If you're not part of the solution...

http://www.birdofparadox.net/blog/?p=9139
11/21/10

Background:

    Saying that FTMs can't call themselves ->-bleeped-<-s eerily echoes the 1980s lesbians who said I couldn't use the word woman to identify myself, and the 1990s lesbians who said I couldn't use the word dyke. [Kate Bornstein, 12 July 2009]

    ->-bleeped-<- can, in a certain sense, be a family word of sorts. But please respect people who are part of that family and ask not to be called that in something as broad and general as a call for submissions that you want to be inclusive. There's a welter of words to use: trans*, transgender, transsexual, genderqueer, gender->-bleeped-<-, and so on. The idea of "summarising it all" under the word "->-bleeped-<-" is both silly and ignorant of history. It's as absurd as calling all gender non-conforming people "->-bleeped-<-s" as a super-heading, or "dykes". It ignores a history that says 'this word has been used to describe a particular group.'