Alyssa M., thanks for that article link.

I think there's an experiential difference between getting angry at a term because you know it's unacceptable to others (or even because it's 'politically required' to get angry, sigh...) on the one hand, and getting angry because you feel personally hurt by it on the other (maybe that's obvious, but I wanted to say it anyway).

Terms like ->-bleeped-<- and queer hurt me, so I feel angry in consequence. they hurt because I've experienced people using them like a weapon, intended to hurt me. If you haven't had that experience, it's harder to empathise, especially if you're used to using e.g. queer as a positive self-identity.

In the UK, at least, ->-bleeped-<- has always been a derogatory term, pretty much used against anyone who wants to pass but doesn't. I've watched teenagers reduce a young transwoman to tears using this on a train a few years ago, and I'm still ashamed I didn't intervene somehow, but I couldn't see any way not to make the situation worse for her (and of course I was too scared).

As for queer, amongst younger people who are comfortable with the term I notice a tendency to be ageist in dismissing others' discomfort with the term, saying "oh, that's just something old guys don't like hearing." I don't like it because it hurts to hear it; after a childhood of being whipped by it, I have scars - it even hurts for me to hear other people calling themselves that, though they're happy to do so. So it goes. But it doesn't make me angry unless it's being used as a weapon.

I can feel the humour in ->-bleeped-<-dar, but t-dar is cooler (less syllables, so sounds more like gaydar anyway!)

I think some of you guys react a little bit oversensitive to the fact that you are a TS,
of course you can call yourself a man or a woman...but you cannot excape the fact
that you are a TS as well. The sooner one comes to terms with that, the better.
And it also will make you less sensitive to the words some people use to describe us.

Quote from: Andy8715 on March 09, 2011, 05:54:33 PM

Said a lot better than I did.  Plus the term ->-bleeped-<- is really offensive and derogatory.

I can understand why a guy does not like the term. I however have no problem with it.

Quote from: Birgitta on March 10, 2011, 04:51:57 AMAnd it also will make you less sensitive to the words some people use to describe us.

[editing out my initial passive-aggressive resonse ]

There is a difference between having someone call you trangender, and having someone call you "a ->-bleeped-<-". What we choose to call ourselves isn't at issue, it's how the terms are used towards other people, and with what intention. What makes a term offensive? It's not simply that someone takes offence at it. It's always contextual, after all. In this case, people are offended by being called ->-bleeped-<- because they have been hurt by it - or because they know others have been or can be hurt by it. (I had forgotten until this thread was started that I was called "->-bleeped-<- boy" when I was 16 for wearing "girls' jeans" - I had no idea, I just went into a shop and bought some jeans I liked, but apparently the Sloopy label was officially Women's Territory - pff. Anyway, when I was called that, it was with definite intent to shame and hurt me, and it worked, since I was already vulnerable.)

It's a shame that this discussion so easily gets polarised into "You can't use this, it's universally offensive!" and "It doesn't offend me, so why should it bother you, and why can't I use it?"

Maybe a way through is just to point out that some people find a particular term hurtful, and to ask for that to be borne in mind when using it (rather than declare either that "it's never alright to use this, ever" or "it's fine because it's fine for me"). I know this is what some people were doing above, but it's very easy to get into side-taking (I'm still struggling to sound neutral ). Let's not - I think it's safe to assume that on this forum, we can give people the benefit of the doubt that they don't mean to offend - but also that if someone says they are hurt by something, they mean it.

Quote from: Birgitta on March 10, 2011, 04:51:57 AM
I think some of you guys react a little bit oversensitive

Never say this. Ever. When you say that, you are judging the legitimacy of other people's feelings. That's not acceptable. You don't know why I might be sensitive to something, so there's no way you can possibly know whether I'm being "over"-sensitive -- whatever that means. You can say, "That doesn't bother me" or "I don't understand why that bothers you" (assuming you're willing to listen to the reason), but calling people "oversensitive" is just plain unacceptable.

Quote from: yoxi on March 10, 2011, 02:07:01 AM
As for queer, amongst younger people who are comfortable with the term I notice a tendency to be ageist in dismissing others' discomfort with the term, saying "oh, that's just something old guys don't like hearing." I don't like it because it hurts to hear it; after a childhood of being whipped by it, I have scars - it even hurts for me to hear other people calling themselves that, though they're happy to do so. So it goes. But it doesn't make me angry unless it's being used as a weapon.

