You know what word got me into most fights. Freak. As in "Hey guys look at this freak." or, "What do you want freak" "What are you looking at freak!" I think freak is just wrong on so many levels that a word like ->-bleeped-<- is nothing once you develop a tough skin. If I ever see someone picking on a handicap person, especially if they are calling them freak. I will just freak out on them and show them what a real freak is! In a way we are handicap, we have genetic disorders, and we are NOT freaks.

Love,
Jade

Quote from: Kamiki on November 15, 2014, 04:38:20 PM
I have never been called such myself.

But the word, to me, carries far too much baggage associated with fetishism, drag queens and she-male pornography for me to be comfortable with; as such it is a less than appealing word in every way, and is simply not cricket with me.

Kami.

I'm not thrilled with this post either. We all have a fetish, unless you don't like sex at all. Not cool to judge others. Drag queens are part of this community and this site, so boo on ya for that. If a ->-bleeped-<- walks into this site, she'll get the same big hug everyone gets. I'll say it again, the hread asks if it bothers YOU. Don't drag innocent people trying to live their lives their way into it, please.

Hugs, Devlyn

Quote from: Jill F on November 13, 2014, 05:09:52 PM
It isn't fun, but sometimes it precedes getting suckerpunched (or worse).  Thankfully that part hasn't happened to me yet.

Yeah, this.

It bothers me, greatly, since the only notable time it has happened to me was preceding violence on a biblical scale. I will always, always have that association with it now. Whether it's applied to me, or anyone else.

Sometimes words can be uttered with such hate-filled venom... with such ugly, evil intent, that their meaning is clear. And a precursor.

It not only bothers me, it scares me.

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on November 15, 2014, 05:22:06 PMIf a ->-bleeped-<- walks into this site

There was an uproar recently over a news article that referred to a slain trans women as a ->-bleeped-<-; and here you are using the same terminology.

If we can't get our ->-bleeped-<- straight as to what terms are appropriate or inappropriate, how can we expect others to?

I haven't been called a ->-bleeped-<- directly but when I hear it on TV or something it just kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I doubt I would get offended if it wasn't said to be offensive, but personally I'm not a fan of the word. I think ->-bleeped-<- is more commonly associated with ->-bleeped-<- or misunderstood notions than when someone uses the word Trans. But that could just be me.

Never been called a ->-bleeped-<- or a ->-bleeped-<- (to my face at least...) I'd most likely respond with violence of some sort I think.  If my past is anyone's business, I'm a transsexual woman. If I'm ever referred to as "transgender" by family or drs for example, I correct them and explain what that word means and why the difference is so important.

Quote from: kaye on November 15, 2014, 09:38:52 PM
There was an uproar recently over a news article that referred to a slain trans women as a ->-bleeped-<-; and here you are using the same terminology.

If we can't get our ->-bleeped-<- straight as to what terms are appropriate or inappropriate, how can we expect others to?

I have my stuff straight, thank you very much. You need to brush up on the site mission and rules. We provide support to ALL transgender people, and transgender is defined by the site owner as:

Community Definitions:

Transgender: an inclusive umbrella term which covers anyone who transcends their birth gender for any reason. This includes but is not limited to Androgynes, Crossdressers, Drag kings, Drag queens, Intersexuals, Transsexuals, and ->-bleeped-<-s.

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,54369.0.html

So yes, someone who identifies as a ->-bleeped-<- is welcome here. I'll be the first one in their introduction thread, welcoming them.

Actually I was describing why it bothers me. Not bagging on our fellow sisters.

Please try to avoid such leaps to heroism when nothing ill was meant. Perhaps ask for clarification. Assuming the worst of people is one of the less pleasing things I have noted about this site. I have seen numerous threads that started off assuming the worst of someone and the person basically having to show through consistent re-explaining of themselves that such was not the case.

To be quite frank, I am actually a bit miffed that my explaining why it bothers me put you off. My reasons are my own and reading too much into them, and then projecting insecurities or issues on to me was simply not cricket. Also, for the record, I  am not sure why the term "simply not cricket" came off as an indicator I would consider for one second violence (based on the responses of "I used to get into fights", unless they were not meant as a direct reply) it is an older British term used by those who are part of the chappist movement to refer to something that is not acceptable.

Why would my personal reasons (the baggage associated with the word; i.e. that people associate it with people who are into drag and or choose to carry the term ->-bleeped-<- as a moniker)  bother you? I have nothing against either ->-bleeped-<-s or drag queens rather I have something against people assuming I am either of them because I am, simply, not.

