It's the fact that words evolve for better or worse despite their origin.

It's never the word, it's how its used.  And I see it used mostly in a friendly way.

I can understand the analogy to homosexuals having reclaimed a word (though for me, "queer" is a much closer analogy) but the reservation i have is this:

I, for one (and this will get me some grief i know) have a considerable displeasure with the confusion among the ill-informed cis-public about the various manifestations of transgender conditions/behaviors.

I have nothing against crossdressers, per se - but I would have John Q. Public know that a recreation cross-dresser is NOT the same thing as a mis-gendered transsexual. A person who happily generates a "she-male" person to work in porn is NOT the same thing as what i am -though they have every right, or should, to do that if they want; a drag queen, loveable though she may be, is not a representation of what you'll see from me if you give me a job.

it's in that context that "->-bleeped-<-" makes me uncomfortable - because in the public perception that word engenders all the outlandish examples of being transgender and none of the more "everyday" examples. If i say to the average person on the street "when i say ->-bleeped-<-, what sort of person do you think of? - what will be described will almost invariably sound like RuPaul, or a refugee from the Maury Povich show (or worse, Jerry Springer) and will almost never sound like K8, or Jerica or Janet or myself.

It's for that reason only that i really hate to see it used.

Quote from: VeryGnawty on March 16, 2011, 01:05:06 AM
I assume you mean "->-bleeped-<-" which actually came from Niger where "nigu" meant god and "niga" meant goddess.

I fail to see what is offensive about divinity.

Another explanation for the word is that it is a corruption of "negro" and thus in it's origins has no negative connotation.

An alternative argument suggests it's connected to an older insult - ->-bleeped-<-dly - which was said to mean "worthless" - which on the surface might seem plausible except that, as i understand it, white slave owners before the war would refer to their slaves, whether highly prized or  not, by that word which would seem to belie the idea that they thought the word meant "worthless"

I'm used to having all sorts of negative connotations thrown at me, so I don't give a damn if someone calls me a ->-bleeped-<-. Honestly, anything (and I do mean anything) is preferable to me than to be called a girl.  A few months ago, some college dicks drove by and screamed "->-bleeped-<-got" at me and it actually had me happy.

However, if it bugged other people, I'd try to avoid using it out of respect for them. I entirely understand why it would offend some people.

Quote from: Tammy Hope on March 16, 2011, 02:21:33 AM
I can understand the analogy to homosexuals having reclaimed a word (though for me, "queer" is a much closer analogy)

Hi Tammy!

As far as I know, "queer" was a real insult some decades ago. Maybe I am wrong, but "queer" was much more derogatory than "gay" ever was, before the LBGT movement reclaimed the latter word.

Quote from: Tammy Hope on March 16, 2011, 02:21:33 AMI, for one (and this will get me some grief i know) have a considerable displeasure with the confusion among the ill-informed cis-public about the various manifestations of transgender conditions/behaviors.

I consider people at large to be more or less neutral when I comes to coinage of terms. It is always the communities with a sense of cohesion that make the language. In short, it is us against the bigots/haters when it comes to give or not give the battle on one particular word.

Quote from: Tammy Hope on March 16, 2011, 02:21:33 AMI have nothing against crossdressers, per se - but I would have John Q. Public know that a recreation cross-dresser is NOT the same thing as a mis-gendered transsexual. A person who happily generates a "she-male" person to work in porn is NOT the same thing as what i am -though they have every right, or should, to do that if they want; a drag queen, loveable though she may be, is not a representation of what you'll see from me if you give me a job.

it's in that context that "->-bleeped-<-" makes me uncomfortable - because in the public perception that word engenders all the outlandish examples of being transgender and none of the more "everyday" examples. If i say to the average person on the street "when i say ->-bleeped-<-, what sort of person do you think of? - what will be described will almost invariably sound like RuPaul, or a refugee from the Maury Povich show (or worse, Jerry Springer) and will almost never sound like K8, or Jerica or Janet or myself.

It's for that reason only that i really hate to see it used.