I can feel the humour in ->-bleeped-<-dar, but t-dar is cooler (less syllables, so sounds more like gaydar anyway!)

Yoxi, thanks for your response. I honestly thing the notion of "t-dar" is predicated on some pretty offensive notions to begin with (as people said above - Northern Jane, most concisely), which is why I'm okay with mockingly calling it "->-bleeped-<-dar," much like "angry ->-bleeped-<-" or other offensive stereotypes and similar ideas. I understand what you mean about "queer" and age, and I have come across that issue before. I think with "->-bleeped-<-" it's worse, because there has never been any connotation other than "freak." It's about the nastiest word I know. It's on par with that racist word which is not acceptable to be used by white people, even in quotations.

I wish the concept and word would evolve positive connotations. Feeling the obligation to not address another as kin while in public makes me feel more lonely sometimes.

We so need that secret handshake .

Quote from: Alyssa M. on March 10, 2011, 11:43:56 AMYoxi, thanks for your response. I honestly thing the notion of "t-dar" is predicated on some pretty offensive notions to begin with...

I understand this, I really just meant it was more innocuous than ->-bleeped-<-dar, not that it's completely innocuous - so if you're going to use it, at least use the version that doesn't have ->-bleeped-<- in it.

I find, like with gaydar, there's a poignant humour in the people it points to using it themselves - because it does speak of that pain of being singled out as "out of the norm", and the fear of being "spottable", alongside the longing for recogition by others in the same boat. People need something, and they make do.

I don't really care to have that kind of "kinship" with complete strangers. I think you're right about the action pointing to oneself - if you're really secure in your gender identity, you probably don't need to worry about others. But it's a little different: when someone pings your gaydar, that's awesome, because it means, "Hey, sweet, dating potential!" When you clock someone as trans, it means they're trans and they don't quite pass (at least to you), or they're cis and they look gender-variant. Nothing exciting about it, even if you don't make any value distinction between trans and cis people. A "secret handshake" wouldn't make it any better.

I have met other trans people in social contexts on several occasions, and most of the time I really didn't have anything to say to them; one became a really close friend -- because she's awesome and we have a lot in common, all questions of gender aside. I would like to live in a world where being trans (and visibly gender variant) was considered just as valid and desirable as being cis (and not very gender-variant), but even then I wouldn't care to have that kinship any more than I care to have some special kinship with other brunettes.

You and I have different needs, then! And perhaps it depends how far you are along the path of sorting all this out for yourself. I find that I've been gravitating towards people lately who then turn out to share this experience of gender-fluidity and questioning, in the same way that over the years, I've found myself getting close to people who then turn out to share an abuse history. We may not have more than that in common, but it's actually quite a lot, especially when we're looking for clarity in our experience (and non-condemnation from others) and can then reflect it off each other.

When someone pings my gaydar (or my bidar) I'm less excited about the dating potential (unless I'm attracted to them) and more excited by them being someone I don't feel the urge to hide things from.

I don't have in mind anything equivalent to that thing where Americans assume I must know this friend of theirs who lives in London - I don't want a secret handshake, any more than I want to wear a bloody parrot to show I'm polyamorous! - it's more like it's sometimes nice to meet a fellow Englander when I'm overseas, just for the dose of familiarity in a strange land.

I understand that Alyssa. I would like to live in a world where I would be considered just another woman as well. Hence my post above: my radar works less effectively now that I'm getting help. I really do not want to think of another person as gender variant, but I sometimes do, and there are those who embrace that as part of their identity. I spent the majority of my male life coping by "un-gendering" things. I'm afraid that it hurt me as much as it helped. I find some comfort in accepting the "trans woman" label, as opposed to "deformed woman." It's probably a denial thing. I hate to think of myself as deformed (though I am).

My radar goes off and I go "Sweet! Someone with a somewhat similar life experience!" Unfortunately, addressing those experiences can cause dysphoria (it does it to me sometimes), and that may be the entire depth of our interaction, but I find that people in general are awesome to talk to. Perhaps you're right, the whole thing should probably not be addressed. Though I think it's okay to be approached by another trans person.

Quote from: yoxi on March 10, 2011, 12:53:39 PM
I don't want a secret handshake, any more than I want to wear a bloody parrot to show I'm polyamorous!

