Nope, this is no Monty Python's sketch :), but a question to all of you:
Should we use the word "->-bleeped-<-" in a dignifying, positive way?
I'd like to ask this question for two reasons:
First, I have read somewhere that gays and lesbians succeeded in changing the former pejorative connotation of the word "gay" over the last decades. If they hadn't appropriated the initially negative word "gay", this word would still be used as an insult today.
Second, It may be best if we claim that word before we, as a community growing in number and visibility, begin to be referred to more and more often by that word in some tabloid media or talk-shows and even by people at large (whereby I've heard different connotations). If we let others use the word exclusively, they'll be also making its meaning. I've seen media articles in which "->-bleeped-<-" is used in a way which is not directly disrespectful, but in a kind of jocular and somewhat belittling way, as referring to a person who is a kind of circus attraction and has no life or personality other than "changing his/her sex". So precisely to avoid that.
Note: I am not saying that we should not use worlds like "transsexual/transgender woman/men", "transwoman" "TGirl" or "transman/-guy" anymore. On more formal occasions (ie outing at work) I would never refer myself to as a "->-bleeped-<-",but among friends or in more colloquial situations I wonder if we should not claim and "reconquer" that word for our own good. And I am asking you all because I am not completely sure of my stance on this question.
so... Thoughts?
Personally, I dislike the word ->-bleeped-<-. It's along the lines -- to me -- as ->-bleeped-<-got. It's used more often as derogatory and demeaning. I've seen it used often as a code word for porn and such. I think that we have enough acceptable words out there to use to describe ourselves, particularly male and female. (e.g., I am a male. Period.)
Hi Linus,
indeed, I am female and that's it. Period. But I am not/won't be able to live in stealth modus (and I might never want to), and I ask myself the following questions:
The people around me will need some time to readjust to my new social gender. Friends and coworkers will know about my being trans. Personally, I don't know whether I am able to impose a politically correct language on everyone around me and in every situation. So If the ->-bleeped-<- word comes out, I don't know if the best thing to do is to try and "defuse" that word by dignifying it. One day, though, I'll be just be one of the girls and only once in a while remembered to have been the transwoman in the pack. However, although we can play a big part on this, we are not always in the position to accelerate this "assimilation process". Realistically.
Cheers mate!
Words cannot describe how much I despise the use of that term.
It's especially troubling when a Transsexual person uses it in reference to her/himself.... it's like they've given up on any sense of identity other than being Transgender.
I know a post-op gender therapist in my group who uses it all the time and suggests that, by my refusal to acknowledge the term, I'm trying to set myself apart from other transfolks.. "C'mon, Jess... we're all tr****s," she'll say, and laugh..... I don't understand how that's helpful at all.
Maybe some are comfortable with it but I think we would be doing an injustice to ourselves by embracing an epithet.
Quote from: JessicaR on March 15, 2011, 09:15:06 AM
I know a post-op gender therapist in my group who uses it all the time and suggests that, by my refusal to acknowledge the term, I'm trying to set myself apart from other transfolks.. "C'mon, Jess... we're all tr****s," she'll say, and laugh..... I don't understand how that's helpful at all.
Interesting, that's not the situation in which I would expect the ->-bleeped-<- word to be used. Although, I have heard it used by transfolk in some intelligent ways, for instance, to criticize some stereotypes about TS/TGs. I know usage of the term can differ a lot and the world itself poses a problem. That's why I posted the topic.
For me it depends on how the word is used and who's using it... I see it as equivalent to black people calling each other the 'n' word, but if a white person calls them that it's offensive. I've called myself a ->-bleeped-<- before, I have gay friends who call each other ->-bleeped-<- or dyke, etc. I'm all for taking back offensive words. It's really only when they are deliberately used to insult that they bother me.
Quote from: Sylvester on March 15, 2011, 09:28:44 AM
For me it depends on how the word is used and who's using it... I see it as equivalent to black people calling each other the 'n' word, but if a white person calls them that it's offensive. I've called myself a ->-bleeped-<- before, I have gay friends who call each other ->-bleeped-<- or dyke, etc. I'm all for taking back offensive words. It's really only when they are deliberately used to insult that they bother me.
That's a really good point, I think.
It also reminds me of hearing one Tgirl commenting on the usual difficulties of transition, giving a sigh and saying "oh, you know, ->-bleeped-<- life"
Quote from: Valeriedances on March 15, 2011, 09:37:28 AM
I've had that word used against me recently (3 months ago) while on a date, by a man who was shocked when I outed myself to him and used it in a hurtful, angry way ...as he couldnt stand the idea that he was attracted to a ts person. When moments before he was infatuated full of desire and all sugar and spice. How could anyone be okay with this word? I had to run away from him, in fear of my life.
I think I would feel the same as you about the word if I had been in your skin.