I think these thoughts go well far beyond the problem of the world ->-bleeped-<-. There will always be a broad gender spectrum, both among cis and trans people, for gender is just that: a continuum. If some figures get much more often publicized by the media (TV loves drag queens and very particular sorts of CDs/TGs), that fact simply reflects the media agenda, which is mostly a sensation-market thing. It is up to each of us, in our lives and on the internet, to offer the people around us an alternative picture of TG/TS people. The ones named by you and many others have probably made a huge contribution to it already. But back to topic, I don't think our image does not only depend on one word.

(TV loves drag queens and very particular sorts of CDs/TGs), that fact simply reflects the media agenda, which is mostly a sensation-market entirely an entertainment thing.

Media loves performance.  And DQs perform.  It's not that complex.  Boring people make for boring TV, and boring TV makes no money.

Quote from: tekla on March 16, 2011, 01:17:41 AM

Hi Tekla!

The longest running trans event in the Bay Area is ->-bleeped-<-shack (not your dad's drag show) started in 1996, but half a decade before that a lady named Carla runs Carla's Salon, had been being called the '->-bleeped-<- Mechanic" since the early 90s.  That would date the use of the world then to the late 1980s, or about the beginning of normal (not geeks, nerds or DoE/DoD types) using the net.

Also, the group in the San Jose area goes by Silicon Valley ->-bleeped-<- (SVT)

Thanks at lot for the info! To me, this comes to show that "->-bleeped-<-" was never an insult from its very beginning, unlike words like "queer".

Quote from: tekla on March 16, 2011, 01:17:41 AM
It's never the word, it's how its used.  And I see it used mostly in a friendly way.

Yep, this is one the reasons why I posted the topic. I have heard it used by TG/TS people in a positive way and I have heard it from cis people in a neutral way, or even in a slightly positive one. I would agree, however, that is not always the case. Therefore my current doubts.

Quote from: tekla on March 16, 2011, 11:56:24 AM
(TV loves drag queens and very particular sorts of CDs/TGs), that fact simply reflects the media agenda, which is mostly a sensation-market entirely an entertainment thing.

Media loves performance.  And DQs perform.  It's not that complex.  Boring people make for boring TV, and boring TV makes no money.

just different words for the same idea. I like the way you put it.

Quote from: JayUnit on March 16, 2011, 01:08:19 AM
It's the fact that words evolve for better or worse despite their origin.

Indeed, words evolve, but it is people with bias and agendas behind them that make words evolve in a given direction.

Quote from: Marvel on March 16, 2011, 01:01:50 AM
The word is offensive and should not be used by anyone.

Trying to reclaim the word for ourselves can only work for so long, before it backfires back to us.

Now, maybe. But it comes to how strong you are. And we are becoming more and more visible: more and more t-people transition and more and more t-people do it earlier every time. Thus, it comes to who strong a community is and how are its media. The gays in the 50s and 60s would have never expect to hear the word "queer" in its current usage and connotation.

i can't be bothered arguing about the cultural and linguistic reasons such labels exist, because I'd just be repeating myself. All i will say is that if it wasn't ->-bleeped-<- that was used as a negative label for transexual women, it would be something else, because that's how the world works.

Doing vocabulary wars allways reminds me of the old scholastic joke: Why are academic fights so mean?  Because they are about nothing.

Quote from: Helena on March 16, 2011, 12:18:11 PM
i can't be bothered arguing about the cultural and linguistic reasons such labels exist,...

Well, yeah, this topic is not my only obsession (actually I care more about other things). But such words exist, a Tekla said above, because it came from us, it originated within our own community. Perhaps, we've lost it forever though.

Quote from: Helena on March 16, 2011, 12:18:11 PMAll i will say is that if it wasn't ->-bleeped-<- that was used as a negative label for transexual women, it would be something else, 

Well, I may be repeating myself: I have heard it used in positive ways by trans and cis people. Though I know that's not always the case.