I am neither booing nor disparaging drag queens or she males, I am saying that the general association of that word to those states of being is one of the reasons I personally dislike it as I do not associate myself with either of those states of existence and or being. I consider myself a woman  who was born with a deformity as such I would rather not carry any verbal baggage (again this is not referring to the people, but rather the societal and linguistic baggage associated with the word and its usage in modern days) with me by using or accepting the use of the word ->-bleeped-<- to describe me.

I think people woefully misread me there. When I spoke of fetishism I mean the fetishism seen in cis men (and some women) when watching, or enjoying pornography of a certain milieu, the very fetishism that degrades us and objectifies us as "things". When I spoke of drag queens, it was not disparaging it was simply that I do not consider myself nor have I ever considered myself into "drag" and as such I would not want the use of a word to put me into that category of lifestyle choice. Which to me is part of the baggage associated with the word ->-bleeped-<-.


Sorry if the way I speak made that any less that clear.



Kami.

Quote from: Jade_404 on November 15, 2014, 05:09:30 PM
Yeah Sorry, I guess I don't read into the baggage or definition of a word when its being spewed by an idiot. Why would I take the time. If my friend were calling me that or referring me to his friends as that, I would ask them not to. It is not a pretty label. When its strangers, I don't let this word or any another word sting. When I was younger tho... I could snap on ya, if you said the wrong thing to me or one of my friends. Been in fights been in jail, sent people to hospital. Been in court... Got the book thrown at me. Learned to shut up and just smile. Now I am cautious, Be ready for a fight but never escalate one. So far since I changed my attitude I have been in only 1 fight since, and that was because a freeloader would not get out of my house, so it was different. He started that fight by attacking me.

So yes I agree its not nice to say or be called, but is it "Fighting Words?  No I think not. And I don't want friends referring to me as their ->-bleeped-<- friend either. My friends are smart enough to know that without being told. I don't friend idiots.

Love,
Jade

Simply not cricket does not mean fighting words.

My stars, what ever would give you such an impression.

Simply not cricket, is used much in the same way that the less appealing (and inappropriate) "not kosher at all" is used. It is used to describe something as less than acceptable. It is not an indication of violence. In fact, the chap that would resort to violence is no longer a chap, but rather a tiresome prat or maybe even a chav.

As for reading into the baggage of words spouted by strangers. We all do it to one degree or another. Certain words carry with them more or less implied baggage.

I am going to bring one up and yet am not going to address it direct lest someone take me the wrong way again.

The South Park Episode "Gays against ->-bleeped-<-s", addressed this point in a humorous and lighthearted way. In this episode we see the word "->-bleeped-<-" being thrown around a great deal. And the baggage associated with anti gay sentiments of course boils to the top. Over the course of the episode it is made increasingly clear that another use of the word as it is now; is when it is used to refer to someone with no manners and a loud or obnoxious nature. The guy who cuts you off on the highway, bikers who can't stop revving their motorcycles, and other minor irritants. The folk of South Park rally behind the new use of the word. Led by some colourful South Park characters they manage to wrestle the definition of the word, casting off old baggage that bothered them and changing its definition in the South Park version of Websters Dictionary.

Now, why bring up an irreverent South Park episode. That word. ->-bleeped-<-. It is probably one of the easiest to use examples of a word with baggage. Whether spouted by the ignorant, uneducated, or other you are likely to note it, its use, and it will likely carry some extra crap with it you are not that fond of.

I feel similarly, for different reasons, about ->-bleeped-<-.

Kami.

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on November 15, 2014, 05:22:06 PM
I'm not thrilled with this post either. We all have a fetish, unless you don't like sex at all. Not cool to judge others. Drag queens are part of this community and this site, so boo on ya for that. If a ->-bleeped-<- walks into this site, she'll get the same big hug everyone gets. I'll say it again, the hread asks if it bothers YOU. Don't drag innocent people trying to live their lives their way into it, please.

Hugs, Devlyn

You totally misread me in every way. I have posted clarification.

Kami.

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on November 15, 2014, 05:22:06 PM
I'm not thrilled with this post either. We all have a fetish, unless you don't like sex at all. Not cool to judge others. Drag queens are part of this community and this site, so boo on ya for that. If a ->-bleeped-<- walks into this site, she'll get the same big hug everyone gets. I'll say it again, the hread asks if it bothers YOU. Don't drag innocent people trying to live their lives their way into it, please.

Hugs, Devlyn

Not wanting to be identified with a term that is associated fetishism, drag queens, and pornography is in no way a judgement of those who are.  I am not transitioning because I get my jollies off from it, nor is it a performance to me.  It is my identity, and just because I want to make a distinction between my identity and a drag queen's doesn't mean I think any less of drag queens.

