The Independent – So nearly right, so very wrong
By Zoe O'Connell, on February 14, 2011
http://www.complicity.co.uk/blog/2011/02/independent-so-nearly-right/ (http://www.complicity.co.uk/blog/2011/02/independent-so-nearly-right/)
This story in the Independent Life/Style Fashion section, titled "Gender-blending: Sexual ambiguity in fashion" could so nearly have been a nice "Hey, look, transgender gender-f**kery is cool" story. But, instead, they've managed to completely confuse transgender and transsexual in a way that ends up being downright offensive.
It's not just the usual confusion of nouns and adjectives that one expects, with references to "a pre-operative transsexual in little beyond a smattering of magenta body-glitter". I could live with that, largely because if one gets annoyed with every grammatical error in the papers, one would spend life in a constant rage.
No, it's far worse than that:
To be honest, it sounds like another rant from a bored, isolated person, picking on insignificance, rather than seeing the bigger picture.
I have lost count of the number of different definations of transgender/transexual/trans and so on, I've read. Does it matter? If the aim of the piece is positive, why get picky over words, when most transgender people can't even agree?
The quickest route to ridicule seting up holy cows.
Edit. Removed reference to American Holly Cows. It wasn't intended to be a jibe at Americans, whom I respect, but rather a comparison with holly cow issues.
But upon reflection it seems a tad inappropriate, not to mention, unnecessary.
Quote from: spacial on February 15, 2011, 06:07:51 AM
To be honest, it sounds like another rant from a bored, isolated person, picking on insignificance, rather than seeing the bigger picture.
I have lost count of the number of different definations of transgender/transexual/trans and so on, I've read. Does it matter? If the aim of the piece is positive, why get picky over words, when most transgender people can't even agree?
The quickest route to ridicule seting up holy cows.
I completely agree. I too looked at the original article and I understood it.
The person writing the blog seemed to be to be deliberately being obtuse and taking ultra literal interpretations of phrases which, within context, were clearly trying to express something different.
For example when the fashion designer was trying to explain that they had designed clothes which weren't androgynous but instead were drawing from both sides to deliberately create a "best of both" blend look. It wasn't denigrating anything, just trying to explain a design concept.