- mtf/ftm: these place way too much emphasis on birth assignment and reinforce a binary view of gender. you should instead use trans woman/trans man (note the space) for binary-identified trans people
- male-bodied/female-bodied: these gender people’s bodies, as much as you want “sex” to be “separate” from “gender”. you use these terms to mean “person with penis” and “person with vagina” so stop euphemizing and just say those instead.
- tranny: if you are not a trans feminine person do not say this ever ever ever
- preferred pronouns: this implies that there is some “real” set of pronouns and the pronouns that trans* and other people use are just what they prefer
- transgendered: transgender is already an adjective, you do not conjugate an adjective into an adjective
- transgenderism: calling being trans an “ism” implies that it is some sort of choice
- transsexual: this, to me, implies some difference between “real trans people” who seek out medical intervention and those “fake trans people” who don’t. although some people identify as a transsexual, you should still not use this term unless someone tells you they identify as such.
also the following things are not nouns:
But also some folks do ID as transsexual and their body, their choice but yeah
The term “transsexual” is not the problem, although I think we should stop using it as a noun and start using it as an adjective. The problem is thinking “transsexual” is mutually exclusive from “transgender” when it’s not.
“Transsexual” is a medical term, and we can debate whether or not we should be medicalizing any trans* bodies, but the fact remains that some trans* folk will seek hormones and surgeries in order to feel right in their bodies, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Other trans* folk don’t feel the need to seek hormones and surgeries, and there’s nothing wrong with that either. But either way, there is nothing but transsexual separatists’ say-so that segregates transsexuality from being transgender.
In contrast, I tend to regard “transgender” as a political term. It’s used to describe a group of people who experience similar oppressions based on (Western) societal concepts of gender and sex. It gives us a coalition that, if fully activated and aligned, can affect change that should benefit everyone in the long term. But for the coalition to work, we have to stop dividing one another based on access and desire for medical intervention—and that’s in part because the medical community is working from the very societal concepts of gender and sex that we challenge.
That’s why I call myself “medically transsexual but politically transgender.”
I’m guessing from the lack of marked race in the OP’s bio, that she is white. (and… if white: why do you list all of those but leave your race unmarked???)
Looking over the notes, it looks like many people are having the same problem with this that I am:
who is the audience for this post. who is named by ‘non-comprehensive list of trans terms you should stop using’. Like. Who is this ‘you’???
Because if this is intended for cis people, sure, okay. Yeah. I mean, as long as it has the caveat of ‘people’s self IDs over-ride this list’.
But it if is directed towards the trans community.
And it is written by a white person:
this just has the unpleasant odour of yet another white trans person attempting to exert hegemonic control over trans/gender discourse.
some of these terms are problematic when uncritically used by cis people. one is just slur.
but for the terms, including the slur, that trans people use to identify themselves
it is incredibly galling to see the implication of the OP that people’s IDs are problematic.
as much distaste as I personally have for trans discourse that focuses heavily on bodies, that doesn’t mean that the trans people who experience their gender as fundamentally rooted in their bodies, or who’s gendered experiences are deeply physical, is somehow invalid. nor should they feel obligated to name their experiences in any way other than what pleases them.
As someone who uses “preferred pronoun” for myself, I agree. “They” IS my preferred pronoun because English doesn’t have a pronoun that accurately genders me. Yeah, we’ve invented some “gender neutral pronouns” but they are in no way in common circulation or even in common discourse. And some of them sound exactly like gendered pronouns and if they don’t they’re difficult to learn and get my head around. That’s English’s shortcoming, not mine.
My “real” pronoun is one with no gender. That doesn’t exist in English in common forms, so they IS my “preferred pronoun”.
I may or may not have drawn a series of Edgar Allan Poe cartoon portraits and put it on my english teachers office door….
Native North American couple, Situwuka and Katkwachsnea. 1912.
leaves bird unattended 1 minute
suddenly glove party
Indigenous people of Brazil trying to prevent their eviction from an old indigenous museum which they have been living in for the past 7 years.
On March 22nd all of the inhabitants and their supporters were forcibly removed or arrested.
The building is being destroyed to make a parking lot :(
This is Coy Mathis, a transgender 6 year old living in Colorado. It just so happens that my brother is in her class at Eagleside Elementary School in Fountain, Colorado. When I asked my brother how he felt about Coy he said, “She’s got really cool hair and we play on the slides at recess.” I asked what he thought about Coy’s decision to be a girl and he said, “She is a girl. She just got the wrong body on accident.” How is a 6 year old more understanding and accepting of her than many of the adults at Eagleside Elementary?
This is something that shows up in studies repeatedly: kids generally don’t have a problem with gender “nonconformity” until they’ve been indoctrinated into cissexism by adults. So, yep. If there’s anything “natural” or “innocent” here, it is in fact the acceptance, not the bigotry.
Canada needs a national strategy to combat violence against indigenous women and girls, says a United Nations summary report on human rights.
The United Nations Human Rights Council has adopted the report on the Universal Periodic Review of Canada’s human rights record, which included recommendations from several countries. The report, released in Geneva today, summarizes Canada’s UPR — a global accountability process that monitors a country’s compliance with international human rights laws. All UN member countries undergo such a review every four years. Recommendations included establishing a national centre for missing persons and unidentified remains, police task forces to investigate cases and community safe plans.
Human Rights Watch, a New York-based watchdog, said the report shows the federal government has failed to adequately address the high number of murders and disappearances of aboriginals over the last four decades. “It is not surprising that violence against indigenous women and girls figured so prominently in the discussion of Canada’s human rights record,” said Liesl Gerntholtz, women’s rights director at Human Rights Watch, in a statement Tuesday. “It reflects the persistent insecurity faced by women and girls, the urgent need for a public accounting of what has gone wrong for so long, and a robust national plan for addressing it going forward.”
In response to the report, the federal government defended its record Tuesday, noting it has introduced legislation to try to ensure families on reserves have similar rights as other Canadians. “The proposed legislation will address violence against individuals living on reserve, especially Aboriginal women and their children, by allowing courts emergency protection orders to remove a violent partner from the home,” said Andrea Richer, press secretary to Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt.
A scathing report released in February by Human Rights Watch accused some police officers of harshly mistreating native women and girls in northern B.C. That report contained unproven allegations by several northern B.C. women and girls who say they were abused physically or sexually by police.
In February, the federal government established an all-party committee in Canada’s House of Commons to hold hearings on the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women and propose solutions to address root causes of violence. Human Rights Watch said while the move is a step in the right directions, it is not a substitute for a national commission of inquiry with independent powers beyond those of a parliamentary committee.
VIOLENCE NO MORE.