Advertisement
by Geneviev » Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:19 pm
by The V O I D » Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:26 pm
Geneviev wrote:So as I was watching episodes of America's Got Talent that I missed, I saw a trans guy who's a good singer (Brody Ray I think his name was). That was cool.
But why is it never trans girls? It's like people like me still don't exist.
by Khasinkonia » Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:18 pm
Geneviev wrote:So as I was watching episodes of America's Got Talent that I missed, I saw a trans guy who's a good singer (Brody Ray I think his name was). That was cool.
But why is it never trans girls? It's like people like me still don't exist.
by Geneviev » Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:22 pm
The V O I D wrote:Geneviev wrote:So as I was watching episodes of America's Got Talent that I missed, I saw a trans guy who's a good singer (Brody Ray I think his name was). That was cool.
But why is it never trans girls? It's like people like me still don't exist.
There was a transwoman on the show a year or two ago, as a comedian. IIRC, anyway.
by New Greater Netherlands » Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:46 pm
Grenartia wrote:Oudland wrote:Trans folks sure do seem concerned about how other people speak.
Cis folks sure do seem concerned about how other people live their lives.Dumb Ideologies wrote:
Don't know the official reason people don't like it as I'm not actively involved (surprise, surprise!) in any activist groups. But to me it's a word that doesn't work very well because it makes it sound almost as if being transgender is something that was done to them? "Oh no, I've been transgendered!!!" Feels like it plays into the semantic web of transphobic implications about it not being "natural" and people being tricked into it by some evil conspiracy of doctors or psychiatrists like the phobefems and religionists argue. It doesn't upset me personally, but I've always thought it sounds awkward.
That's actually the general consensus.New Greater Netherlands wrote:
So i am actually then a woman? (Ofc i am a woman but i hope you get it)
I feel like I'm missing some context here.
De Telegraaf: In Brussels there were violent protests against the current government and against the Christian Conservative policy between 19:00 and 21:30. Minister of the Belgian States Kees van der Staaij says he wants to have a talk with the rebels, since this has to be arranged through the House of Representatives and / or the King (with other officials: The Ministers have little to say) van der Staaij is going to have between 23:00 and 4:00 a debate in the Lower House with Minister-President Dave Hagen and the other Political Parties
by Jelmatt » Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:57 pm
New Greater Netherlands wrote:Grenartia wrote:
Cis folks sure do seem concerned about how other people live their lives.
That's actually the general consensus.
I feel like I'm missing some context here.
Well, Geneviev said Transgender shouldn't be a noun, thus i asked her if i am actually a woman, but ofc i am but i would describe myself currently as a transwoman and a woman. Or I misunderstood it
by Khasinkonia » Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:31 pm
Jelmatt wrote:New Greater Netherlands wrote:
Well, Geneviev said Transgender shouldn't be a noun, thus i asked her if i am actually a woman, but ofc i am but i would describe myself currently as a transwoman and a woman. Or I misunderstood it
You're a transgender woman (note how it's an adjective), and a woman, but you're not "a transgender," is what I think she was trying to say.
by Luna Amore » Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:46 pm
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Luna Amore wrote:Huh. TIL.
I think it's probably because male, female and gender are all nouns that you can naturally follow that to using transgender as a noun. Etymologically it makes sense in my head and I don't understand why it's offensive, but TIL none-the-less.
Don't know the official reason people don't like it as I'm not actively involved (surprise, surprise!) in any activist groups. But to me it's a word that doesn't work very well because it makes it sound almost as if being transgender is something that was done to them? "Oh no, I've been transgendered!!!" Feels like it plays into the semantic web of transphobic implications about it not being "natural" and people being tricked into it by some evil conspiracy of doctors or psychiatrists like the phobefems and religionists argue. It doesn't upset me personally, but I've always thought it sounds awkward.
Grenartia wrote:I think you missed the point of saying that. It wasn't to make a factual claim. It was to point out the stupidity of Oudland's statement, by making a similarly-stupid one.
by The Parkus Empire » Sun Jul 01, 2018 12:04 am
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Luna Amore wrote:Huh. TIL.
I think it's probably because male, female and gender are all nouns that you can naturally follow that to using transgender as a noun. Etymologically it makes sense in my head and I don't understand why it's offensive, but TIL none-the-less.
