Should We Scrap the Word "Transgender"?
Filed by: Dr. Jillian T. Weiss
January 3, 2010 4:30 PM
http://www.bilerico.com/2010/01/is_it_unfair_to_define_the_transgender_community_t.php (http://www.bilerico.com/2010/01/is_it_unfair_to_define_the_transgender_community_t.php)
The definition of "transgender" is not universally agreed upon. Some define it very broadly, to include anyone with a history or a hint of gender variance. Women who like sports. Men who like to cook.
Some people take issue with this broad definition. In fact, some transsexual people don't like being included in the definition of transgender. They feel, not without some historical justification, that transsexual people who have sex reassignment surgery were beginning to gain traction in terms of legal rights -- to change gender markers on birth certificates and other government identification, and to enforce those changes in other areas of law, such as marriage. However, there was a move in the late 1980s and 1990s by academics to expand the concept of gender to cover a wider area. That move was largely successful, and many people now see gender and its cousin, gender identity, as covering a very broad swath of territory. The concept of "transgender" now covers every sort of gender variance, including transsexuals, crossdressers, genderqueers and others.
I'm guessing any discussion of this will violate the site bans on
* Advocating the separation or exclusion of one or more group from under the Transgender umbrella term
* Suggesting or claiming that one segment or sub-segment of our community is more legitimate, deserving, or more real than any others
Quote from: Marie731 on January 03, 2010, 04:09:19 PM
I'm guessing any discussion of this will violate the site bans on
* Advocating the separation or exclusion of one or more group from under the Transgender umbrella term
* Suggesting or claiming that one segment or sub-segment of our community is more legitimate, deserving, or more real than any others
civil discussion, no
me thinks the author has a beef with "transgender" used as an umbrella for behavior, expression, or identity that is beyond the societal status quo of how people "should" be.
QuoteI myself am somewhat ambivalent about the term "transgender." I identify as a woman of transsexual experience.
<potential flame bait>
typical hBS banter
</potential flame bait>
Yeah, change it to 'waffle' because who in the hell doesn't like waffles?
Quote from: tekla on January 03, 2010, 05:49:32 PM
Yeah, change it to 'waffle' because who in the hell doesn't like waffles?
Or go the way of PETA and use the term "kitten gendered" :D
Quote from: Laura91 on January 03, 2010, 07:22:30 PM
Ewwwwwww, I hate waffles.
Now, now... this is a support forum. No waffle hating here ;)
Waffles are just as valid and equal as other breakfast tasties.
When you were a kid, did you ever make patterns in the waffles by pouring syrup into only some of the little squares so that it formed a pattern or a picture?
I have not eaten a waffle in a long time but I think I will try it again.
Quote from: Virginia87106 on January 03, 2010, 08:08:59 PM
When you were a kid, did you ever make patterns in the waffles by pouring syrup into only some of the little squares so that it formed a pattern or a picture?
No, but I used to build whole cities with skyscrapers, superhighways and parks in my mashed potatoes.
Come to think of it, I still do ;)
Belgian Waffles with strawberries and chocolate sauce. ;D
Janet
Quote from: Marie731 on January 03, 2010, 04:09:19 PM
I'm guessing any discussion of this will violate the site bans on
* Advocating the separation or exclusion of one or more group from under the Transgender umbrella term
* Suggesting or claiming that one segment or sub-segment of our community is more legitimate, deserving, or more real than any others
Dr Weiss is an excellent writer, I've posted many of her articles here. This article seriously discusses terminology that we use within our community, I believe it is of considerable merit. If people discuss the article respectfully and civilly, that isn't in violation of rules.
Z
I actually was going to comment on the term itself and got caught in the moment. Sorry Z, and I know better. I find nothing wrong with the term, but it seems that it has become the new 'catch' phrase of the day.
By placing all gender variant under one term does a dis-serve to all. But for the media, it is easier to group all of us under one umbrella. No explanation needed.
But on the other hand, I think that for Transsexuals, we are more Transgender than Transsexual. My point is that we are Transitioning our gender, not our sexuality.
Janet
Quote from: Janet Lynn on January 03, 2010, 11:12:24 PMMy point is that we are Transitioning our gender, not our sexuality.
Agreed.
I'd take it a step further and say that trans-folk are transitioning the preconceived gender identity associated with them.
Regardless of what they do with their body, for those who _do_ prefer a "cut and dry" gender definition from one to the other, it's ultimately the perception that is changed.
