The word serves us well.
Whenever someone not one of us says it, we know how they feel about us instantly.
When ussed by one of us it serves as a group identifier. Granted many of us do not like the word ussed amongst ourselves but the word is there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation

A reclaimed or reappropriated word, is a word that was at one time a pejorative but has been brought back into acceptable usage—usually starting within the communities that experienced oppression under that word, but sometimes also among the general populace as well. (The term 'reclaimed word' more often implies usage by a member of the group referred to.)

I've called myself a ->-bleeped-<- a few times. It sounds party-fun.  Like Queer or Queen.

OH yeah..and I actually don't like "transgender."

It's so broad it's almost meaningless and gives too much credence to the gender binary.  Who ISN'T transgender in some way?  No ooomph to that word.  When I say it I feel like I'm expressing something so weak I'll turn to dust.

I'm not real fond of the term.  I don't like the way it's often used when the intention is to be funny.

However, if you want to communicate effectively, you need to use the common parlance.  ->-bleeped-<- is a slang term that refers collectively to the whole spectrum of trans-people.  It can be used in a derogatory manner, particularly in humor, or attempts at humor.

It particularly fits when one is describing the hostility we encounter, as a way of characterizing the thinking of the hostile person, as in: The bar owner didn't have nothing against ->-bleeped-<-s, as long as they didn't try to sing kareoke or use the wrong bathroom.

Just food for thought, from the GLAAD website:

"->-bleeped-<-," "->-bleeped-<-got," "dyke," "homo," "sodomite," "she-male," "he-she," "it," "shim," "->-bleeped-<-" and similar epithets
The criteria for using these derogatory terms should be the same as those applied to vulgar epithets used to target other groups: they should not be used except in a direct quote that reveals the bias of the person quoted. So that such words are not given credibility in the media, it is preferred that reporters say, "The person used a derogatory word for a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender person."

  I invite any of you who think it's okay to "reclaim" this horribly offensive term to look into the tearful eyes of a young, Transgender person who has been called names all her/his life and say, "You're a tr***y." If that's okay with you, to use language that you know might  hurt someone, then you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.

Of all the words that start with 'Trans'  the most abhorrent, detested one of them all for me, is of course the word '->-bleeped-<-' and to me it is used for vilification and nothing else.  I can understand that 'Transgendered Community' want that particular word for themselves for whatever reason.  However the word '->-bleeped-<-' like all the other words that have been taken back will basically still have its original meaning and usage and that is to put down another human being.   Whether it is used in the community  for a laugh or not.

I have never been or will I ever be 'Trans' this or 'Trans' that.   The reason being is, I took the necessary steps so that I could function in society as a normal female, nothing less and nothing more.  As Valeriedances mentioned.  I will never tolerate those words in my presence whether said in an insulting or humorous way.

Then again I have never been involved in the 'community' per say, so I will never come across people like the gender therapist mentioned in Jessica's thread who said 'we are all Tran...',  Well sorry no, I'm F...ing not and (to me, this is an insult and Jessica this also sounds like to me, an insult directed at you as well).

The therapist is right in one sense, I'm not part of the 'Trans folk community and I never will.  I have a medical condition which I corrected as much as possible.  I will share whatever knowledge that I have in regards to this and this will be the extent of my involvement in the community.

If you want to use those words amongst yourselves, that's fine.  However do not count on me supporting your usage of those words. Why you would want to do so that's your prerogative and I will stand up for your right to say them if you wish.  Not that I would understand why you would want use those words after all the pain and suffering you may have gone through.

Kindest regards to one all
Sarah B

Quote from: JessicaR on March 17, 2011, 12:19:17 AM
Just food for thought, from the GLAAD website:

"->-bleeped-<-," "->-bleeped-<-got," "dyke," "homo," "sodomite," "she-male," "he-she," "it," "shim," "->-bleeped-<-" and similar epithets
The criteria for using these derogatory terms should be the same as those applied to vulgar epithets used to target other groups: they should not be used except in a direct quote that reveals the bias of the person quoted. So that such words are not given credibility in the media, it is preferred that reporters say, "The person used a derogatory word for a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender person."

  I invite any of you who think it's okay to "reclaim" this horribly offensive term to look into the tearful eyes of a young, Transgender person who has been called names all her/his life and say, "You're a tr***y." If that's okay with you, to use language that you know might  hurt someone, then you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.