Don't know the official reason people don't like it as I'm not actively involved (surprise, surprise!) in any activist groups. But to me it's a word that doesn't work very well because it makes it sound almost as if being transgender is something that was done to them? "Oh no, I've been transgendered!!!" Feels like it plays into the semantic web of transphobic implications about it not being "natural" and people being tricked into it by some evil conspiracy of doctors or psychiatrists like the phobefems and religionists argue. It doesn't upset me personally, but I've always thought it sounds awkward.
by The Serbian Empire » Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:41 pm
Luna Amore wrote:Dumb Ideologies wrote:
Don't know the official reason people don't like it as I'm not actively involved (surprise, surprise!) in any activist groups. But to me it's a word that doesn't work very well because it makes it sound almost as if being transgender is something that was done to them? "Oh no, I've been transgendered!!!" Feels like it plays into the semantic web of transphobic implications about it not being "natural" and people being tricked into it by some evil conspiracy of doctors or psychiatrists like the phobefems and religionists argue. It doesn't upset me personally, but I've always thought it sounds awkward.
When terms go from widely accepted in the community to on the outs and offensive within a decade, I would think there'd be more of a solid reasoning then what reads as vague feelings about the sound and hypothetical implications. Those terms don't inherently have offense in them, right? They were accepted in the community in recent memory. And transgendered just follows the same pattern as gendered. Maybe some would prefer one term over another but preference doesn't mean non-preferential words are now defacto offensive. It just seems counter-intuitive to a community moving toward acceptance.
I mean, cisgender as a word sounds pretty terrible. It honestly brings up images of a snake in my mind. Etymologically, it makes sense though. But is it reasonable for me to not want to be called it just because of how it sounds? Is that a reasonable offense to have and to expect other people to care about, or is it far more sensible for me to realize that there is nothing inherently offensive with how that term came about or what it means and it's really just my personal issue with the sound? That it's more likely that people who use it aren't trying to disparage me or offend me, they are just using the vocabulary they know to relate to me.
Even from an individual standpoint this is a weird tack to take. It implies a group identity rather than treating transgender people as individuals with individual peeves and offenses. E.g. 'This is what you should avoid saying when referring or talking to us'. vs 'I don't care if you call me a transgender. It's not all that important.'
The more hurdles there are between you and someone you want to understand you and who you are, the less likely that common ground is going to be reached. No one has to put in the effort to try and understand your life. This is true of every person on the planet. I would think since more acceptance and understanding is one of the end goals, the less hurdles the better, no? Obviously, you aren't going to win over everyone to understanding because no one does and really who would try? But to illustrate the conflict: I actually stopped, saved this post, and hesitated before submitting it. When there's a list of 'don'ts' involved that don't seem to have a clear-cut reason to be there, the chance of pissing off someone seems inevitabile. Why invite the grief?Grenartia wrote:I think you missed the point of saying that. It wasn't to make a factual claim. It was to point out the stupidity of Oudland's statement, by making a similarly-stupid one.
Which part of the statement did you have an issue with? Because after reading through GLAAD's Transgender Media Reference Guide, there's a pretty long list of "Don't say this, avoid this, don't say that" ranging from 'well, obviously that's offensive' to 'why are you nit-picking that much?' And as said, a good portion goes against what it would have said not that long ago. If there's going to be a guide to follow, it's not unreasonable that some people could be a bit overwhelmed by the seemingly unnecessary nuance and size of it. Sure, that's a media guide, but from the sounds of this conversation, it might as well be a guide for the general populace. Most subsets of people don't come with a media guide of what not to say. Is it really that surprising that some people are going to balk at being given a list of what to avoid, what not to say and how to phrase their speech?
by The Blaatschapen » Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:46 pm
The Parkus Empire wrote:Dumb Ideologies wrote:
Don't know the official reason people don't like it as I'm not actively involved (surprise, surprise!) in any activist groups. But to me it's a word that doesn't work very well because it makes it sound almost as if being transgender is something that was done to them? "Oh no, I've been transgendered!!!" Feels like it plays into the semantic web of transphobic implications about it not being "natural" and people being tricked into it by some evil conspiracy of doctors or psychiatrists like the phobefems and religionists argue. It doesn't upset me personally, but I've always thought it sounds awkward.