Sorry.... I guess that's basically what it means... I just think there is still so much negative connotations (and assumptions) associated with anything starting with the word "trans". For instance, the level of transition trans-folk go through in terms of their body varies immensely from person to person... once again, I know, preach-to-the-choir obvious stuff here...
I really _do_ wish there was a more "easy on the mind" phrase that could be used so that the general public didn't have such old-skool associations with the "trans".
Even "transgender" is a hop skip and jump away from "->-bleeped-<-" and "transvestite" (nothing against transvestites).
Couldn't we use something more poetic... like... Gender Enlightened? :D
Quote from: tekla on January 03, 2010, 05:49:32 PM
Yeah, change it to 'waffle' because who in the hell doesn't like waffles?
I LOL'd 4 rlz
It doesn't matter in the least what word you use, if people don't like the idea, they will use whatever word you like in the most dismissive and damming manner possible.
And Enlightened? That would be hysterical. Because almost every time anyone applies that word to themselves the one thing you know for sure is that they are not. It's like "cool." It's only cool when others describe you in that way, if you describe yourself that way, you're just proving you're a dillweed.
That was actually a pretty well-written piece.
I seriously disagree with the semantic argument that "transgender" is a problematic word because its meaning is not well-defined. Few words have well-defined meanings. Does "gay" have a well-defined meaning? That is, in real life, where people have sexualities far more fluid than simply a choice of option X or option Y? This comes up all over the place -- what constitutes "well-educated" or "developmentally disabled"? There's no bright line. What about "rich" or "poor"? I could go on and on. We use all sorts of words whose meanings depend on the circumstances, and "transgender" is just another one.
I agree with the notion that the word is useful for political solidarity. However any subgroup might self-identify, we're all pretty much the same sort of freak to your average transphobe.
Quote from: tekla on January 03, 2010, 11:38:54 PMyou're just proving you're a dillweed.
:icon_ashamed:
Not you personally, Devi, unless you really are running around telling everyone else how cool you are.
It's just that any real enlightenment would pretty much preclude you from actually describing yourself as such. Kinda like "White Supremacist," always cracks me up when I see them on TV and there living in a double-wide in some trailer park. What exactly is so supreme about that? I mean, they are calling themselves "supremacists" and I bet they can't even spell the word
Quote from: Janet Lynn on January 03, 2010, 11:12:24 PM
I actually was going to comment on the term itself and got caught in the moment. Sorry Z, and I know better. I find nothing wrong with the term, but it seems that it has become the new 'catch' phrase of the day.
By placing all gender variant under one term does a dis-serve to all. But for the media, it is easier to group all of us under one umbrella. No explanation needed.
But on the other hand, I think that for Transsexuals, we are more Transgender than Transsexual. My point is that we are Transitioning our gender, not our sexuality.
Janet
I agree. i have no say and no influence but I much prefer "transgender" to "transsexual" for just that reason.
Although if it were possible to come up with a less loaded prefix that would be even cooler but I don't know how you could. to give an example, we commonly use the cis- prefix now but I'd never heard it until I came out and had to ask someone what it meant. I'll wager not 1 cis-gendered person in 500 has ever heard it.
so how do you change an already established label?
Beyond that, while I am fine with an umbrella term for all people with gender identity issues, I would like it if there was "transgender" for those of us who are simply shifting from one conventional gender role to the other, and "(something else)" for those who are stepping outside the traditional gender duality altogether.
I'd like to be able to say to a questioning person "transgender" and have them at least somewhat clearly understand what I am referring to and what I'm not referring to.
After all, we have "gay" and "lesbian" and the fact that there are two different words doesn't at all imply that one is more valid than the other, so who shouldn't that logic apply to the trans community?
(oh, and just by the way, am I the only one who HATES the term "genderqueer"? That comes off to be very much as a word designed to be confrontational and dare the hearer to take issue with it)
I don't have a problem with the term "Transgendered" and I kinda like waffles although the toppings tend to be too sweet for me
But I wanna give everyone a spanking till my hand hurts just cause it sounds like fun >:-) :laugh: >:-)
*Puts on CatWoman outfit and cracks a whip* Wahpishka!!! >:-) >:-) >:-)
Quote from: tekla on January 04, 2010, 12:18:05 AM
Not you personally, Devi, unless you really are running around telling everyone else how cool you are.
