Quote from: Jera on July 28, 2014, 12:18:19 AM
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,170017.msg1481599.html#msg1481599 - That article got me thinking about this thread.

Too many are interested in church to make themselves feel special, IMHO. I see more interest in people discovering, somehow, that God really cares about them as individuals, and has "chosen" them over the rest of humanity, rather than an actual interest in taking what they can from religious teachings to live a better life. Unfortunately, it is far easier to elevate yourself, to feel superior, by denigrating others than actual self-improvement. And it is much, much easier to disparage what you do not understand. Once that is done, it is easy to point at those disparaged and say "They are so much worse than me, so I must be good by comparison."

It is far more difficult to disparage what you know, and what is dear to you. So the way forward is, I think, what I see in this article. Though I think this acceptance applies more to LGB than to T, several of the members have been exposed to gay members of their family or community, and find they can still love them as people. LGBs have paved the way, but there is a long way to go.

It's not really a critical mass of our own community we need, I think, but a critical mass of those close to us who do love and accept us. It's from them the seeds of change will spread.

I guess it's a much higher wall to climb for transsexual understanding. To outsiders we appear as some sort of self-afflicted science experiment like Frankenstein freaks of nature or something. Like walking exhibitions hence the constant media lazy "used to be a man" reporting and sensationalism. Whereas since gays and lesbians keep their body's complete, they haven't seen the same backlash or any reason to be subject to as much scrutiny other than being a simple lifestyle choice. To the average human, being understood as "born that way" in mind is a much smaller leap to take than being "born that way" and wants to create and/or move some very human intimate things around.

This is exactly what I feel like I have to deal with when addressing 'normal' family members.

QuoteThere are fewer of us, so it will still take some time. But as the trans community begins to becomes more visible in the coming years, we need to make a deliberate effort on our part to be people to be loved, and not hated. Show that no matter what they may throw at us, we still love our families, friends, and communities just as much as they do. The acceptance of society will follow after the love of our families, who then share their acceptance with the rest of their churches, social networks, and communities.

I had a curious thought. Even with visibility and acceptance there's still going to be a somewhat 'morbid' interest about what we physically are. That's a given. Because sex and sexuality is what makes the whole world go round. It's going to take at least another generation before we aren't news anymore.

But you know what? By then biotechnology and body manipulation will be all the rage and normal anyway... so go figure?

Well. We can hope.

Quote from: Tysilio on July 27, 2014, 05:12:26 PM
Oriah, there are many adjectives ending in -ed which aren't derived from verbs:

-- varigated foliage
-- abscessed tooth
-- figured maple
-- spotted owl
-- bubbleheaded blonde (sorry, couldn't resist... :blush:)

So "transgendered" is just fine.

No. Actually it is very much not ok.

Remember when African Americans were called "colored people?" The phrasing implies that something made them that way not that they were born that way. The same principle applies here. Do you know anyone who has transgendered?

I don't want to get in a grammar debate here. Strictly speaking, technically yes you can add an -ed to a noun.

I just personally don't want to go down the road where we have the same debate they have about LG people being born that way or not. The HUGE advantage that the transgender community has right now is that we are following behind women's sufferage, the civil rights movement and the LGB community's fight for their civil rights. They all have shown us what and what not to do. The details matter.

So really, Oriah is right in that we need to start within the community. We need to remember how we have definitely been thrown under the bus many times and are definitely the "token" in LGBT and not do that to each other.

P.S. For reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joanne-herman/transgender-or-transgende_b_492922.html
and the GLAAD Media Reference Guide: http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender

Quote from: Evelyn K on July 28, 2014, 01:56:41 AM
I guess it's a much higher wall to climb for transsexual understanding. To outsiders we appear as some sort of self-afflicted science experiment like Frankenstein freaks of nature or something. Like walking exhibitions hence the constant media lazy "used to be a man" reporting and sensationalism. Whereas since gays and lesbians keep their body's complete, they haven't seen the same backlash or any reason to be subject to as much scrutiny other than being a simple lifestyle choice. To the average human, being understood as "born that way" in mind is a much smaller leap to take than being "born that way" and wants to create and/or move some very human intimate things around.