Quote from: skin on November 16, 2014, 12:11:33 PM
Not wanting to be identified with a term that is associated fetishism, drag queens, and pornography is in no way a judgement of those who are.  I am not transitioning because I get my jollies off from it, nor is it a performance to me.  It is my identity, and just because I want to make a distinction between my identity and a drag queen's doesn't mean I think any less of drag queens.

Thank you Skin.

I am terribly saddened people a) misread me so, and b) judged me based on their own misreading.

Thank you, so very much for understanding what I meant as I initially wrote it rather than after I clarified.

Kami.

Whether right or wrong, words can hurt people depending on the context of how it's being used, the tone with which it's communicated and by whom it's being intended. A large part is also our response to the usage.

I personally don't like the term, but I understand its history and where it was derived from. It's been used on me personally and as recently as this past week by some of the people I love(d) the most and it does hurt and inflict its own wounds and the scars it leaves behind are painful. I choose to ignore the ignorance and turn a blind eye, as sometimes the fight or argument isn't worth the effort.

There are better words to describe each of our situations and l prefer to be respectful to those around me and sue terminology that is forthright and considerate.

Hugs, Jenni

Quote from: Kamiki on November 16, 2014, 11:25:25 AM
Actually I was describing why it bothers me. Not bagging on our fellow sisters.

Please try to avoid such leaps to heroism when nothing ill was meant. Perhaps ask for clarification. Assuming the worst of people is one of the less pleasing things I have noted about this site. I have seen numerous threads that started off assuming the worst of someone and the person basically having to show through consistent re-explaining of themselves that such was not the case.

To be quite frank, I am actually a bit miffed that my explaining why it bothers me put you off. My reasons are my own and reading too much into them, and then projecting insecurities or issues on to me was simply not cricket. Also, for the record, I  am not sure why the term "simply not cricket" came off as an indicator I would consider for one second violence (based on the responses of "I used to get into fights", unless they were not meant as a direct reply) it is an older British term used by those who are part of the chappist movement to refer to something that is not acceptable.

Why would my personal reasons (the baggage associated with the word; i.e. that people associate it with people who are into drag and or choose to carry the term ->-bleeped-<- as a moniker)  bother you? I have nothing against either ->-bleeped-<-s or drag queens rather I have something against people assuming I am either of them because I am, simply, not.

I am neither booing nor disparaging drag queens or she males, I am saying that the general association of that word to those states of being is one of the reasons I personally dislike it as I do not associate myself with either of those states of existence and or being. I consider myself a woman  who was born with a deformity as such I would rather not carry any verbal baggage (again this is not referring to the people, but rather the societal and linguistic baggage associated with the word and its usage in modern days) with me by using or accepting the use of the word ->-bleeped-<- to describe me.

I think people woefully misread me there. When I spoke of fetishism I mean the fetishism seen in cis men (and some women) when watching, or enjoying pornography of a certain milieu, the very fetishism that degrades us and objectifies us as "things". When I spoke of drag queens, it was not disparaging it was simply that I do not consider myself nor have I ever considered myself into "drag" and as such I would not want the use of a word to put me into that category of lifestyle choice. Which to me is part of the baggage associated with the word ->-bleeped-<-.


Sorry if the way I speak made that any less that clear.



Kami.

Not sure who you're replying to here, but characterizing the replies as "leaps of heroism" is pretty smarmy. See TOS #5.

Quote from: Kamiki on November 16, 2014, 11:42:54 AM

Simply not cricket does not mean fighting words.

My stars, what ever would give you such an impression.

Simply not cricket, is used much in the same way that the less appealing (and inappropriate) "not kosher at all" is used. It is used to describe something as less than acceptable. It is not an indication of violence. In fact, the chap that would resort to violence is no longer a chap, but rather a tiresome prat or maybe even a chav.

As for reading into the baggage of words spouted by strangers. We all do it to one degree or another. Certain words carry with them more or less implied baggage.

I am going to bring one up and yet am not going to address it direct lest someone take me the wrong way again.

The South Park Episode "Gays against ->-bleeped-<-s", addressed this point in a humorous and lighthearted way. In this episode we see the word "->-bleeped-<-" being thrown around a great deal. And the baggage associated with anti gay sentiments of course boils to the top. Over the course of the episode it is made increasingly clear that another use of the word as it is now; is when it is used to refer to someone with no manners and a loud or obnoxious nature. The guy who cuts you off on the highway, bikers who can't stop revving their motorcycles, and other minor irritants. The folk of South Park rally behind the new use of the word. Led by some colourful South Park characters they manage to wrestle the definition of the word, casting off old baggage that bothered them and changing its definition in the South Park version of Websters Dictionary.