That's why I posted... and because politically correct language usually sucks, and so cis people may not always play along with our words. Personally, I've been treated with respect so far (by friends), but when it comes to the people who just don't care (the majority), I am not sure if I prefer to be called a ->-bleeped-<- in the face, and be able to stand to it with dignity, having the chance of not making it feel like an insult to the ones calling it to me, or else only in my back, as derogatory as it goes when people feel they must let go of all political correctness. What I am sure of is this: when I began going out in role and I had to open my mouth before even the first voice training, (only) a couple of times some guy stared at me and I could see the according expression of disgust and non-approval in his face. Should he have said something like "what a nasty ->-bleeped-<- you are, (sir!)", I might have come about that with a smile and some occurrence like "yep, and very naughty, by the way".

Quote from: Helena on March 16, 2011, 12:18:11 PM
because that's how the world works.

Maybe. But twenty years ago I would have been fired very quickly. Today, this can't happen so easily.

Quote from: Helena
Doing vocabulary wars allways reminds me of the old scholastic joke: Why are academic fights so mean?  Because they are about nothing.

right, that's funny (and true, but only worse: they fight about power and better tickets for their ego trips most of the time).

The only power in academia is being thought of as being 'right',

Quote from: Alice in genderland on March 16, 2011, 12:56:56 PM
Well, I may be repeating myself: I have heard it used in positive ways by trans and cis people. Though I know that's not always the case.

Without going to indepth, linguistically the word is just part of the frame work of labels that humans use to divide the world up into understandable chunks, however it is a culturally loaded term, essentially part of the language of control used to put the parts of the population that sit in the catergory of them in it's place, by the bits of the population that sit in the catergory of us. This is not going to change anytime soon because of the cultural framework that the dominant discourse has created. Even labels such as queer, dyke and gay, which have been reclaimed in a positive manner by the groups that were originally othered by them, are still labels that are culturally loaded and contain the power to diminish and put some one in their place in terms the cultural framework we exist in. Positive reclaimation can work in terms of the group reclaiming the term, but it doesn't actually change the dominant discourse and doesn't remove the power of the label to diminish and wound when used by people outside that specific group.

So by all means use the term ->-bleeped-<- in an empowering way, but do so being aware that it is a culturally loaded term and many people view it as such.

I dislike the term, "->-bleeped-<-," and I always have. I think of myself as a woman, nothing more, nothing less. Transition is a journey, once we complete our transitions, we're average men or women with a transexual history, but we're no longer transexual. "->-bleeped-<-" strikes me as a term of disrespect.

Quote from: Helena on March 16, 2011, 01:39:02 PM
Positive reclaimation can work in terms of the group reclaiming the term, but it doesn't actually change the dominant discourse and doesn't remove the power of the label to diminish and wound when used by people outside that specific group.

This I find, at least, partially true (and may be totally so). I am in no way certain that we can effectively reclaim the word, I am completely uncertain that the word won't disappear if we don't use it. As I said before, I doubt we can impose our politically correct language on the populace at large.

Quote from: Helena on March 16, 2011, 01:39:02 PM
So by all means use the term ->-bleeped-<- in an empowering way, but do so being aware that it is a culturally loaded term and many people view it as such.

I am not currently using it actually, nor have I used it in the past. I am just wondering about its usage. BTW, I care about more about other things happening right now in my life (for example voice training). I hope I won't be remembered as the gal who was obsessed/insisting on how wonderful the word ->-bleeped-<- is  ... although that wouldn't kill me, and all it doesn't kill you just make you a bitch. 

Well, on the "reclaiming" front, it doesn't seem to me like a vocal minority "reclaiming" the word "queer" has stopped its continued copious use as a verbal weapon inflicting suffering in the world at large, so I feel the success of this exercise is vastly overrated, and don't rate it's chances with "->-bleeped-<-" either.

That might sound a bit over the top. But seriously, just saying "I personally choose to experience this word as a celebration rather than an intentional insult" doesn't stop the barrage of intentional insult, and that needs acknowledging, or people's genuine suffering gets trivialised by those who say "well it doesn't bother me, I don't know why you're getting so upset."

Obviously, amongst a group who have a collective appreciation of its irony, it's a different experience - but that still makes it easier to use it in the wrong context and hurt others, even ignoring the possible danger of subtle self-undermining disguised as irony.

I'm not fond of the word "->-bleeped-<-," even when ->-bleeped-<-s use it.