Regarding your experience, I hope the wound heals soon and you have more luck with a partner next time.
Huggs,
Alice
The word itself came out of the community. It was our word, one that was meant to be inclusive - so its easy to see why so many people in here dislike it.
Quote from: Valeriedances on March 15, 2011, 09:47:16 AM
Thanks Alice, you are sweet.
Hey Val, you haven't seen me when *craving* like a monster for the HRT-prescriptions: no sweetness there, only "give the f****** thing to me now!" But yeah, I'm "sweetening" and very happy so :) (sorry about the off-topic)
Quote from: tekla on March 15, 2011, 09:46:42 AM
The word itself came out of the community. It was our word, one that was meant to be inclusive - so its easy to see why so many people in here dislike it.
I did not know that fact for sure. Any infos about how and when it all started?
Quote from: tekla on March 15, 2011, 09:46:42 AM
It was our word, one that was meant to be inclusive - so its easy to see why so many people in here
Well, I do understand. Beyond other reasons like the experience told by Valerie above, it's definitely a problem of word appropriation and connotation. The word may have been ours, but if others have used it more often with negative meanings, as I fear, that would explain a lot.
The question is whether we would be able to regain its original meaning. Would that be realistic?
Another question is that regaining the word might be strategically necessary in order to defuse its potential as offence and insult. Better use the word ourselves and have a chance at determining its meaning that only have others use it. But I am not sure about the first question: is it possible?
I don't care for the word "Tran...". The first time I was told that I was transgender I was shocked. I feel it is like calling someone with a low IQ retarded. I guess labels me a lot to society. I like GID or intersexed.
The longest running trans event in the Bay Area is ->-bleeped-<-shack (not your dad's drag show) started in 1996, but half a decade before that a lady named Carla runs Carla's Salon, had been being called the '->-bleeped-<- Mechanic" since the early 90s. That would date the use of the world then to the late 1980s, or about the beginning of normal (not geeks, nerds or DoE/DoD types) using the net.
Also, the group in the San Jose area goes by Silicon Valley ->-bleeped-<- (SVT).
I personally wouldn't use it for myself and I wouldn't call other people it. I prefer not to be called it because of the negative connotation. But overall, I'm not offended by it. It takes a lot to offend me and I'm a pretty relaxed person. I just wouldn't take it too personally and I would ignore it if the word was said with intent to harm.
I don't like the word, and I have friends who are trans who use it to describe themselves and I don't like how I am often grouped into it.
I hope this makes sense, I am trying to think of how to explain this but the only time I ever use it to talk about myself I am also rolling my eyes about it. Like "they just think of me as some ->-bleeped-<-" or "I don't want them to think I am just a ->-bleeped-<-".
I don't think it's a positive word. I think people who are trans who use it like to make a big statement about themsevles, shoving it in people's faces, which that itself is what makes people uncomfortable. And that's not really for me. I am not a trans person, I am a person who happens to be trans. :-/
Though, people who aren't trans who use it, that's obviously offensive with or without any justification.
I try not to offened personally because otherwise I feel like I am spending most of my life getting offended by everything. There is just so much you can do about it.
I don't care for the term and find it derogatory
the word has too many negative connotations to ever be redeemed to something even remotely dignified. As Sylvester said, it's like the "n" word in that respect.
Wasn't going to post to this, but just wanted to say to Valerie I'm so sorry that happened to you. It was that moron's loss. I'm just glad you're okay.
I think we should discourage the use of this very insulting word.
The word is offensive and should not be used by anyone.
Trying to reclaim the word for ourselves can only work for so long, before it backfires back to us. Other people may think if we use it ourselves then its Ok to use it as well. i don't personally believe that such a word can be empowering in an way, much like the N word, it is still offensive, the more you use such words the more it becomes acceptable to the general public.
Quote from: Marvel on March 16, 2011, 01:01:50 AMmuch like the N word, it is still offensive, the more you use such words the more it becomes acceptable to the general public.
I assume you mean "->-bleeped-<-" which actually came from Niger where "nigu" meant god and "niga" meant goddess.
I fail to see what is offensive about divinity.
It's the fact that words evolve for better or worse despite their origin.
It's never the word, it's how its used. And I see it used mostly in a friendly way.
I can understand the analogy to homosexuals having reclaimed a word (though for me, "queer" is a much closer analogy) but the reservation i have is this:
I, for one (and this will get me some grief i know) have a considerable displeasure with the confusion among the ill-informed cis-public about the various manifestations of transgender conditions/behaviors.