Definitely This

Kind regards
Sarah B

Aye, and as I've said elsewhere, it's one thing to choose to call yourself something, and quite another to insist others do so too - so "we're all ->-bleeped-<-s" would make me blister as much as it did when some überpolitical young guy once insisted I call myself queer. Anyone who's ever tried walking under someone else's umbrella knows how easy it is to get poked in the eye.

I realise I'm not as young as some.

I thought ->-bleeped-<-s were small radios people in the 80's carried around listening to music.

I'm not too sure which orifice of mine has music coming out of it.
But it would be a brave person to listen.


I'm female, I'm a woman. If need be for discussion in areas like this or to explain stuff to people who have no concept of who I am I'll use transgendered.

Why create words that don't explain anything?

I'm a radio. No I'm not I'm a ->-bleeped-<-, when I grow up I'll be a radio.

Time to get the rocking Chair out. Where is my knitting. Oh Perry Como is on the radio



Cindy

Cultural use of labels is all about context, and it is perfectly possible for derrogetory and abusive lables to be reclaimed in a positive manner by individuals or small groupings of individuals. Treating such labels as absolute verboten actively increases their cultural power over the entire group the dominant discourse applies the label to.

The thing with such positive reclamation is that the labels have to be used in the full knowledge that they are culturally loaded, otherwise it just reinforces the power the label (and dominant discourse) has over the group being labeled.

Right, I think I've used the term dominant discourse enough and it's barely even 10 in the morning so I'll stop now.

Quote from: Helena on March 17, 2011, 04:48:48 AM
Cultural use of labels is all about context, and it is perfectly possible for derrogetory and abusive lables to be reclaimed in a positive manner by individuals or small groupings of individuals. Treating such labels as absolute verboten actively increases their cultural power over the entire group the dominant discourse applies the label to.

The thing with such positive reclamation is that the labels have to be used in the full knowledge that they are culturally loaded, otherwise it just reinforces the power the label (and dominant discourse) has over the group being labeled.

Right, I think I've used the term dominant discourse enough and it's barely even 10 in the morning so I'll stop now.

You need caffeine doll, I need sleep

Cindy

Quote from: CindyJames on March 17, 2011, 05:14:26 AM
You need caffeine doll, I need sleep

Cindy

I could send you a kitty-o-gram if you want Cindy, having the little furball snuggle up to me at night always helps me drift off.

Quote from: Helena on March 17, 2011, 04:48:48 AM
Treating such labels as absolute verboten actively increases their cultural power over the entire group the dominant discourse applies the label to.

Right.  I'm no more interested in having that word have power of me than patriarchal gender stereotypes that I'm not interested in.  Some transsexuals are the exact opposite.  They revel in the gender stereotypes, the submission, the oppression.  If you want to be strong, take away the power to offend. 

Quote from: japple on March 17, 2011, 05:53:43 AMIf you want to be strong, take away the power to offend.

Right - and that looks great on paper, but how do you pull it off when there's 6 of them and one of you, for example?

I'm all for not responding to or buying into violence (physical or the other kinds) or victimhood, but that doesn't stop others perpetrating it. Sometimes you can walk away, but sometimes you can't even run away fast enough (speaking as someone who was beaten up by 6 teenagers for the crime of "having the wrong kind of scooter in a built-up area").

And I've tried the whole "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me" exercise, and found that in practice, bones may not get broken but you often find bruises where you least expect them later on, because that's why people hit you with them in the first place.

For me, the trick is in discerning when someone's intention is to hurt and when it isn't. If they're not trying to hurt me, I won't take offence. If they are, I'll speak up these days, and that includes the offence of trying to force a term on me that brings up old pain just because they've "reclaimed" it themselves. I'm happy to take responsibility for recovering from that old pain, but I'm not willing to pretend it's not there for me and many others.

Isn't the dominant discourse the one between the main course and the dessert course?

PS I think I overreacted here - I don't want to get too polemical about this, I just had a knee-jerk reaction to being told to "be strong" when I've been in situations where it's not an option because you're outnumbered.

Quote from: yoxi on March 17, 2011, 07:20:19 AM
PS I think I overreacted here - I don't want to get too polemical about this, I just had a knee-jerk reaction to being told to "be strong" when I've been in situations where it's not an option because you're outnumbered.

