->-bleeped-<-

Queer Today
Mark Snyder
2/3/09

Last week one of our blogavists who I admire and respect brought to our attention the ongoing debate about the usage of the word ->-bleeped-<- most recently sparked by some headlines in a Dallas Newspaper, and a movie produced and promoted by a gay man called "Ticked-Off Trannies with Knives."

Some members of our community have expressed that the word ->-bleeped-<- is extremely offensive to them, and should be banned entirely. As debate ensued, we lost a valued voice here on QueerToday.com because for her the word was just too offensive to be put up for discussion.

The word ->-bleeped-<- has been co-opted by the media (and many straight and male gay bloggers) to be used in a derisive, demeaning context.  I have written several posts outlining this fact and proving it with plenty of examples on the web.  It is clear that using the word '->-bleeped-<-' is in some ways similar to using the word transgender, only negatively.  It bunches all trans people together under one umberella term and that term perpetuates a negative image.

To me this is a dead issue.  Reclaim the word?  Fine, use it with your lgbt friends or whatever, but I feel offended by articles that continue to bring this up as though it were a fresh issue.  To me, that's an irresponsible method to draw a crowd with something that is controversial.

I have come to the conclusion that some people will never get past the "trans-whatever" labels there are, for in the back of their minds, being a plain, old man or woman without any "modifiers" is an unattainable goal, an impossible dream.  So why burn my liver over something people choose for themselves?


tink

One shouldn't use the "H" word but I absolutely hate the word ->-bleeped-<-.

I, for one, am so happy that having solved all other problems involving health care, civil rights and jobs that we now have the time to devote to language wars.

(What?  We haven't solved all that stuff, but somehow, we are bitching about a word, when much more important problems remain, oh the luxury.)

Really, a lot of people in the community (those are all those people doing things you are not, and you don't know) use that word.  Its good by me. 

"You can flog a dead horse, but inside of a dog it's too dark to read." Brielle Marx

I find this to be just another derogatory word that peeps are trying to mainstream.  It just sounds trashy to me.  All most women want is to be called female, woman or by their name. Why do they need all these unnecessary labels for people?. "Do as I say, not as I do" just confuses people.

But to be fair.

QuoteSome members of our community have expressed that the word ->-bleeped-<- is extremely offensive to them.

Is ->-bleeped-<- offensive or not? To me, the short answer to this deceptively dilemma is: ask those peeps that are ->-bleeped-<-s & ask them if the word offends them or not.

I really don't like the word, it is offensive. Ask a person who really is a "T" to see if it is offensive. Well, my answer to that is, some people might call me trans and think the word "T" is OK but I don't think of myself as Trans anymore. It was a small part in my lifes evolution, which I would like to forget.

->-bleeped-<-:

Quote from: Valentina on March 05, 2009, 05:41:56 AM
I find this to be just another derogatory word that peeps are trying to mainstream. 

I believe that the word is already "mainstream." Perhaps not among those of us who in our transsexing have not been exposed much to "the community." In this case the larger, although still small, LBGTQQItH community.

There's prolly reason to dislike it, at least I hope there is since I dislike it as well!!

But as far as usage is concerned the usage has already been decided for us. Most people will use it. Just piss em off if they know about you and see.

But the main fights about it seem to be amongst ourselves.

Nichole

Quote from: tekla on March 04, 2009, 09:18:48 PM
I, for one, am so happy that having solved all other problems involving health care, civil rights and jobs that we now have the time to devote to language wars.

(What?  We haven't solved all that stuff, but somehow, we are bitching about a word, when much more important problems remain, oh the luxury.)

Really, a lot of people in the community (those are all those people doing things you are not, and you don't know) use that word.  Its good by me.

Well, if it's a luxury to try to end dehumanization of bi-gendered people (and creating and using words such as ->-bleeped-<- can qualify as dehumanizing), then I'm happy to have the 'luxury' to fight for the respect I deserve.

Julie

It's used within the community, and while some may not care and other care far too much, the real problems are not with vocabulary, but with real laws that really need changing.

Quote from: tekla on March 05, 2009, 02:43:24 PM
It's used within the community, and while some may not care and other care far too much, the real problems are not with vocabulary, but with real laws that really need changing.

Well, if we had karma that would get a point from me.

N~

Quote from: Valentina on March 05, 2009, 05:41:56 AM
Is ->-bleeped-<- offensive or not? To me, the short answer to this deceptively dilemma is: ask those peeps that are ->-bleeped-<-s & ask them if the word offends them or not.

hahaha well said.  politically though "->-bleeped-<-"s always been a deliberate attempt by the transgender, e.g. non-ops by choice, crossdressers, drag queens, transvestites & others to deny womanhood to those who were born with a birth defect & corrected it.

Like I said, "Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."

Julie: Well said.   