I have nothing against crossdressers, per se - but I would have John Q. Public know that a recreation cross-dresser is NOT the same thing as a mis-gendered transsexual. A person who happily generates a "she-male" person to work in porn is NOT the same thing as what i am -though they have every right, or should, to do that if they want; a drag queen, loveable though she may be, is not a representation of what you'll see from me if you give me a job.
it's in that context that "->-bleeped-<-" makes me uncomfortable - because in the public perception that word engenders all the outlandish examples of being transgender and none of the more "everyday" examples. If i say to the average person on the street "when i say ->-bleeped-<-, what sort of person do you think of? - what will be described will almost invariably sound like RuPaul, or a refugee from the Maury Povich show (or worse, Jerry Springer) and will almost never sound like K8, or Jerica or Janet or myself.
It's for that reason only that i really hate to see it used.
Quote from: VeryGnawty on March 16, 2011, 01:05:06 AM
I assume you mean "->-bleeped-<-" which actually came from Niger where "nigu" meant god and "niga" meant goddess.
I fail to see what is offensive about divinity.
Another explanation for the word is that it is a corruption of "negro" and thus in it's origins has no negative connotation.
An alternative argument suggests it's connected to an older insult - ->-bleeped-<-dly - which was said to mean "worthless" - which on the surface might seem plausible except that, as i understand it, white slave owners before the war would refer to their slaves, whether highly prized or not, by that word which would seem to belie the idea that they thought the word meant "worthless"
I'm used to having all sorts of negative connotations thrown at me, so I don't give a damn if someone calls me a ->-bleeped-<-. Honestly, anything (and I do mean anything) is preferable to me than to be called a girl. A few months ago, some college dicks drove by and screamed "->-bleeped-<-got" at me and it actually had me happy.
However, if it bugged other people, I'd try to avoid using it out of respect for them. I entirely understand why it would offend some people.
Quote from: Tammy Hope on March 16, 2011, 02:21:33 AM
I can understand the analogy to homosexuals having reclaimed a word (though for me, "queer" is a much closer analogy)
Hi Tammy!
As far as I know, "queer" was a real insult some decades ago. Maybe I am wrong, but "queer" was much more derogatory than "gay" ever was, before the LBGT movement reclaimed the latter word.
Quote from: Tammy Hope on March 16, 2011, 02:21:33 AMI, for one (and this will get me some grief i know) have a considerable displeasure with the confusion among the ill-informed cis-public about the various manifestations of transgender conditions/behaviors.
I consider people at large to be more or less neutral when I comes to coinage of terms. It is always the communities with a sense of cohesion that make the language. In short, it is us against the bigots/haters when it comes to give or not give the battle on one particular word.
Quote from: Tammy Hope on March 16, 2011, 02:21:33 AMI have nothing against crossdressers, per se - but I would have John Q. Public know that a recreation cross-dresser is NOT the same thing as a mis-gendered transsexual. A person who happily generates a "she-male" person to work in porn is NOT the same thing as what i am -though they have every right, or should, to do that if they want; a drag queen, loveable though she may be, is not a representation of what you'll see from me if you give me a job.
it's in that context that "->-bleeped-<-" makes me uncomfortable - because in the public perception that word engenders all the outlandish examples of being transgender and none of the more "everyday" examples. If i say to the average person on the street "when i say ->-bleeped-<-, what sort of person do you think of? - what will be described will almost invariably sound like RuPaul, or a refugee from the Maury Povich show (or worse, Jerry Springer) and will almost never sound like K8, or Jerica or Janet or myself.
It's for that reason only that i really hate to see it used.
I think these thoughts go well far beyond the problem of the world ->-bleeped-<-. There will always be a broad gender spectrum, both among cis and trans people, for gender is just that: a continuum. If some figures get much more often publicized by the media (TV loves drag queens and very particular sorts of CDs/TGs), that fact simply reflects the media agenda, which is mostly a sensation-market thing. It is up to each of us, in our lives and on the internet, to offer the people around us an alternative picture of TG/TS people. The ones named by you and many others have probably made a huge contribution to it already. But back to topic, I don't think our image does not only depend on one word.
(TV loves drag queens and very particular sorts of CDs/TGs), that fact simply reflects the media agenda, which is mostly a sensation-market entirely an entertainment thing.
Media loves performance. And DQs perform. It's not that complex. Boring people make for boring TV, and boring TV makes no money.
Quote from: tekla on March 16, 2011, 01:17:41 AM
Hi Tekla!
The longest running trans event in the Bay Area is ->-bleeped-<-shack (not your dad's drag show) started in 1996, but half a decade before that a lady named Carla runs Carla's Salon, had been being called the '->-bleeped-<- Mechanic" since the early 90s. That would date the use of the world then to the late 1980s, or about the beginning of normal (not geeks, nerds or DoE/DoD types) using the net.
Also, the group in the San Jose area goes by Silicon Valley ->-bleeped-<- (SVT)
Thanks at lot for the info! To me, this comes to show that "->-bleeped-<-" was never an insult from its very beginning, unlike words like "queer".