This is where the whole point of context comes in to play. In the context of having a term forcibally applied to you by a group, that is completely unacceptable. It doesn't make it right to apply a label to someone just because you are happy to apply it to yourself. In effect that strengthens the dominat discourse all under the guise of reclaiming a word.

However, it is possible to use such culturally loaded terms in an empowering way, generally the context is in terms of an individual applying the label to themselves in a way that respects how culturally loaded the label is. It's a fine balancing act and the general rule of thumb is if you're worried that you might offend someone then you shouldn't use the term.

Strangely enough i'm not advocating that everyone should use the term, but rather that it is possible within a limited scope to reclaim the world and that declaring it absolutely verboten you actually increase it's cultural power to diminish and other and it actually reinforces the dominat discourse.

Can you tell i did a media and cultural studies based degree?

Quote from: JessicaR on March 17, 2011, 12:19:17 AM
Just food for thought, from the GLAAD website:
"->-bleeped-<-," "->-bleeped-<-got," "dyke," "homo," "sodomite," "she-male," "he-she," "it," "shim," "->-bleeped-<-" and similar epithets

->-bleeped-<- is not the same as she-mail or he-she, although the porn industry also uses it occasionally. Of the above list, it is the only word that seems to have originated within trans communities. Also, unlike ->-bleeped-<- and co., there is no mixture of sex/gender in the word ->-bleeped-<-.

But anyway, GLAAD's opinions are GLAAD's , which means what we already know: there is more than one position in the LBGT community about the whole question. For example, I am VERY GLAD to be able to see images like this:





Still, this does not mean I'm going this year to the parade with a banner with the word "->-bleeped-<-" on it. Personally, I think this discussion is being fruitful at showing the different positions and arguments on the topic of language within the community at large. Like always, while positions are respectable, arguments always remain open to criticism.

Quote from: yoxi on March 17, 2011, 07:20:19 AM
Right - and that looks great on paper, but how do you pull it off when there's 6 of them and one of you, for example?

In such a situation, I would try to get out of there as quickly as I could, and live to "fight" another day, as they say... But nobody says that reclaiming or reappropriating a word like ->-bleeped-<- is a matter of standing up to six potential aggressors and saying "yeah, ->-bleeped-<-, cool, what else?" If such re-appropriation were to happen, I guess it would be more like the cases of queer and dyke.

I was using that example as a pointer to a more general sense of saying "Look, everybody, I've reclaimed this word!" whilst surrounded by a world chock-full of people unwilling to use it except in a negative way - outnumbered in that sense.

I'm not against people using it how they like, to describe themselves. I just don't want me or anyone else lassoed into it against our wills (and I've experienced that too many times with "queer" not to be cynical about protests that this wouldn't happen with any other word).

Quote from: japple on March 17, 2011, 05:53:43 AM
Right.  I'm no more interested in having that word have power of me than patriarchal gender stereotypes that I'm not interested in.

Same here, I am not a woman becoming a woman (what a diversion on labels!) to just conform to such stereotypes... though, I think those being happy with patriarchal stereotypes have all the right and freedom to conform to them. Just like cis women. Or I'd better simply say: just like the women they are. 'Cause if most cis women would hold the opposite opinion and do something about it, things perhaps might look different...

Quote from: japple on March 17, 2011, 05:53:43 AMSome transsexuals are the exact opposite.  They revel in the gender stereotypes, the submission, the oppression.

More and more often I see that, just like among cis people, there are all possible positions and varieties of trans people. Some transwomen conform to such stereotypes just because many cis women do. So I guess this is not about trans, but about feminism at large.

I find these discussions helpful not because I lack hobbies but because they help me review my opinions, and because I wonder how my own journey will be: would I ever conform to patriarchal stereotypes? Would I become one of those who (on their own right, it's their life) do not want to hear any word beginning with "trans-" after having GRS? Today, I don't think so, but I know some things change (...though maybe others don't)

Quote from: yoxi on March 17, 2011, 02:44:05 PM
I was using that example as a pointer to a more general sense of saying "Look, everybody, I've reclaimed this word!" whilst surrounded by a world chock-full of people unwilling to use it except in a negative way - outnumbered in that sense.

If people are going to be violent, it doesn't matter what words they use.

You reclaim the words for a stronger sense of self.  Dyke and Bitch as example.