody thinks this way. In order to change the world you need people to speak up for their civil rights whether they pass or do not. Some of us have a mindset of a feminist or social justice crusader, and are sick and tired of the world making us hide in the shadows, trying to make us look crazy or demonize us, and metaphorically speaking "sit in the back of the bus". As much as you stress this idea of stealth, many of us think that the only way society will change is to start speaking up for our own civil rights and educating in a public manner. It is also the only way that life will improve for trans people who will transition in the future.
I agree in speaking up for your rights and have done though various organisation mouthpieces, but in the majority of cases rightly or wrongly transsexuals are percieved by the media that they respresent the same image as a dodgy ->-bleeped-<-. This is then fed to the public.........But very gradually the public image is changing and the public is starting to become aware that not all transsexuals look like men dressed in drag......
I do know of some transsexuals who are very active in civil rights but they still seem to fit the stereo type public image I mention above.......why?.... possibly because the stealth transitioners are not in any need of proving themselves or have to. I'm not saying that's right but that's what usually happens..
As much as you say this the high profile activist I know: Julia Serano, Simon Ornoff, and Mara Keisling are far from stereotypical and are some of the most passable TS I know. Simon Ornoff is one of the friendliest transguys I have ever talked to by the way. Same goes for the local activist in DC Trans Coalition, which is made up heavily of younger trans people. Trans-activist that I know by in large do not fit the stereotypes of transwomen or transmen. They are not the men in dresses which are often the public perception of transsexuals, rather these are individuals who if they wanted to could easily go stealth. But the truth is they are people who realize that there is alot of work to be done with regards to civil rights that going stealth is far from constructive, especially for somebody with idealistic mindset.
I know the
Quote from: Amy T. on September 27, 2007, 09:54:06 AM
As much as you say this the high profile activist I know: Julia Serano, Simon Ornoff, and Mara Keisling are far from stereotypical and are some of the most passable TS I know. Simon Ornoff is one of the friendliest transguys I have ever talked to by the way. Same goes for the local activist in DC Trans Coalition, which is made up heavily of younger trans people. Trans-activist that I know by in large do not fit the stereotypes of transwomen or transmen. They are not the men in dresses which are often the public perception of transsexuals, rather these are individuals who if they wanted to could easily go stealth. But the truth is they are people who realize that there is alot of work to be done with regards to civil rights that going stealth is far from constructive, especially for somebody with idealistic mindset.
You are talking about a Female to Male and most Female to Males pass a lot better than Male to Females. I also object to the word 'transwomans' or 'transman' ...it really sucks! I would never associate with that terminology and it only increases alienation. It puts people in a 'non gender' catagory instead of either male or female.
QuoteI wish they would show more FTM. Don't really know why MTF is always the transgender flag bearer for these photos, but I think on the whole my general problem with the media coverage isn't about the whole passable unpassable thing, but it's more about showing diversity. The people they show are generally white and MTF.
Plus if the focus were shifted to FTM I think the emphasis on passability would somewhat dissipate, because I don't think the emphasis is there in FTM to the extent that it is in MTF, because guys aren't really evaluated aesthetically, so much as by their presence, attitude, and character. So coverage skewed that way would seem to be something of an antidote to the Springer-ist coverage we all endure right now.
I agree with this 100%! When I first started transitioning, I was frustrated with the lack of FTMs in the media! It's changing, though. "Boys Don't Cry" and "Southern Comfort" are both very good. And that one newsweek article included pics/stories of FTMs as well -- though not as much as MTFs. I think the problem is that FTMs tend to drop of the radar once they've transitioned. Maybe it's a passability thing. Testosterone is pretty powerful, and most FTMs pass very well. But sometimes MTFs aren't as lucky, and they literally HAVE to become activists just to go about their daily business. I hope this changes; that is, I hope that, someday, we'll all blend into the woodwork -- not because we pass or because we're in stealth, but because people just don't care whether we're trans.
I am not going to argue over terminology, if you do not like it fine, but don't gripe at me for using terminology which is common within the trans community itself, and that many of us do not have a problem with. The terminology is not about putting people in a nongender category. I could argue about this endlessly but I won't.
Also with regards to trans activist, both men and women, all that I have met are passable. If one thing bothers me the most it is the stereotype of transactivist as T-Girls or non-passing transwomen. When neither is the case. I get significantly more exposed to trans-activist than most people being in DC. The whole unpassable thing is a myth, and probably one of the worst myths around.