Quote from: tekla on March 16, 2011, 01:17:41 AM
It's never the word, it's how its used. And I see it used mostly in a friendly way.
Yep, this is one the reasons why I posted the topic. I have heard it used by TG/TS people in a positive way and I have heard it from cis people in a neutral way, or even in a slightly positive one. I would agree, however, that is not always the case. Therefore my current doubts.
Quote from: tekla on March 16, 2011, 11:56:24 AM
(TV loves drag queens and very particular sorts of CDs/TGs), that fact simply reflects the media agenda, which is mostly a sensation-market entirely an entertainment thing.
Media loves performance. And DQs perform. It's not that complex. Boring people make for boring TV, and boring TV makes no money.
just different words for the same idea. I like the way you put it.
Quote from: JayUnit on March 16, 2011, 01:08:19 AM
It's the fact that words evolve for better or worse despite their origin.
Indeed, words evolve, but it is people with bias and agendas behind them that make words evolve in a given direction.
Quote from: Marvel on March 16, 2011, 01:01:50 AM
The word is offensive and should not be used by anyone.
Trying to reclaim the word for ourselves can only work for so long, before it backfires back to us.
Now, maybe. But it comes to how strong you are. And we are becoming more and more visible: more and more t-people transition and more and more t-people do it earlier every time. Thus, it comes to who strong a community is and how are its media. The gays in the 50s and 60s would have never expect to hear the word "queer" in its current usage and connotation.
i can't be bothered arguing about the cultural and linguistic reasons such labels exist, because I'd just be repeating myself. All i will say is that if it wasn't ->-bleeped-<- that was used as a negative label for transexual women, it would be something else, because that's how the world works.
Doing vocabulary wars allways reminds me of the old scholastic joke: Why are academic fights so mean? Because they are about nothing.
Quote from: Helena on March 16, 2011, 12:18:11 PM
i can't be bothered arguing about the cultural and linguistic reasons such labels exist,...
Well, yeah, this topic is not my only obsession (actually I care more about other things). But such words exist, a Tekla said above, because it came from us, it originated within our own community. Perhaps, we've lost it forever though.
Quote from: Helena on March 16, 2011, 12:18:11 PMAll i will say is that if it wasn't ->-bleeped-<- that was used as a negative label for transexual women, it would be something else,
Well, I may be repeating myself: I have heard it used in positive ways by trans and cis people. Though I know that's not always the case.
That's why I posted... and because politically correct language usually sucks, and so cis people may not always play along with our words. Personally, I've been treated with respect so far (by friends), but when it comes to the people who just don't care (the majority), I am not sure if I prefer to be called a ->-bleeped-<- in the face, and be able to stand to it with dignity, having the chance of not making it feel like an insult to the ones calling it to me, or else only in my back, as derogatory as it goes when people feel they must let go of all political correctness. What I am sure of is this: when I began going out in role and I had to open my mouth before even the first voice training, (only) a couple of times some guy stared at me and I could see the according expression of disgust and non-approval in his face. Should he have said something like "what a nasty ->-bleeped-<- you are, (sir!)", I might have come about that with a smile and some occurrence like "yep, and very naughty, by the way".
Quote from: Helena on March 16, 2011, 12:18:11 PM
because that's how the world works.
Maybe. But twenty years ago I would have been fired very quickly. Today, this can't happen so easily.
Quote from: Helena
Doing vocabulary wars allways reminds me of the old scholastic joke: Why are academic fights so mean? Because they are about nothing.
:D right, that's funny (and true, but only worse: they fight about power and better tickets for their ego trips most of the time).
The only power in academia is being thought of as being 'right',
Quote from: Alice in genderland on March 16, 2011, 12:56:56 PM
Well, I may be repeating myself: I have heard it used in positive ways by trans and cis people. Though I know that's not always the case.
Without going to indepth, linguistically the word is just part of the frame work of labels that humans use to divide the world up into understandable chunks, however it is a culturally loaded term, essentially part of the language of control used to put the parts of the population that sit in the catergory of them in it's place, by the bits of the population that sit in the catergory of us. This is not going to change anytime soon because of the cultural framework that the dominant discourse has created. Even labels such as queer, dyke and gay, which have been reclaimed in a positive manner by the groups that were originally othered by them, are still labels that are culturally loaded and contain the power to diminish and put some one in their place in terms the cultural framework we exist in. Positive reclaimation can work in terms of the group reclaiming the term, but it doesn't actually change the dominant discourse and doesn't remove the power of the label to diminish and wound when used by people outside that specific group.
So by all means use the term ->-bleeped-<- in an empowering way, but do so being aware that it is a culturally loaded term and many people view it as such.
