Hi, Everybody!

Something I've been thinking about in recent times: would it help us as a community to choose an informal term other than trans/transgender/transsexual, etc., as a moniker--something along the lines of "gay" that gay people chose to replace the term "homosexual"?

One reason I ask the question is that just today, as has happened before, I came across a cisgender person who objects to the term "cisgender".  I won't bother to give you his reasons.  I found them fairly trivial.

But if we were to choose a term along the lines of "gay", then cispeople could choose a term for themselves (something along the lines of "straight"), and maybe in that way we'd obviate the problem.  They couldn't complain about the label since they would have chosen it themselves.

The obvious problem in choosing a name for the trans community is that we're so splintered that we can't agree on names as it is.  So how could we choose one that would include everybody--crossdressers, non-binary, transsexuals, etc., etc., etc.?  We have so many arguments already, it seems silly to start up another one.

And yet I see an advantage in it, as I've already said.  So what sort of name to choose?  Obviously something positive, upbeat, and hopefully something that everybody would be happy with.  Problem is I've been racking my poor little brain and haven't been able to come up with much of anything.

The only thing I've been able to think of is "adventurous" or "adventurer"--on the grounds that "When you're trans, life is always an adventure."  And since the word itself is so long, shorten it to "ad".  One advantage I see with this term is that "adventurous/adventurer" aren't commonly used words, so we couldn't be accused of commandeering a perfectly good and commonly used term such as "gay".  And no matter how you see yourself--crossdresser, non-binary, TS, etc.--you can still see yourself as "an adventurer".

So two questions I'm asking: (1) Does anybody else see an advantage in or a need for a term like this, and (2) if so, can anybody think of anything better than "ad"?  ("I'm ad."  I have to say I'm not overly thrilled with that.  And there's another obvious problem with "I'm an ad.")

Well whatever floats your boat. I will tell you what I refer to myself as though - "female" or "woman"

For me "trans" is a process, a journey.

I take your point but also don't see a need for it. If I was to chose a word it would be "bender" as in gender bender. That way cis people can go on being straight.

Quote from: ImagineKate on December 12, 2014, 02:03:03 PM
Well whatever floats your boat. I will tell you what I refer to myself as though - "female" or "woman"

For me "trans" is a process, a journey.

Agreed!

Unfortunately gender bender is just as negative as transgender which is a replacement for transsexual. I think the idea might be sound if we could come up with something new and do our best to make sure its used properly. Something like butterfly or metamorph.

Eventually what we choose will be misused and abused, as the term "gay" isn't exactly respected by haters, as in "that's so gay."

I think gay is a lot better than f**

True but trans is a lot better than tr***y.

Also I would say that we don't want the haters to win. If we change the terminology to suit them they win!

I agree 100% with that.

I see it as keeping up with the times. I'm not sure if gay or f** came first but I see f** as a lost cause unless south park gets its way (They redefined f** to mean annoying Harley Davidson rider). However on the other hand there have been great strides to may gay acceptable and it seems to be succeeding. So I guess I don't really know.

Quote from: ImagineKate on December 12, 2014, 03:37:53 PM
Also I would say that we don't want the haters to win. If we change the terminology to suit them they win!

Quote from: ImagineKate on December 12, 2014, 03:37:53 PM
Also I would say that we don't want the haters to win. If we change the terminology to suit them they win!

Quote from: awilliams1701 on December 12, 2014, 03:38:05 PM
I agree 100% with that.

I agree, too.  But they do accuse of us intolerance or whatever if we impose a term on them they don't like.  Allow them to choose a term, and then they don't have that complaint.

Quote from: Foxglove on December 12, 2014, 03:45:42 PM
I agree, too.  But they do accuse of us intolerance or whatever if we impose a term on them they don't like.

Seriously I don't care. If they had the chance to chose a label for themselves they would probably go with "normal". Cis gender is hardly offensive just a scientific reality, if they want to get their nickers in a knot about it that's their problem.

My personal favorite is the idiots that are offended by their kids learning about homosapiens in school. Obviously they are mistaking homosapien for homosexual. I also saw one time on a late night show where they interviewed a lot of voters if they would vote for someone who was openly heterosexual. Again they got confused and said no while making mean and nasty comments.

