OK, I’m getting that there’s a lot of lively debate in the LGBT community about which terminology in what contexts is appropriate and/or offensive for which audiences.
What I’d like to know is: are we still allowed to laugh at the Shémale shirt gag from Arrested Development?
In 1851, Punch described Bloomerism, in quite scathing terms
A mad world this, my friends, a world in its lunes, petty and other, in lunes other than petty now for sometime; in pettilunes, pettilettes, or pantalettes, about these six weeks, ever since when this rampant androgynous Bloomerism first came over from Yankee land. A sort of shemale dress you call Bloomerism; a fashion of Sister Jonathan;s. Trousers tight at ankles, and for most part frilled, tunic descending with some degree of brevity, perhaps to knees, ascending to throat and open at chemissette-front, or buttoned there; collar turned down over neckerchief, and crowning all, broad brimmed hat…
So it would seem inappropriate to describe drag queens as shemales.
Note: Please don’t do things like paste in stuff from other venues (like Twitter) and demand people get angry about it and do something about it. The subject is fraught enough without blatant stirring.
I’m sorry: BoingBoing endorses an article from an author who is basically calling trans women skin transvestites and suggesting trans women are serial killers and you’re getting upset at me for bringing this up?
Seriously?
I’m not asking for people to get angry about it, I’m asking for a response from BoingBoing whether this is something that trans people should expect from authors of pieces to BoingBoing, or whether BoingBoing is endorsing these views, or whether BoingBoing considers harassment of people an acceptable thing for its contributing authors to be doing.
Because if asking these questions is considered “blatant stirring”, I think I’m fucking done with BoingBoing and their pandering to people like this.
Yours sincerely – this very unhappy mutant.
If the author is harassing the target of the article and engaging in misgendering, slurs, and selective outrage while condemning those same things in the article, then that is absolutely relevant. The article is about Twitter outrage and if the author is saying one thing here while doing vicious things on Twitter then clearly she’s not actually concerned with raising LGBT discourse and thus wrote this article for another purpose. I don’t expect anyone to get angry about it but I expect people to consider that they’re getting a highly-biased, one-sided view of things, and consider if their support of the few good ideals in the article is being used for the author’s personal vendetta and smear campaign.
It all started with Gutenberg, putting those nice Monks out of work. The bastards.
The problem is that the twitter exchange is happening on twitter, and importing it in en-masse derails whatever discussion is happening here – especially when followed by the entirely unhelpful demand “What the hell is BoingBoing going to do about this now?”
This just looks like an effort to get Boing Boing to take collective responsibility for a contributor’s personal opinions on Twitter. Some of us will have personal opinions on the subject, but Boing Boing doesn’t have an opinion, because Boing Boing is not a person.
Andrea published the original post, of course, and I’m happy to have it on BB.
This thread could have gone to pot pretty fast, but I think there’s been some excellent discussion, including strong disagreements–in more than 140 characters.
So we’re NOT supposed to use any terms unless they’re approved by the people they apply to, as non-offensive and non inflammatory.
But we’re SUPPOSED to use cis to describe straight people, even though 90% of the time I see cis used outside of trans* circles it’s because some MRA dude is whining about being called a cis-sy? Many cis people that are aware of the word cis balk at the very idea, because privilege, but we can ignore that because it’s ‘scientifically accurate and neutral’.
Which is it? I’m seeing both arguments pushed pretty hard.
I think it’s more that, should you happen to use a derogatory term to describe a group of people, you cease using it once you’ve been informed by said group that it’s offensive and why it’s derogatory. Then, if you’re a courteous person, and your intention isn’t to say bad things about people, you would stop using the word. I don’t think that’s that difficult.
Cisgender doesn’t describe heterosexual people. It describes people whose sex and gender identity match the gender they were assigned at birth. In essence it’s the opposite of trans, but was coined so that, in discussions of gender identity, the default position is undefined. It’s similar to saying someone is heterosexual or homosexual, instead of saying someone is “non-gay” or “non-straight”. Or that someone is white, black, hispanic, etc., instead of “non-white”, “non-black”, and so on.
Privilege is relevant to the discussion because many cisgender people object to having their gender identity status labeled, preferring to consider it the normal or default position since there are more cisgender people than transgender people. Since the term isn’t intended to be derogatory, and I don’t see how its meaning can be construed to be derogatory, any objection to its use is likely related to one’s cisgender privilege.
If a person does not want to be labeled as cisgender, though, I think it’s also fair that they cease using transgender as a label for trans people.
Language doesn’t work like that.
MRA? What the hell is a MRA? Should I as a dude become a MRA, whatever that might be? Would that simplify things for you?
Language doesn’t work like what?
Language is a complex system based on the needs of a community of speakers to maintain and promote mutual understandability. It’s not governed by top-down concerns over whether this or that linguistic construction is logical. Attempts to change the “rules” of language to serve some ideological purpose are doomed to failure.
We add new words, cease using old ones, and modify the meanings of existing words all the time. I don’t disagree that the majority of a language’s speakers may not adopt new words or terminology, and they may not care what words are appropriate for describing which concepts. But I don’t feel that’s relevant to discussions about specific groups of people by those and related groups of people. People who refuse to adopt the correct terminology will find themselves unable to participate in a meaningful way in discussions on those topics.
And who suggested that the “rules” of language be changed?
People who refuse to adopt the correct terminology will find themselves unable to participate in a meaningful way in discussions on those topics.
Correct Terminology? By what standard?
Per the discussion or the community in which the discussion is occurring. If you want to discuss physics with a bunch of physicists, you’re going to have a really difficult time if you won’t use the terminology and nomenclature the physicists and other participants use. The same is true for pretty much any topic.
The statement itself answers your question. The “correct terminology” would be the terminology that allows you to participate meaningfully in the discussion. The statement could be reworded, “People who want to participate in discussions on will have to use terminology that is acceptable and understandable to other people who want to have those discussions.”
Reading akp’s post to which you responded:
I’m having a really tough time understanding what you are getting at. I don’t think akp implied anywhere that language was governed by “top-down concerns” or that there is any body to impose rules.
. If you want to discuss physics with a bunch of physicists, you’re going to have a really difficult time if you won’t use the terminology and nomenclature the physicists and other participants.
Physicists are better able to make absolute truth claims than Political Scientists, but this is not because of jargon.
terminology that allows you to participate meaningfully in the discussion.
there isn’t one single, privileged discussion, and “participate meaningfully” isn’t an objective standard.
I don’t know why you think I’ve said something I haven’t. I never stated that any words represent “absolute truth”, that any “rules of language” should be redefined, or that somehow all linguistic rules should be enacted with a top-down approach to further ideology.
I explained what the word “cisgender” means, why it is used, and explained that it has no derogatory meaning or intent. Some might use it derisively, but anyone can use any word derisively if you want to be rude or hurtful. Your argument seems to be that, since not everyone will use the word, the word is meaningless. Except that many, many people (both transgender and cisgender) use the word in discussions regarding gender identity every day.
If you simply dislike the word, that’s fine. If you think the word is used unfairly or is unnecessary, feel free to explain why you think that. Otherwise, what is your point?