This is exactly what I feel like I have to deal with when addressing 'normal' family members.

That's why I feel like LGB has gained so much more ground, even though it's been LGBT fighting together. Ours is an intensely personal struggle, so that's why it might need a more personal touch, and not activism alone, to get the "critical mass" of allies we need. The metaphoric shouting from the rooftops and streets, parades, events and the like can indeed be seen as exhibitionism. From that alone, it's actually kind of easy to understand why it is so difficult for others to grasp the internal struggle that defines us.

I don't think I'm alone with complex family issues. Many of our families prefer to hide us as much as we often hide ourselves, and that's kind of the opposite of what we need. They may be able to explain our struggle to other cis people, perhaps better than we ever can.

Quote from: Remember when African Americans were called "colored people?" The phrasing implies that something made them that way not that they were born that way. The same principle applies here.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. The term "colored people" was first used around the turn of the last century by African Americans who wanted an alternative to the offensive words then used to describe them. The reason it became offensive in itself is the same one that eventually makes all euphemisms as offensive as the words they replace: the attitude of the majority population toward the referent of the word. Compare "retarded" and "handicapped," both of which were invented to replace terms like "moron" and "cripple;" they too became offensive in their own right, and "disabled" is going the same way, giving rise to abominations like "differently abled" and "developmentally challenged."

In any case, "people of color" has a different meaning from "colored." The latter refers to African Americans, and the former refers to any and all groups who aren't "white."

QuoteDo you know anyone who has transgendered?

Of course not; I never said "transgender" was a verb.

In practical terms, I really don't care whether "transgender" or "transgendered" becomes accepted usage; language evolves according to the way it's used. In grammatical terms, "transgendered" is correct. The word is derived from "gendered," which is an adjective meaning "having a gender." For example, one would say "In French and Italian, nouns are gendered;" it would be absurd to say "... nouns are gender."

But ultimately, this will be decided by the invisible tongue of the marketplace.

Quote from: Tysilio on July 28, 2014, 09:28:02 AM
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. The term "colored people" was first used around the turn of the last century by African Americans who wanted an alternative to the offensive words then used to describe them.

I'm sorry but this is nonsense. The term "colored" was first used in the 14th century. In North America, it first appeared in the 19th century, a full century before your claim, in the New York Times as well as the US War Department establishing the Bureau of Colored Troops. At the turn of the last century, the US Census used "negroes."

Again, I'll suggest you study your history so you're not doomed to repeat it.

QuoteIn any case, "people of color" has a different meaning from "colored." The latter refers to African Americans, and the former refers to any and all groups who aren't "white."

You are also incorrect here in that "colored" also included any non-white race.

QuoteIn practical terms, I really don't care whether "transgender" or "transgendered" becomes accepted usage; language evolves according to the way it's used. [sic]

But ultimately, this will be decided by the invisible tongue of the marketplace.

And this is the kind of apathy we're facing and what this thread is talking about. We need more people who care. We need more people who can make more people care. Because we're only an estimated 0.3% of the entire population, we can't let the majority decide for us. If we do, we're doomed.

Quote from: JessicaNAgain, I'll suggest you study your history so you're not doomed to repeat it.

The Merriam-Webster entry (I presume you're referencing the Wikipedia article that cites it) dating the first use of "colored" to the 14 c. has noting to do with its use in connection with race. But if it will make you feel better, I'll retract "first." I was referring to the history of the term in its recent usage in this country, as applied specifically to African Americans. Yes, it has different meanings elsewhere (such as in South Africa, where it's used specifically to refer to people of mixed race, as distinct from "blacks"), but historically, in the US, the term has referred to people of African descent. "People of color," used in that sense, is actually older, dating back at least to the turn of the 19th century.

Quote from: JessicaN

Quote from: Tysilio...the way it's used. [sic]

No, sorry, "it's" is correct. It's the contraction of "it is." Unless you had something else in mind?

QuoteBecause we're only an estimated 0.3% of the entire population, we can't let the majority decide for us. If we do, we're doomed.

Really? By a past participle? It seems to me that we face more significant issues, but I understand the attraction of focusing on tiny things that we might be able to control, as opposed to the tough stuff.

^^ It's all semantics. Back on (my topic!) please.