Now, why bring up an irreverent South Park episode. That word. ->-bleeped-<-. It is probably one of the easiest to use examples of a word with baggage. Whether spouted by the ignorant, uneducated, or other you are likely to note it, its use, and it will likely carry some extra crap with it you are not that fond of.

I feel similarly, for different reasons, about ->-bleeped-<-.

Kami.

Oh sorry, I read it wrong. Crickets are usually ready to jump... or frogs for that matter..." Feeling froggy? lets jump!" So, I assumed its context was intended to mean that you would not ignore a comment but actually engage the person. You see what happens when we try to read into what others mean by the words they use, we are not always correct. Someone may use the word ->-bleeped-<- and not know or have any bad intent in doing so. Others may use it to try to incite violence or to try to degrade someone. I am not going to let that word or any other bother me. Life is too short.

Love,
Jade

Devlyn, it was directed at you. I have no qualms with being honest about it.

You assumed I was judging others and rushed to correct me and defend them. That is a leap of heroism that was not needed. Smarmy or not, you chose to apply your misunderstanding of my words in a manner that seemed like you were standing up for the little people.

No little people were implied, or insulted. No one needed saving or defending in any way.

I drug no one into it. You did. I answered why the term bothered ME. Which it seems you missed since you said,

"I'll say it again, the thread asks if it bothers YOU. Don't drag innocent people trying to live their lives their way into it, please."

You are both defending people who are not in need of defense, aforementioned heroism, and missing the fact that that is EXACTLY what I did.

If you dislike the reasons the word bothers me, then such is fine as well. You are not me. My reasons are mine to have and I should not have to defend/explain/expound on them to anyone.

Kami.

Some words have power only if we let them. I've been called ->-bleeped-<- and ->-bleeped-<- and ignore it every time. As long as violence doesn't follow I let the empty, parroted words of the stupid roll right on by.

The one time I was called ->-bleeped-<- was actually kind of funny. I was working as a nurse in a maximum security, all-women's prison in Texas. As I was walking back to the infirmary my afternoon diabetics were lining up to get their insulin as another group of inmates were walking by to whatever work detail they were on. I've been androgynous for years (long hair, multiple piercings in both ears) and as I walked by the other group of inmates one of them loudly said, "Look, a ->-bleeped-<-!"  My diabetics, some of whom came in two to three times a day for insulin and had come to know me very well, jumped on her so fast I barely saw what happened. They told her, in no uncertain terms, never to be disregardful to "their" nurse like that again.

I never had another issue in my time there.

Quote from: Jade_404 on November 16, 2014, 12:42:14 PM
Oh sorry, I read it wrong. Crickets are usually ready to jump... or frogs for that matter..." Feeling froggy? lets jump!" So, I assumed its context was intended to mean that you would not ignore a comment but actually engage the person. You see what happens when we try to read into what others mean by the words they use, we are not always correct. Someone may use the word ->-bleeped-<- and not know or have any bad intent in doing so. Others may use it to try to incite violence or to try to degrade someone. I am not going to let that word or any other bother me. Life is too short.

Love,
Jade

My apologies,

I see how you could have derived that from it consider the "feeling froggy" comparison.

For me, "Simply not Cricket" harkens to the chappist in me. The Chappist Movement is a English movement that is currently growing in popularity. A general attempt to return to the civility of Victorian England. Also called the tweed movement, more and more young British folk are once again picking up three piece and decorum. And with that comes some old return of old form English.

In this case the actual term means "something (an action) taken that is not honest or moral," and was used in text of the word "->-bleeped-<-" to refer to me as not being an  "honest representation," and thus simply not cricket and shouldn't be done. Again only in regards to referencing me with that word.

One thing about me is I often use a number of words where a few would suffice. I have an esoteric manner of writing and indeed of speaking. once you get used to the manner in which I string my words together, once my syntax and form are known to you, I get taken incorrectly a bit less.

Devlyn, also my apologies to you. I stand by everything I said, including the defense comment; but I want to apologize for my lack of clarity in my original post that led to the need to feel like you had to say something. Again this is a byproduct of the way that I write and I should have been more ling winded in my first reply thus eliminating the need for us to have ever derailed this topic.

Love you all,
Kami.

I'm of a mind this has run its course. Locked for the time being.