I dislike the term, "->-bleeped-<-," and I always have. I think of myself as a woman, nothing more, nothing less. Transition is a journey, once we complete our transitions, we're average men or women with a transexual history, but we're no longer transexual. "->-bleeped-<-" strikes me as a term of disrespect.
Quote from: Helena on March 16, 2011, 01:39:02 PM
Positive reclaimation can work in terms of the group reclaiming the term, but it doesn't actually change the dominant discourse and doesn't remove the power of the label to diminish and wound when used by people outside that specific group.
This I find, at least, partially true (and may be totally so). I am in no way certain that we can effectively reclaim the word, I am completely uncertain that the word won't disappear if we don't use it. As I said before, I doubt we can impose our politically correct language on the populace at large.
Quote from: Helena on March 16, 2011, 01:39:02 PM
So by all means use the term ->-bleeped-<- in an empowering way, but do so being aware that it is a culturally loaded term and many people view it as such.
I am not currently using it actually, nor have I used it in the past. I am just wondering about its usage. BTW, I care about more about other things happening right now in my life (for example voice training). I hope I won't be remembered as the gal who was obsessed/insisting on how wonderful the word ->-bleeped-<- is ;D ... although that wouldn't kill me, and all it doesn't kill you just make you a bitch. >:-)
Well, on the "reclaiming" front, it doesn't seem to me like a vocal minority "reclaiming" the word "queer" has stopped its continued copious use as a verbal weapon inflicting suffering in the world at large, so I feel the success of this exercise is vastly overrated, and don't rate it's chances with "->-bleeped-<-" either.
That might sound a bit over the top. But seriously, just saying "I personally choose to experience this word as a celebration rather than an intentional insult" doesn't stop the barrage of intentional insult, and that needs acknowledging, or people's genuine suffering gets trivialised by those who say "well it doesn't bother me, I don't know why you're getting so upset."
Obviously, amongst a group who have a collective appreciation of its irony, it's a different experience - but that still makes it easier to use it in the wrong context and hurt others, even ignoring the possible danger of subtle self-undermining disguised as irony.
I'm not fond of the word "->-bleeped-<-," even when ->-bleeped-<-s use it.
The word serves us well.
Whenever someone not one of us says it, we know how they feel about us instantly.
When ussed by one of us it serves as a group identifier. Granted many of us do not like the word ussed amongst ourselves but the word is there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation)
A reclaimed or reappropriated word, is a word that was at one time a pejorative but has been brought back into acceptable usage—usually starting within the communities that experienced oppression under that word, but sometimes also among the general populace as well. (The term 'reclaimed word' more often implies usage by a member of the group referred to.)
I've called myself a ->-bleeped-<- a few times. It sounds party-fun. Like Queer or Queen.
OH yeah..and I actually don't like "transgender."
It's so broad it's almost meaningless and gives too much credence to the gender binary. Who ISN'T transgender in some way? No ooomph to that word. When I say it I feel like I'm expressing something so weak I'll turn to dust.
I'm not real fond of the term. I don't like the way it's often used when the intention is to be funny.
However, if you want to communicate effectively, you need to use the common parlance. ->-bleeped-<- is a slang term that refers collectively to the whole spectrum of trans-people. It can be used in a derogatory manner, particularly in humor, or attempts at humor.
It particularly fits when one is describing the hostility we encounter, as a way of characterizing the thinking of the hostile person, as in: The bar owner didn't have nothing against ->-bleeped-<-s, as long as they didn't try to sing kareoke or use the wrong bathroom.
Just food for thought, from the GLAAD website:
"->-bleeped-<-," "->-bleeped-<-got," "dyke," "homo," "sodomite," "she-male," "he-she," "it," "shim," "->-bleeped-<-" and similar epithets
The criteria for using these derogatory terms should be the same as those applied to vulgar epithets used to target other groups: they should not be used except in a direct quote that reveals the bias of the person quoted. So that such words are not given credibility in the media, it is preferred that reporters say, "The person used a derogatory word for a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender person."
I invite any of you who think it's okay to "reclaim" this horribly offensive term to look into the tearful eyes of a young, Transgender person who has been called names all her/his life and say, "You're a tr***y." If that's okay with you, to use language that you know might hurt someone, then you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.
Of all the words that start with 'Trans' the most abhorrent, detested one of them all for me, is of course the word '->-bleeped-<-' and to me it is used for vilification and nothing else. I can understand that 'Transgendered Community' want that particular word for themselves for whatever reason. However the word '->-bleeped-<-' like all the other words that have been taken back will basically still have its original meaning and usage and that is to put down another human being. Whether it is used in the community for a laugh or not.
I have never been or will I ever be 'Trans' this or 'Trans' that. The reason being is, I took the necessary steps so that I could function in society as a normal female, nothing less and nothing more. As Valeriedances mentioned. I will never tolerate those words in my presence whether said in an insulting or humorous way.