What if _other_ people are running around telling everyone how cool I am... _then_ can I use the term "enlightened" with out being a dillweed? :D
Well, I'll buy in.
I don't mind using transgender to describe me. I usually have to qualify it by saying, Oh BTW I'm not gay. My straight friends are still caught in a paradox and haven't gone on the offensive to analyse that comment.
What other adjective could we use? And what power do have to enforce it? I'm not sure where the term "Gay" for a homosexual male came from. Presumably San Fransico? Where the Gay community had and presumably still do, have an enormous social, political and economic local pressure. It was by this, that they, as a group could sway society; at least locally. I'm pretty sure that Prince Charming dancing down the street of Redneck city still got pulped by saying he was Gay rather than homosexual. What difference would a name change make to being transgenderd? Possibly a conference of psychologists or psychiatrists would have a royal debate. But I doubt it.
We are a group of people with problems that most do not have; that most do not care about; who do not have economic clout. If you can't get your government, in any country, to pay for the disabled to have support structure, for free condoms to prevent the spread of HIV, for women's shelters to prevent abuse and to protect chidren for abuse, to name a few; who should give a sh*t about us, no matter what we call ourselves?
Sorry for the rant. Sometimes being human hurts
Cindy
Quote from: Janet Lynn on January 03, 2010, 11:12:24 PMMy point is that we are Transitioning our gender, not our sexuality.
I'm not.
I'm transitioning my Sex, not sexuality, and not gender.
My gender is the same before and after, my sexuality is the same before and after. It's my sex I'm changing.
Quote from: Miniar on January 04, 2010, 02:53:49 PM
I'm not.
I'm transitioning my Sex, not sexuality, and not gender.
My gender is the same before and after, my sexuality is the same before and after. It's my sex I'm changing.
Good point... but not all trans people alter their body to fit their identified gender. The only thing that really ultimately is changing is their own perception of themselves and in turn other people's perceptions of who they are.
Trans-perception if you will.
I think 'gay' - which had always had a slightly immoral character to it, whorehouses were once upon a time referred to as 'gay houses' - really came from the Liberace lawsuits, where he sued a Brit paper (and won) when they called him a 'fruit' I think. So reporters, not wanting to be sued, and yet still wanting to note that for some reason (like there was ever a scintilla of doubt about it) started to refer to Lee as 'gay' because that word has that association, and it was part of Lee's theme song, so he couldn't sue them over it.
No.
It gets on my nerves how they're constantly scrapping terms and coming up with new ones.
First they're hermaphrodites, but now we have to call them intersexuals..
First they're dwarfs, but now we have to call them little people.
The list goes on.
If it's not broke, don't fix it.
The term is fine.
Quote from: Zythyra on January 03, 2010, 10:52:03 PMThis article seriously discusses terminology that we use within our community, I believe it is of considerable merit.
I agree, it's just that... well you know the issues we're dancing around here to avoid a flame war.
It's a handy term during a casual conversation as a catch-all for people with any sort of gender issues.
But it's a political disaster when used as a catch-all for legal issues.
Quote from: Miniar on January 04, 2010, 02:53:49 PM
I'm not.
I'm transitioning my Sex, not sexuality, and not gender.
My gender is the same before and after, my sexuality is the same before and after. It's my sex I'm changing.
That depends on what you mean by gender. I use it to refer to at least two different things: my deep internal sense of identification with other women that is stronger than my sense of identification with people in general; or how people perceive my public presentation of that.
The second one, which is at heart a social construction, is certainly changing. The first one, my internal sense of identification, is only changing in that it is becoming deeper and more settled, but not fundamentally changing at all.
If I talk to anyone about it at all (IRL, anyway), it's usually in the context of the changing of my social role; the physical aspects aren't their business, and the part about gender as a fundamental part of identity tends to be a bit too involved for most people to care much about, much less understand.
As an old-timer, I do NOT like the term "transgender" - it had nothing to do with me and never did. It was my physical sex that I changed - my gender has always been the same, so transsexual is the only term I accept as applied to me.
Words, words, words.
50 years ago, gay people weren't gay, and they certainly wouldn't call themselves queer. Any word referring to us folk, whatever you want to call us, is a neologism, and transgender is a slightly newer neologism than transsexual. They both have historical baggage, and they both imply a particular construction of experiences that deviate from societal norms.