I'm fine with transgender. I like bender too, Grace!

Quote from: Ms Grace on December 12, 2014, 04:01:59 PM
Seriously I don't care. If they had the chance to chose a label for themselves they would probably go with "normal". Cis gender is hardly offensive just a scientific reality, if they want to get their nickers in a knot about it that's their problem.

Yep.  In a way I agree with this.  It seems to me that those who most object to "cisgender" are those who most object to ->-bleeped-<-, as was the case with the fellow I mentioned in my OP.  Also, one thing that makes me mad is that they're OK with calling us "->-bleeped-<-", "pervert", "freak", "sexual predators", etc., but when we come up with a scientific term that is purely neutral, not the least bit derogatory, they object to that.

However, I also look at this: the fellow mentioned in my OP wanted to call himself "gender-happy".  Now that suggests a negative for us: "gender-unhappy"--just as "straight" for heterosexual people might suggest a negative for homosexual people: "crooked", "bent", "twisted".  However gay people got their shot in first, by calling themselves "gay", so that if heterosexual people wanted to choose the opposite of that, what would it leave them with?  "Unhappy", "wretched", "miserable"?  But when they choose a positive for themselves--"straight"--it still doesn't negate the positive "gay".

This is why I see an advantage in getting our shot in first by choosing a positive for ourselves.  I'm not seriously proposing "adventurous/adventurer".  Surely there's something better than that.  I just can't think of anything.  But I think it would be something like that that we'd want (if we decided we wanted something).

If we're "adventurers" and cispeople want to be the opposite, what does that leave them with?  "Dull", "plodding", "vanilla", "unimaginative"?  If they want to call themselves "normal", that's OK.  Who'd want to be normal when they could be an adventurer?  Or if they want to be "gender-happy", that's OK, too.  We're still adventurers.  Whatever positive they came up with, it wouldn't negate our positive.

This is why I see an advantage in our having an informal term such as "gay".  "Transgender" in itself is neutral.  But there would be an advantage in having a positive term.  Cispeople won't like it, just as straight people didn't like the term "gay", when gay people first started using it.  And Kate is right in saying that no matter what term we chose, people would abuse it, just like they say, "That's so gay."  They abuse the term "transgender", too (--> "->-bleeped-<-"), but a positive term would still be a positive.

Anyway, that's why I've been thinking about finding such a term.  But obviously there's considerable doubt as to whether trans people in general see a need for one.

Foxglove, thanks for posting this.

I think it's HIGHLY worthwhile to think about how to get our message and accurate information out to the cisgender community. For example, changing LGBT to LGBTQQIAA is a disaster despite it's inclusiveness because it frustrates people who are trying hard to be good allies and want to spread good information but find themselves tongue tied at the forbidding alphabet soup.

"Trans" and "non-trans" have sort of become the default colloquial way to refer to transgender and cisgender people.

Double post.  Sorry!

Hi, Suzi!

I know that LGBT. . . frustrates some people, while others laugh at it.  It's hard for outsiders to understand the diversity of gender non-conforming people, and with some of them, the more diversity they encounter, the more puzzled and scornful they become.

Recently I came across an article about an LGBT ally--if I recall correctly, a Finnish clergyman--who referred to LGBT people as "rainbow people".  I thought that was really nice.  A nice, neat way to refer to anyone who doesn't fit in in one way or another.  That's what got me thinking about whether it would be useful to come up with a nice, upbeat name inclusive of all the varieties of people more or less placed under the "transgender umbrella".

I think terms like "butterfly" are poetic and artful, but it is not like there are any new terms that will not eventually be abused. If we keep replacing the words we use to describe ourselves, we will end up on the "euphemism treadmill" and trans-phobes will end up with more words to use as insults and we will have fewer positive words to describe ourselves that aren't completely awkward to use in everyday conversation. I think we should probably keep the words "cis" and "trans" because they are short accurate descriptions, although the terms "cis" and "trans" make me think about chemistry just as much as they make me think about gender issues

BTW, why would we call ourselves "Ads." People spend lots money and go out of their way to avoid watching ads. I would hate to name ourselves after what many people think is one of the most detestable aspects of American media;)