Then again I have never been involved in the 'community' per say, so I will never come across people like the gender therapist mentioned in Jessica's thread who said 'we are all Tran...', Well sorry no, I'm F...ing not and (to me, this is an insult and Jessica this also sounds like to me, an insult directed at you as well).
The therapist is right in one sense, I'm not part of the 'Trans folk community and I never will. I have a medical condition which I corrected as much as possible. I will share whatever knowledge that I have in regards to this and this will be the extent of my involvement in the community.
If you want to use those words amongst yourselves, that's fine. However do not count on me supporting your usage of those words. Why you would want to do so that's your prerogative and I will stand up for your right to say them if you wish. Not that I would understand why you would want use those words after all the pain and suffering you may have gone through.
Kindest regards to one all
Sarah B
Quote from: JessicaR on March 17, 2011, 12:19:17 AM
Just food for thought, from the GLAAD website:
"->-bleeped-<-," "->-bleeped-<-got," "dyke," "homo," "sodomite," "she-male," "he-she," "it," "shim," "->-bleeped-<-" and similar epithets
The criteria for using these derogatory terms should be the same as those applied to vulgar epithets used to target other groups: they should not be used except in a direct quote that reveals the bias of the person quoted. So that such words are not given credibility in the media, it is preferred that reporters say, "The person used a derogatory word for a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender person."
I invite any of you who think it's okay to "reclaim" this horribly offensive term to look into the tearful eyes of a young, Transgender person who has been called names all her/his life and say, "You're a tr***y." If that's okay with you, to use language that you know might hurt someone, then you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.
Definitely This
Kind regards
Sarah B
Aye, and as I've said elsewhere, it's one thing to choose to call yourself something, and quite another to insist others do so too - so "we're all ->-bleeped-<-s" would make me blister as much as it did when some überpolitical young guy once insisted I call myself queer. Anyone who's ever tried walking under someone else's umbrella knows how easy it is to get poked in the eye.
I realise I'm not as young as some.
I thought ->-bleeped-<-s were small radios people in the 80's carried around listening to music.
I'm not too sure which orifice of mine has music coming out of it.
But it would be a brave person to listen. >:-) >:-) >:-)
I'm female, I'm a woman. If need be for discussion in areas like this or to explain stuff to people who have no concept of who I am I'll use transgendered.
Why create words that don't explain anything?
I'm a radio. No I'm not I'm a ->-bleeped-<-, when I grow up I'll be a radio.
Time to get the rocking Chair out. Where is my knitting. Oh Perry Como is on the radio
>:-) >:-) >:-) >:-)
Cindy
Cultural use of labels is all about context, and it is perfectly possible for derrogetory and abusive lables to be reclaimed in a positive manner by individuals or small groupings of individuals. Treating such labels as absolute verboten actively increases their cultural power over the entire group the dominant discourse applies the label to.
The thing with such positive reclamation is that the labels have to be used in the full knowledge that they are culturally loaded, otherwise it just reinforces the power the label (and dominant discourse) has over the group being labeled.
Right, I think I've used the term dominant discourse enough and it's barely even 10 in the morning so I'll stop now.
Quote from: Helena on March 17, 2011, 04:48:48 AM
Cultural use of labels is all about context, and it is perfectly possible for derrogetory and abusive lables to be reclaimed in a positive manner by individuals or small groupings of individuals. Treating such labels as absolute verboten actively increases their cultural power over the entire group the dominant discourse applies the label to.
The thing with such positive reclamation is that the labels have to be used in the full knowledge that they are culturally loaded, otherwise it just reinforces the power the label (and dominant discourse) has over the group being labeled.
Right, I think I've used the term dominant discourse enough and it's barely even 10 in the morning so I'll stop now.
You need caffeine doll, I need sleep
:-*
Cindy
Quote from: CindyJames on March 17, 2011, 05:14:26 AM
You need caffeine doll, I need sleep
:-*
Cindy
I could send you a kitty-o-gram if you want Cindy, having the little furball snuggle up to me at night always helps me drift off.
Quote from: Helena on March 17, 2011, 04:48:48 AM
Treating such labels as absolute verboten actively increases their cultural power over the entire group the dominant discourse applies the label to.
Right. I'm no more interested in having that word have power of me than patriarchal gender stereotypes that I'm not interested in. Some transsexuals are the exact opposite. They revel in the gender stereotypes, the submission, the oppression. If you want to be strong, take away the power to offend.
Quote from: japple on March 17, 2011, 05:53:43 AMIf you want to be strong, take away the power to offend.
Right - and that looks great on paper, but how do you pull it off when there's 6 of them and one of you, for example?