Since we're all on this forum, we're all transgender. Frankly, I hate using that word to describe a person without making it a past participle (in analogy with gendered), but that's Susan's convention: https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,54369.0.html (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,54369.0.html) Frankly, I could quibble about those definitions all day, but I appreciate the idea of not quibbling about them, since that so often goes badly.
Quote from: Alyssa M. on January 05, 2010, 01:21:57 PMSince we're all on this forum, we're all transgender.
Not keen to such assumptive generalizations, thank-you-very-much.
I personally don't mind using the term "trans" but I definitely have a problem using the word "transgender" in identifying myself (although sometimes I do it cringingly out of habit).
So yeah. Hey. It might have become the "standard" for most, but that doesn't mean it applies to everyone.
On this topic, I have a real problem with the terms "GRS" and "SRS" as well. I'd be most comfortable calling it "genital reconstructive surgery", which I think is about as accurate as you can get for what is really going on.... regardless of medical "sex" classifications, or psychological "gender" identity.
I was making no assumptions except that you joined this particular forum. We're all transgender here (except S.O.'s) by the definitions of this forum because this forum defines transgender a particular way, maybe not the way you would, and not the way I would (as I said, I have plenty of quibbles with those definitions), but there it stands.
Whatever the history of the words, through Harry Benjamin and Virginia Prince and all sorts of nasty politics, on this site transsexual refers to people who transition medically, or want to, or have decided that medical transition isn't worth the trouble because the results won't be good enough; and transsexual people are a subset of transgender people.
That doesn't necessarily agree with how either you or I use those words outside this forum, but this isn't your forum or mine; it's Susan's forum. If you have a problem with Susan's definitions, take it up with Susan.
@ Alyssa.
I understand the point you are making, but I also am sure (though I could be wrong) that Susan respects the fact that I personally do not identify as "transgender" even though I am posting on these forums.
OK, if you're not 'transgender' what need is there for any protection of 'transgender' persons?
And if such protections exist, should they be applied to you?
Quote from: tekla on January 05, 2010, 09:24:35 PM
And if such protections exist, should they be applied to you?
No.
I'm female, not transgender.
So why all the fuss about EDNA, since all these people would not be covered under it? Maybe they should remove the trans from it, keep it gay, pass it and be done with it.
Quote from: tekla on January 05, 2010, 09:29:03 PM
So why all the fuss about EDNA, since all these people would not be covered under it? Maybe they should remove the trans from it, keep it gay, pass it and be done with it.
Because people with such genital / hormonal deformities are often discriminated against, regardless if they identify as male, female, transsexual, transgender, or androgyne, and (unfortunately for some of us who object to the semantics) "transgender" is the blanket term for such things.
I've said this once, and I'll say it again, the one thing most, what I simply call, "trans" people I know share is a life-long hormonal imbalance that pushed their body into growth they don't feel comfortable with, and put them in a world of hurt in dealing with the social / psychological repercussions of such deformities.
To ignore the fact that we live in a world where trans people, regardless of their self-identity, are discriminated against (I myself have experienced multiple occurrences of such sad truths in this world), and to say we should throw it away because the government / science decides to use a label some of us are uncomfortable with is just... silly.
The medicine might taste bad, but if it helps, it helps.
Quote from: Matilda on January 05, 2010, 09:03:03 PMif people have the audacity to call me something I am not...
They already are.
You're a member of the LBGT community, according to them. You're a member of the transgender community, according to them. You're (maybe) about to get special protections as a transgendered person via ENDA, like it or not.
Well, remember, since the ERA never passed, you might not have any special rights as a woman.
Quote from: Matilda on January 05, 2010, 09:39:00 PM
To the world & to society, I'm female in every sense of the word. Plain and simple. Society put its stamp of approval on my life a LONG time ago.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss161%2Fmatilda23%2F061.gif&hash=8f2301193b0dc73bb2e3c64f938f2048ea1a0591)
Bully for you. Shall we schedule a parade?
I'm beginning to see why everyone says these threads always end in hostility.
For my part, the issue is NOT what "you call me" - you can call me anything you like, I'm not bound by the words you use
(the general generic "you" - i.e. "anyone")
when I entered this discussion it was to speak of what words
I would like to use or see use
to best communicate to those who haven't lived this experience just what is going on.
Do
I know my gender has always been female and hasn't "transed" anything?
Of course.
That and a buck might get me a cup of coffee. Communication isn't about what is going on between my ears, it's about how I can convey an idea to a person who doesn't understand it.