Screw the handshake and trans IDing, but I could really go for the poly parrot idea. 

deal - you send me that pendant, and I'll send you the parrot I bought in a fit of something-or-other .

Quote from: yoxi on March 10, 2011, 06:30:58 AM
[editing out my initial passive-aggressive resonse ]

There is a difference between having someone call you trangender, and having someone call you "a ->-bleeped-<-". What we choose to call ourselves isn't at issue, it's how the terms are used towards other people, and with what intention. What makes a term offensive? It's not simply that someone takes offence at it. It's always contextual, after all. In this case, people are offended by being called ->-bleeped-<- because they have been hurt by it - or because they know others have been or can be hurt by it. (I had forgotten until this thread was started that I was called "->-bleeped-<- boy" when I was 16 for wearing "girls' jeans" - I had no idea, I just went into a shop and bought some jeans I liked, but apparently the Sloopy label was officially Women's Territory - pff. Anyway, when I was called that, it was with definite intent to shame and hurt me, and it worked, since I was already vulnerable.)

It's a shame that this discussion so easily gets polarised into "You can't use this, it's universally offensive!" and "It doesn't offend me, so why should it bother you, and why can't I use it?"

Maybe a way through is just to point out that some people find a particular term hurtful, and to ask for that to be borne in mind when using it (rather than declare either that "it's never alright to use this, ever" or "it's fine because it's fine for me"). I know this is what some people were doing above, but it's very easy to get into side-taking (I'm still struggling to sound neutral ). Let's not - I think it's safe to assume that on this forum, we can give people the benefit of the doubt that they don't mean to offend - but also that if someone says they are hurt by something, they mean it.

Hi Yoxi...

I have been bullied througout my entire childhood into my teenage years and even beyond...
I was a bit insensitive to descride it the way I did, but the intention behind it was not wrong...

And Alyssa! It's actually BECAUSE I am so very sensitive I HAD to find other ways to cope for myself... I
dont want to be hurt, and to some extend I do have control over that now,

I am a M2F.... and I am at a point in my life now where I have learned that people can call me what they
want... I will wear how they describe me with charm....

You know a girlfriend TS of mine at one time walked into a guy in the streets that shouted... "Oh my God! Look a ->-bleeped-<-!"
To which she replied (pretending to be offended in her most charming feminine voice): "But I am a man!"
the guy was silenced inmediately.

I think this attitude works best most of the time.
I have decided to no longer let what other people think about me, ruin my mood or upset me, because I really dont think that's worth it.

Love Birgitta

I don't have ->-bleeped-<- dar. I was checking out a cute girl and then someone pointed out she was a transgirl.  She was cute tho.

Sometimes I think I see other transguys but its hard to tell.

early in my transition a transguy (who i did not know was trans at first) asked me if i was. i was like 'hooray! how cool!' but now i look back and feel like i wasnt' passing, even though everyone else was reading me as male. so.... i don't know; i think some trans folks do have trans-dar.

Sorry for another post but I think part of it might be that we are more sensitive to it.

An ex. of what I mean: When I went to get fingerprinted for work the woman who did my fingerprints was either a very feminine man (ears pierced with pearl earrings in, dress, and heels) or a very masculine looking female and because I'm trans I made a point of avoiding pronouns. Had I not been trans and been sensitive to that I probably would have just picked a gender and stuck with it.

I prefer "transdar". My 'dar is broken though just like my gaydar, mood-dar, and acedar.

I don't take my transdar too seriously. They could just be a physically or personality variant cisgendered individual.

I'm curious - what does an "acedar" do? Does it detect aces in someone's poker hand, or does it detect cedar trees?

This topic has given me some ideas about how dystopian trans fiction might look like...

*fiction*

"In a not so distant future, in a gender totalitarian regime, they are the ones spotting the trans...

"Excuse ma'am, we need to look between your legs. Please gyno officer, proceed!

"Sergeant, this one has undoubtedly had some GRS perfomed in exile.

"Right, take this thing to the genetic lab for judiciary chromosome evidence"

*/fiction*

Without med check there are many cis women who one could spot as false positives, and this has not only happened to me (we know what to look at), but to some friends of mine. As there is no anti-trans-police, you can only guess... Still, I must admit that I am slightly paranoid when going out, even in the hideous "male" role, but I am growing to care less and less, and I hope one day my radar will be put on stand-by.