I'm all for not responding to or buying into violence (physical or the other kinds) or victimhood, but that doesn't stop others perpetrating it. Sometimes you can walk away, but sometimes you can't even run away fast enough (speaking as someone who was beaten up by 6 teenagers for the crime of "having the wrong kind of scooter in a built-up area").
And I've tried the whole "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me" exercise, and found that in practice, bones may not get broken but you often find bruises where you least expect them later on, because that's why people hit you with them in the first place.
For me, the trick is in discerning when someone's intention is to hurt and when it isn't. If they're not trying to hurt me, I won't take offence. If they are, I'll speak up these days, and that includes the offence of trying to force a term on me that brings up old pain just because they've "reclaimed" it themselves. I'm happy to take responsibility for recovering from that old pain, but I'm not willing to pretend it's not there for me and many others.
Isn't the dominant discourse the one between the main course and the dessert course? :)
PS I think I overreacted here - I don't want to get too polemical about this, I just had a knee-jerk reaction to being told to "be strong" when I've been in situations where it's not an option because you're outnumbered.
Quote from: yoxi on March 17, 2011, 07:20:19 AM
PS I think I overreacted here - I don't want to get too polemical about this, I just had a knee-jerk reaction to being told to "be strong" when I've been in situations where it's not an option because you're outnumbered.
This is where the whole point of context comes in to play. In the context of having a term forcibally applied to you by a group, that is completely unacceptable. It doesn't make it right to apply a label to someone just because you are happy to apply it to yourself. In effect that strengthens the dominat discourse all under the guise of reclaiming a word.
However, it is possible to use such culturally loaded terms in an empowering way, generally the context is in terms of an individual applying the label to themselves in a way that respects how culturally loaded the label is. It's a fine balancing act and the general rule of thumb is if you're worried that you might offend someone then you shouldn't use the term.
Strangely enough i'm not advocating that everyone should use the term, but rather that it is possible within a limited scope to reclaim the world and that declaring it absolutely verboten you actually increase it's cultural power to diminish and other and it actually reinforces the dominat discourse.
Can you tell i did a media and cultural studies based degree?
Quote from: JessicaR on March 17, 2011, 12:19:17 AM
Just food for thought, from the GLAAD website:
"->-bleeped-<-," "->-bleeped-<-got," "dyke," "homo," "sodomite," "she-male," "he-she," "it," "shim," "->-bleeped-<-" and similar epithets
->-bleeped-<- is not the same as she-mail or he-she, although the porn industry also uses it occasionally. Of the above list, it is the only word that seems to have originated within trans communities. Also, unlike ->-bleeped-<- and co., there is no mixture of sex/gender in the word ->-bleeped-<-.
But anyway, GLAAD's opinions are GLAAD's , which means what we already know: there is more than one position in the LBGT community about the whole question. For example, I am VERY GLAD to be able to see images like this:
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_B6gyINLrSBg%2FRn6Gx_OO5YI%2FAAAAAAAAA-o%2FLr6GKi8lV3c%2Fs1600%2FDykeMarch700.jpg&hash=616f2b8bf891ca61f2d49c22773027dbd57b4904)
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tasses.net%2Fpride%2Ffribourg%2FDykesOnBikes.jpg&hash=6a7a54d1299dff55733bccb5164f399cba64f064)
Still, this does not mean I'm going this year to the parade with a banner with the word "->-bleeped-<-" on it. Personally, I think this discussion is being fruitful at showing the different positions and arguments on the topic of language within the community at large. Like always, while positions are respectable, arguments always remain open to criticism.
Quote from: yoxi on March 17, 2011, 07:20:19 AM
Right - and that looks great on paper, but how do you pull it off when there's 6 of them and one of you, for example?
In such a situation, I would try to get out of there as quickly as I could, and live to "fight" another day, as they say... But nobody says that reclaiming or reappropriating a word like ->-bleeped-<- is a matter of standing up to six potential aggressors and saying "yeah, ->-bleeped-<-, cool, what else?" If such re-appropriation were to happen, I guess it would be more like the cases of queer and dyke.
I was using that example as a pointer to a more general sense of saying "Look, everybody, I've reclaimed this word!" whilst surrounded by a world chock-full of people unwilling to use it except in a negative way - outnumbered in that sense.
I'm not against people using it how they like, to describe themselves. I just don't want me or anyone else lassoed into it against our wills (and I've experienced that too many times with "queer" not to be cynical about protests that this wouldn't happen with any other word).
Quote from: japple on March 17, 2011, 05:53:43 AM
Right. I'm no more interested in having that word have power of me than patriarchal gender stereotypes that I'm not interested in.
Same here, I am not a woman becoming a woman (what a diversion on labels!) to just conform to such stereotypes... though, I think those being happy with patriarchal stereotypes have all the right and freedom to conform to them. Just like cis women. Or I'd better simply say: just like the women they are. 'Cause if most cis women would hold the opposite opinion and do something about it, things perhaps might look different...
