Why is it that '->-bleeped-<-' and derivatives thereof are considered no-no words?

I know that it is the equivalent of other epithets (see 'n' word ) And I would never considering calling myself and much less anyone else by it.

And yet, I feel like  our community should take ownership of the word and change the connotation.

Thoughts?

It's the connotation of the word. I mean, I use it all the time ironically, but let's be honest; when it's used by most people, especially cisgender people, it's used to dehumanize trans folk.

I don't mind it unless there is a hateful / distateful context to it. It's easier to say than transsexual or transgendered.. I like trans the most though

Quote from: Guantanamera on January 08, 2012, 11:04:55 PM
Why is it that '->-bleeped-<-' and derivatives thereof are considered no-no words?

I know that it is the equivalent of other epithets (see 'n' word ) And I would never considering calling myself and much less anyone else by it.

And yet, I feel like  our community should take ownership of the word and change the connotation.

Thoughts?

Girl i'm a ->-bleeped-<-.
I empower  the word, plus i'm on a youtube channel called ->-bleeped-<-stargalactica.

Quote from: Alainaluvsu on January 09, 2012, 07:10:33 AM
It's easier to say than transsexual or transgendered.. I like trans the most though

My thoughts exactly! Transgender/Transsexual is just too long to spit out in a sentence.

(Besides, I can't even think about saying 'transsexual' without an image of Tim Curry in RHPS)

Is as whit every label word...is not the  word..is who and how  is used.
Is like niger, gay, ->-bleeped-<-, bitch, and so many others, is the "standar" people (and what is standar change   whit every word xD thats is ironic) who give the bad  charge to a word