This seems to be a stereotype perpetuated by the advocates of stealth that seems not to die, is that the activist are by in large non-passing older transwomen, when everybody that I know of as an activist that is far from the case. Most activist are men and women in their twenties and early thirties who deeply believe in civil rights, and passing is not an issue for any of them. These are not people forced into an activist role because of the burden of not passing, no, rather the activist I know are people who do activism because they have an idealistic mindset and came of age in an era where being closeted is not seen as a necessity. So the stereotype of the older, nonpassing woman who has to deal with injustice daily, well...that is not really the activist I know. The activist I know are diverse group of civil rights types.
I will say one of the big differences between the activist and the stealth types. The activist have much less a sense of shame than the stealth types, both during transition and after transition. The shame or denial from being trans does not really seem to exist for those who tend to fight for their civil rights. They are not or no longer ashamed for who they are so they see no reason to seek out stealth. It seems for the stealth types that shame never goes away, and for some there is a type of internalized trans phobia on their own part. Plus it requires, not pride, but a level of personal comfort for one to speak with authority on a given issue on civil rights issues. It is also the knowledge that the societal sense of shame that is trying to be enforced upon transpeople is wrong, and its part of why these people are activist, to fight against these attitudes which perpetuate the shame of one being trans. One must literally not be ashamed about their unique set of circumstances if they are to be an activist, because in a way you are fighting against this sense of shame. That seems to be nonexistant with the stealth types, it may also be why they gripe about it when terms like transwoman are used, even when those who are probably most for equal respect, and those who FIGHT for it, use the term themselves. While the stealth types complain about the use of the term, stereotype those who are actually doing the civil rights work (in an internalized transphobic way) and generally retain their own sense of shame without gaining a greater sense of understanding. I don't like the stealth types who are like this, largely because they complain about terminology and stereotype those who are involved, without really making real connections regarding these issues. I largely have this opinion through those I have encountered in my own life, but also on the web.
The term is not about the concept of a third sex by the way. It is about putting something in a context that is easy to describe. You may hate the term, but do not go after other people for using it. I know other people who I hate the term as well. They are mostly younger and do not have a complex enough understanding of why the term is used by those in the trans community who are activist. So you know, I will keep using the term, it may bother you, but its common terminology and until there is better terminology to describe somebody who is a transsexual woman or transsexual man, that is needed to be used to distinguish in the use of circumstantial specific language, I will use it. I prefer it to MtF of FtM significantly, because it describes their gender identity in the shorthand and not their past sex. As I see it transwoman, means woman, who happened to transition. Trans means someone who is or has transitioned in my mind. The reason why I don't mind the term is because it does not imply a third sex, rather that it implies transitional or transsexual. If you think it implies a third sex, you are mistaken.
Also I agree with the transmen thing, they are by in large underrepresented in the media.
Sorry if you do not like the term it is your own problem, but certain terms have certain meanings to certain people. Like it or not, I am going to use it.
Quote from: Amy T. on September 27, 2007, 11:57:38 AM
This seems to be a stereotype perpetuated by the advocates of stealth that seems not to die, is that the activist are by in large non-passing older transwomen, when everybody that I know of as an activist that is far from the case. Most activist are men and women in their twenties and early thirties who deeply believe in civil rights, and passing is not an issue for any of them.
Thanks for a great post Amy!
There are some of us older folks out here too. I'm 51 and have been an activist since I was around 15. For many causes, not just transgender rights. I believe Woody Guthrie said, where there is oppression, that's where I'll be, fighting for everyone's rights. For my right to be out, and passing as myself, whatever gender that might be, and for other's right to be stealth.
Z
QuoteSorry if you do not like the term it is your own problem, but certain terms have certain meanings to certain people. Like it or not, I am going to use it.
This brings up an interesting topic. What words should be used in the media to refer to transgendered people? I'm sure that most of us can agree that words like "->-bleeped-<-," "crossdresser," "he-she," and (for FTMs) "butch" are considered offensive for those transpeople who don't identify as such (some do), but what about other terms? I personally have never liked being referred to as a "transman" -- I prefer to think of myself as just a "guy" -- but some transmen love the word. Same with "t-man," "t-girl," "->-bleeped-<-->-bleeped-<-," "transdyke," "two-spirit," and all the rest. What about the word "transsexual" at all? Should we abandon it for the more inclusive "transgender," especially for those who don't fit cleanly into a fixed gender role?