Quote from: japple on March 17, 2011, 05:53:43 AMSome transsexuals are the exact opposite. They revel in the gender stereotypes, the submission, the oppression.
More and more often I see that, just like among cis people, there are all possible positions and varieties of trans people. Some transwomen conform to such stereotypes just because many cis women do. So I guess this is not about trans, but about feminism at large.
I find these discussions helpful not because I lack hobbies but because they help me review my opinions, and because I wonder how my own journey will be: would I ever conform to patriarchal stereotypes? Would I become one of those who (on their own right, it's their life) do not want to hear any word beginning with "trans-" after having GRS? Today, I don't think so, but I know some things change (...though maybe others don't)
Quote from: yoxi on March 17, 2011, 02:44:05 PM
I was using that example as a pointer to a more general sense of saying "Look, everybody, I've reclaimed this word!" whilst surrounded by a world chock-full of people unwilling to use it except in a negative way - outnumbered in that sense.
If people are going to be violent, it doesn't matter what words they use.
You reclaim the words for a stronger sense of self. Dyke and Bitch as example.
i think it's derogatory and i don't like it. depending on the intentions of the person using it, though, it doesn't always necessarily offend me.. but i try to discourage people from referring to me with that word.
Transpeople can sometimes use it in a way that's comical, sarcastic, or lighthearted enough for me not to care. But I would not take kindly to be called that word.
It's connected to ignorant stereotypes and is often used in a derogotory context. It's like many words.. 'Meant to be lighthearted or in reality just a corrupted version of a normal word, but eventually twisted into an offensive way.
Just want to say: I wasn't having a great time the last day or two, I don't know why this thread pushed my buttons so much, but I'm sorry if I came on too strong on my "side" of the argument.
No need to apologise hun, we all have times like that, and to be honest, discussing transgender language is an absolute minefield due to the strength of feeling involved.
I wonder if it iss less offensive in the English spoken outside of North America? A popular MTF transgender website in Australia (with 700 members) is called "->-bleeped-<- Radio".
Many people in New Zealand still have no idea that "negro" is an offensive word, because no-one has ever told them. They have a pretty good idea about the other n-word though.
On the other hand an Australian described it to me as a "user's word", meaning the sort of word that a "->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<-" would use.
I also had it yelled at me out of a car a few months back in a way the yahoos in the car presumably expected to insult me..... I have to say it did no such thing and instead took me back nostalgically to my teenage days and early twenties when people would yell "->-bleeped-<-" out their car windows at me. Since I had committed the inexcusable sin of getting off my butt and actually walking somewhere instead of driving, I guess I deserved full extent of their ridicule and scorn.
I must say that it looks like one's experience with the word has a deepest effect on one's opinion of it, and if I had had any of the experiences some of you have had, I probably feel much worse about it than I do.
To me, ->-bleeped-<-, she-male and lady boy are synonyms, and that's not what I am. What I am is female. But hey what people choose for themselves is none of my business, and if it doesn't bother them, more power to them, but personally a "->-bleeped-<-" isn't what I am.
Quote from: michelle.ch on March 18, 2011, 11:55:21 PMA popular MTF transgender website in Australia (with 700 members) is called "->-bleeped-<- Radio".
Those Aussies love a good cheeky pun, don't they? That's a play on "transistor radio" :). I love that the gents' urinals depongers are called "trough lollies" over there, which is presumably a play on "cough lollies" (which we in England would call cough sweets...)
When I was living in the dodgy part of Cambridge (England) a few years ago, I got stuff thrown out of SUV windows at me and had "->-bleeped-<-got!" shouted at me (for wearing a white fleece jacket, oh the horror). The really surreal part of that was that these guys had England flags flying from their vehicles, and had no idea how Americanised they were with their vocabulary and big trucks - and would have been deeply insulted if I'd had the balls to yell "Go back to America!" ;D
big trucks
You might find this funny, but in the US SUVs are considered a 'mommy car' and most are owned and driven by women. Real 'Marican men drive huge pickup trucks with rifle racks in the rear window, guns in the racks and a bumper stickers that read "Gun Control Means Using Both Hands". And they all have Confederate flags on them to boot.
Apologies for the misuse of terminology - when I said "SUV" I meant fkn' big pickup truck with enormous wheels and the specifically chosen ability to traverse sleeping policemen* at 60 mph, whilst hurling plastic water bottles and verbal abuse at the obvious homosexual in that last bungalow. Over here, at least those few years ago, we didn't know the niceties, and SUV was just a generic term for "stupidly big gas-guzzling American kind of vehicle" ;D
*aka speed bumps, intended to encourage citizens to stick to the 30 mph limit on said road. such hopes are as dreams.