I've written numerous posts on this subject already, (Monica Helms even gave me a touche for my research and bringing facts to the issue in her post on Bilerico regarding the '->-bleeped-<-' word. In the comments I went AGAINST what she was saying in the article.  She earned my respect by thanking me for adding the facts into a debate has been mostly emotions and heresay.

Note: For those who aren't familiar: Monica Helms is a well known activist in the transgender community since 1998, starting off in Phoenix, Arizona.


I've also read so many good arguments against the use of the word '->-bleeped-<-' in media by numerous other bonafide, educated, well-respected transwomen in the community, that I can scarcely imagine anyone completely rejecting that side of the argument.  (then again, I'm a libra, go figure...)

Anyway, it's true this subject seems to bring a lot of stuff out of the woodwork...

Regarding you rpoint Julie: I think it's well known that having a choice and an opinion are still allowed in the free world, no matter what else is going on.  It's a good thing we aren't forced to focus on someone else's priorities instead of our own.  What's that called - despotism? Whatever - it's someone telling someone else what they can and can't do.  I know what it's called - 'Marraige'.


For the record, I have also heard good arguments for the use of the word '->-bleeped-<-', such as one transwoman from New Zealand who said it is well used and well accepted by all over there. But then again, she was also indicating that it would be unacceptable for anyone to suggest dropping the word from use. 

anyhoo...
ciao, B.


and @ Valentina - Thanks for adding that.  There is def some bad blood there.

Also I found in  my research that gay males use the word in a similar way to the faction of the transgender crowd you indicated. It actually really brings me down that gay males are so easy to fortify the '->-bleeped-<- mess' cliche - they're still guys though, after all.  (how's that for being sexist??)  Ok, some of them aren't into trashing the trannies ... sorry guys, but the rest of you - grrrrrr...l

There's a deceptively simple answer to women who aren't trans-anything that allows them to avoid any uses of the word at all.

Why to get on with their lives and to stop bringing up the point endlessly. Like the bathroom gambit the ->-bleeped-<- gambit is a ridiculous argument anyhow. It goes to the heart of zero and its only use is to agitate. Period.

I've been hearing "->-bleeped-<-" for way longer than I've heard of any "transgender conspiracy" or "transgender" at all!

Gay bars in the seventies and eighties!!! Back then it was normally used as a short for "transsexual."

My goodness, you guys just really don't get out much do ya?

Ifn ya don't like it, don't use it. Ifn ya do try to be nice when ya do.

Yet another zombie topic.



Edited because the statement I made that I have now removed was unnecessarily harsh and may well have, and did, hurt people I never meant to either hurt or call into question. My apologies to each of the participants. -- Nichole

yup i haven't met a single transgender, e.g. non-ops by choice, crossdressers, drag queens, transvestites & others who didn't think their own opinion outranked everyone else's. who didn't engage in massive amounts of male privilege.

Quote from: Katia on March 05, 2009, 05:58:29 PM
yup i haven't met a single transgender, e.g. non-ops by choice, crossdressers, drag queens, transvestites & others who didn't think their own opinion outranked everyone else's. who didn't engage in massive amounts of male privilege.

I think the question here might be, Natasha. How many have you ever met? I mean, met, not read. In general actually getting to know real people tends to make some of the more ignorant ideas about them come to a place where one tends not to group their friend or acquaintance w/ "those people."

Judging by the unrelenting insistence you show toward making blanket statements about others as though all this=that tends to give one doubts about how many of this and that you actually "know." Ya know?

I've seen that all of my life as well: with people of color in the South, gays just about everywhere and Turks in Germany. I'd imagine it holds true for Ainu in Japan, French-Canadians in Ontario or Alberta and Arabs in Iran as well as many other instances one could come up with given time and space. Hate and blanket statements are best fed by ignorance of those one speaks about.

There's a certain privilege we grant our ignorance that usually allows us to make blanket statements about entire groups we imagine are monolithic. Until we actually find that we live among those folk, or become friendly with them and discover, mirabile dictu, that we may have over-extended our reach with our grasp. Ideas about the world seldom manage to take into account people, flesh, bone and blood people. And that is forever where our thinking fails us.

Nichole

There's a certain privilege we grant our ignorance that usually allows us to make blanket statements about entire groups we imagine are monolithic.

I'm in love with that statement.  In the end, and we are close to the end, not that people have been noticing, but... either we all win, or no one does.  Chose whose side your on.  The hour is getting late.

Quote from: tekla on March 05, 2009, 07:34:07 PM
There's a certain privilege we grant our ignorance that usually allows us to make blanket statements about entire groups we imagine are monolithic.

I'm in love with that statement.  In the end, and we are close to the end, not that people have been noticing, but... either we all win, or no one does.  Chose whose side your on.  The hour is getting late.

Don't understand? Sorry

What hour?