Now, it can certainly be argued that "transsexual" does the job better than "transgender" or the reverse - that's a perfectly valid discussion and one that should easily be discussable without much emotion.
Discussing how we can best communicate with others shouldn't be a loaded discussion.
On the other hand, if this was a discussion of "my label for me is the only right label for me and you best HEED!" then, well, I have no interest in that nonsense.
labels - all of them - are the problem, not the solution. (and yes, that includes "male" and "female" because that just invites disagreement about whether one is legitimately entitled to claim the label).
Post Merge: January 06, 2010, 02:07:12 AM
Quote from: devi ever on January 05, 2010, 09:39:48 PM
Because people with such genital / hormonal deformities are often discriminated against, regardless if they identify as male, female, transsexual, transgender, or androgyne, and (unfortunately for some of us who object to the semantics) "transgender" is the blanket term for such things.
I've said this once, and I'll say it again, the one thing most, what I simply call, "trans" people I know share is a life-long hormonal imbalance that pushed their body into growth they don't feel comfortable with, and put them in a world of hurt in dealing with the social / psychological repercussions of such deformities.
To ignore the fact that we live in a world where trans people, regardless of their self-identity, are discriminated against (I myself have experienced multiple occurrences of such sad truths in this world), and to say we should throw it away because the government / science decides to use a label some of us are uncomfortable with is just... silly.
The medicine might taste bad, but if it helps, it helps.
I think you missed tekla's point entirely.
Or I did.
If I understood the point, I find myself in agreement with it.
Quote from: tekla on January 05, 2010, 09:52:48 PM
Well, remember, since the ERA never passed, you might not have any special rights as a woman.
That is actually a bit ironical, considering the arguments used against it.
I love irony, although if you look real close, you'll find your favorite bathroom arguments in their infant stages being used as a reason to reject the ERA.
Though the Xian Right had its big guns out for that one and really were the main force in defeating it in Iowa which would have been one of the last states they needed.
The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians. –Pat Robertson
And yeah, that's a real quote from him. In Iowa no less.
Yes, I wasn't sure whether the irony was intentional or not. Either way, it was cute. And I've noticed the claw marks of the Eagle Forum on the bathroom canard.
As for Pat Robertson, well, I had no idea! So the ERA was just a lesbian recruitment drive? That does it -- I'm all for it now!
I don't have a problem with the term "transgender." I think it's nice to have an umbrella term, particularly if you're in the process of figuring out your gender identity, as I have been and more-or-less still am.
I do, however, have an issue with using the term as a verb. A trans woman I'm acquainted with said it best, though this is only paraphrasing: Calling someone transgendered implies that at some point someone or something transgendered them. You don't call gay people gayed.
It also bothers me when people say "a transgender." It seems.. belittling? I don't know what it is, exactly. It's like when people talk about "the gays."
I'm also not sure why, but the term "transsexual" just bothers me on some deep, vague level. Deeply ingrained negative associations, perhaps. I honestly couldn't tell you.
And anyone who has ever been on a x-county flight with someone's screaming crotchfruit the whole 'kill your kids' has a certain allure for sure. And killing capitalism in the home state of ethanol and federal farm subsidies was always a side-splitter to me. How people could could in one breath praise and defend capitalism and in the next complain about how their 'set-aside' check* was late, always seemed misguided at best.
* - the famous, 'get paid for not growing things' subsidy
QuoteMajor Major's father was a sober God-fearing man whose idea of a good joke was to lie about his age.
He was a long-limbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged individualist who held
that federal aid to anyone but farmers was creeping socialism. He advocated thrift and hard work and
disapproved of loose women who turned him down. His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing
out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The
more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he
didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce. Major Major's father worked
without rest at not growing alfalfa. On long winter evenings he remained indoors and did not mend
harnesses, and he sprang out of bed at the crack of noon every day just to make certain that the chores
would not be done. He invested in land wisely and soon was not growing more alfalfa than any other
man in the county. Neighbors sought him out for advice on all subjects, for he had made much money and
was therefore wise. "As ye sow, so shall ye reap," he counseled one and all, and everyone said, "Amen."
(Though it turns out that this was a better way to smooth out the wild cycles of agribusiness than price supports, which just lead to a glut of corn and soy, which lead, in turn, to heart disease and diabetes epidemics.)
Joseph Heller flat out wrote one of the best books ever. I try to read it every few years or so, it never gets old, only more true as time goes by.