Discuss. Include examples. Be sure to double-space your work and turn it in at the end of the hour to your teaching assistant, Andrew. Your grade will be based partially on punctuation and the number of times you use the word "boobies." Prof. Nero will assign your final grade based on his previous assignments. Karen, is that gum?
T-Girl I do not like because its used by ->-bleeped-<-s.
I often use transguy, transmen, or the guys. When refering to the guys.
I like the term trans as supposed to transsexual because it can refer to transition instead of transsexual, which I think may be a more accurate description.
I do not like transgender to cover those who are CD. I don't mind it being refered to by those who are genderqueer.
I don't like ->-bleeped-<-->-bleeped-<- or ->-bleeped-<-dyke, because HATE the word ->-bleeped-<-.
I like transgrrl, as there is a direct link to riot grrl and third wave feminism and is directly linked to transwomen in the pacific northwest in the punk scene.
I like the term transwoman. It does not bother me. I often say I am an intersex transwoman.
I dislike MtF and FtM and try to limit use. I dislike these terms because they describe ones birth or assigned gender, not their identified gender.
QuoteI dislike MtF and FtM and try to limit use. I dislike these terms because they describe ones birth or assigned gender, not their identified gender.
Plus no one outside the transgender community will have any idea what you mean. Actually, it's nice that you can use them in public and 99% of people won't be the wiser... ^-^
"Two-spirit" does not describe transsexual people like me who fit right into the target gender. It means bigendered, a combination of masculine and feminine identities. I reject that label for myself same as I reject "third gender." I'm just a woman.
Quote"Two-spirit" does not describe transsexual people like me who fit right into the target gender. It means bigendered, a combination of masculine and feminine identities. I reject that label for myself same as I reject "third gender." I'm just a woman.
It sometimes surprises me how many transgendered people use the term "two-spirit" or "third gender." They'll write about how they've always felt masculine/feminine, and have wanted to be a boy/girl for their entire life, but when they've transitioned, they don't completely identify as that gender but use an inter-gender term. I don't know why that is -- maybe they're afraid of losing their "queerness"? Or they don't want to give up their male/female side? I haven't given up my stereotypical "female" traits such as knitting and cooing at babies, but I still thoroughly identify as a guy.
Two-spirit and other cultural third gendered terms are very culturally specific to certain cultures. I think they really should only be used in narrow cultural circumstances, and I do not like broad use of the word.
Quote from: Andrew on September 28, 2007, 11:21:30 AM
It sometimes surprises me how many transgendered people use the term "two-spirit" or "third gender." They'll write about how they've always felt masculine/feminine, and have wanted to be a boy/girl for their entire life, but when they've transitioned, they don't completely identify as that gender but use an inter-gender term. I don't know why that is -- maybe they're afraid of losing their "queerness"? Or they don't want to give up their male/female side? I haven't given up my stereotypical "female" traits such as knitting and cooing at babies, but I still thoroughly identify as a guy.
I don't think that the traits you mention should be considered as "female" traits they don't make you any less manly in my mind (but I do admit my mind isn't normal anyway). and as far as what names to be called I guess I agree that the term transsexual is pretty offensive (although I have used it and never thought about it at all!) the term gives the impression that we are being changed into something different. when someone gets a nose job should what there nose used to look like be used to describe them for the rest of thier lives? I guess that if there were a term used to descrie the truth it would be less offensive ie.. gender corrected but that doesn't sound right either so maybe we are just stuck with these old terms for lack of better ones!
Transnasal -- hey, why not?
QuoteTransnasal -- hey, why not?
Heh, heh. I'm "transboobal."
Quote from: Hypatia on September 28, 2007, 10:55:46 AM
"Two-spirit" does not describe transsexual people like me who fit right into the target gender. It means bigendered, a combination of masculine and feminine identities. I reject that label for myself same as I reject "third gender." I'm just a woman.
Thanks for your post Hypatia....now we are getting somewhere. I didn't go into this just to get the tag 'transwomen'......I went into this to be a 'female' and that's how so far I've been percieved, thank goodness..
To me 'transwomen' is a tag percifically designed to indicate someone hasn't transitioned. The terminology of 'M to F' is used by all of you which means 'Male to Female' it doesn't mean 'Male to Transwomen', so why use it? a transition is surely supposed to be a transition from one gender to another, not some freaky alien third gender called a 'Transwomen'.