It makes me think of a DeLorean that goes into different genders. "You discovered the flux capacitor, which is what makes transgender possible."
by Jelmatt » Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:59 pm
Khasinkonia wrote:Jelmatt wrote:
You're a transgender woman (note how it's an adjective), and a woman, but you're not "a transgender," is what I think she was trying to say.
Different style imo. I prefer how transwoman looks because I’m a slut for agglutination but I know lots of folks look at the word as a solid object rather than a noun with an adjective attached.
by Grenartia » Mon Jul 02, 2018 3:59 pm
Luna Amore wrote:Grenartia wrote:I think you missed the point of saying that. It wasn't to make a factual claim. It was to point out the stupidity of Oudland's statement, by making a similarly-stupid one.
Which part of the statement did you have an issue with? Because after reading through GLAAD's Transgender Media Reference Guide, there's a pretty long list of "Don't say this, avoid this, don't say that" ranging from 'well, obviously that's offensive' to 'why are you nit-picking that much?' And as said, a good portion goes against what it would have said not that long ago. If there's going to be a guide to follow, it's not unreasonable that some people could be a bit overwhelmed by the seemingly unnecessary nuance and size of it. Sure, that's a media guide, but from the sounds of this conversation, it might as well be a guide for the general populace. Most subsets of people don't come with a media guide of what not to say. Is it really that surprising that some people are going to balk at being given a list of what to avoid, what not to say and how to phrase their speech?
by Khasinkonia » Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:25 am
Jelmatt wrote:Khasinkonia wrote:Different style imo. I prefer how transwoman looks because I’m a slut for agglutination but I know lots of folks look at the word as a solid object rather than a noun with an adjective attached.
I have no objections to "transwoman," honestly, that's an entirely orthographic difference, but the point remains that Geneviev wasn't objecting to the use of "trans woman/transwoman" but in saying "transgender" as a synonym for "transness" or "gender variance" or "transgenderism," and presumably also to saying a trans person is "a transgender."
by Jelmatt » Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:28 am
Khasinkonia wrote:Jelmatt wrote:
I have no objections to "transwoman," honestly, that's an entirely orthographic difference, but the point remains that Geneviev wasn't objecting to the use of "trans woman/transwoman" but in saying "transgender" as a synonym for "transness" or "gender variance" or "transgenderism," and presumably also to saying a trans person is "a transgender."
Some level of me really doesn’t care if I’m referred to as an “annoying tranny” or some shit like that by the government as long as I get coverage and the stuff I need tbh. Like just gimme my titty skittles and spirits already and be on with it.
by Khasinkonia » Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:35 am
Jelmatt wrote:Khasinkonia wrote:Some level of me really doesn’t care if I’m referred to as an “annoying tranny” or some shit like that by the government as long as I get coverage and the stuff I need tbh. Like just gimme my titty skittles and spirits already and be on with it.
Honestly, that's probably a really good attitude to take, but not everyone is mentally... prepared? For that, I suppose.
by The New California Republic » Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:57 am
Val Halla wrote:Should hear about my next GIC appointment soon
by Vassenor » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:06 am
The New California Republic wrote:Val Halla wrote:Should hear about my next GIC appointment soon
GIC? What's that.
Oh and also, so called "conversion therapy" to be banned in the UK soon: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44686374
by Jong Un » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:19 am
by Khasinkonia » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:25 am
Jong Un wrote:THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS...
by The New California Republic » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:26 am
Jong Un wrote:THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS...
by Dumb Ideologies » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:29 am
Jong Un wrote:THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS...
by Khasinkonia » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:30 am
by The New California Republic » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:39 am
Khasinkonia wrote:The New California Republic wrote:Nah, there aren't. Also, SHOUTING doesn't somehow make your quip any more valid...
Would quip really be the right word here? A quip is defined as a witty remark, which breaks essentially to a comment showing or characterised by quick and inventive humour. I’m not seeing it tbh. “There are only two genders” is a joke so overdone it became part of some mainstream religions.
This is a quipDumb Ideologies wrote:
Oh goody. Another one from the "only two genders and only one volume" brigade.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Almonaster Nuevo, Ancientania, Elejamie, Foxyshire, Kreushia, Mavenu, Neu California, New haven america, Port Carverton, Spirit of Hope, Tungstan
Advertisement