Time to revise our Terminology.. and more [Archive]

battybattybats

05-23-2010, 12:48 PM

We have a problem.

Much of our terminology is sexist, transphobic or just plain innacurate.

In Australian human rights circles already there is a new term to replace Transgender as the community/issues umbrella term so as to be more inclusive of diversity and be more accurate. The new term is S&GD or Sex and Gender Diversity. That way it can include Intersex people, Transsexuals of strong binary-gender identity who feel that transgender does not describe them as their gender is quite fixed not 'trans' at all as well as less binary transsexuals, bi-gender, genderqueer, crossdressers etc. So we may all band together for the sake of each others human rights while also recognising we are not all the same but varied and diverse.

This can also be extended to SS&GD Sexuality Sex and Gender Diversity. Which is much more rational and fair and inclusive and less cumbersome than GLBTTIQQ etc.

Well we have some other problems.

This term used amongst many crossdresser comunities of GG. Genetic Girl. It's offensive to some and also scientifically inaccurate.

Two different genes correlated with transsexuals have been discovered so far, one amongst FtM's and the other amongst MtFs. We know that epigenetic switches can be triggered to create Intersex Neurological condiitions in mice that mirrors that of transsexuals too. A genetic cause of having a female neuroanatomy in a male mouse body. (I think the gene was SOX9 iirc).

Brain scans and dissections of the brains of MtF transsexuals show they have female brains.

Then we need to recognise that 1 in 60 people is Intersex, chromasomally mixed between male and female, often without knowing it, more common amongst transgender people than non-transgender people yet still very very common and few of any of us are tested for it. This also really needs to be acknowledged in our community.

So many people (1 in 60 rmember) that think they are 'G.G.'s' aren't really G.G.'s anyway! But unknowingly Intersex. While Transsexual Girls really have Girls brains (even down to the neuron count of the Lymbic Nucleus) and genes that cause them to be so.

So if the term 'G.G.' is wrong do we have any better terms? Well there's some which exist automatically.

Trans is part of our language. Trans-atlantic, Trans-siberian railroad, transact, transgress, transcend, transvestite, transsexual. There is an opposite to Trans. It's Cis. It's used less often but it means the opposite of Trans.

So we have cisgender and we have cissexual. Instead of G.G.'s and Transwomen there'd be Ciswomen and Transwomen. Both women.

And the strongly binary-gender transsexuals i mentioned? They'd be Cisgender Transsexuals, others like crossdressers would be Transgender Cissexuals. and of course there's Cisgender Cissexuals and Transgender Intersex and Cisgender Intersex.

What do you think? Is this a more respectful alternative? A more accurate one? Anyone have other alternatives?

This also speaks to other serious issues. We have tolerated systemic irrational sexism transphobia and homophobia too long in our communities. It's time we started properly exploring ourselves and our systems for these problems and started to change that. To ensure fairness, equality and progress.

It's time to start reforming crossdresser society, including online communities, to raise the standard we apply to ourselves and the respect we show to others, to improve our own recognition of and adherance too the human rights of all... for if we do not then we reinforce the problems with our inaction.

The Gas Man Cometh

05-23-2010, 01:06 PM

Actually the bigger problem here is that people will just think this is YOUR idea and that YOU have the problem. They will not easily recognise the intrinsic problem the term GG has in and of itself, BY itself in its existence.
However, the more people on this thread alone who put up their hands and openly admit the term GG offends them the more it will take the negative light off you, Bats.

Moving on, the way the term GG hurts me is it sticks me in a box I feel I don't wholly belong in. I can only ever be a GG as long as this term exists, because as a FtM CDer I struggle to be recognised. People only see me as a GG and don't care to think I'm actually CDing when I wear "men's clothing."

Sometimes I feel alienated on this site itself as I don't feel I can truly belong while I still battle internalised oppression in thinking I'm not really a CDer anyway. I'm certainly not a TS, though I am TG to some variant and degree.
Now, the main trouble with alienation is segregation. There are strict homes for strict versions of S&GD people for this site, instead of it being one giant, open and free flowing party of like-minded people.

I'm going to be brave and walk out on a limb here and say that the segregated and secret club houses for people of particular labels is a damage to this society. Sure it's a good idea on paper, but when it's implemented it leaves a very easy door open for people like myself, who float about unsure of ourselves to feel alienated most of the time and like we don't really fit anywhere here because there can't possibly be a strict and secret club house for every single in-betweener here or we'd only have one main site with nothing on it except new club houses being made each and every day that houses only 1 or 2 people.

Sigh.

Sauron

05-23-2010, 01:30 PM

I have spoken about this at great length on my blog...

I have made a very real and binding commitment to be that which I have always been... a woman.

It has become increasingly difficult for me to accept barriers which patently reinforce a social attitude that I am not. I often use the term 'I'm just a Lisa' and that is really all I am... just a Lisa. I know I am the cause of much of the thinking behind this thread... and yes I really do loathe the use of chromosonal superiority in making me feel less than I have fought my whole life to be.

If only you could understand the pain... the sacrifices... and work that has gone into achieving my second class status on transgender sites. My clinics mark me as F... there are other F's here... but what are we here?

Batty is right... it is a great opportunity to take the lead over others in recognising the equality of all members. I left a site because of how TS's viewed CD's and I was called a 'transsexual hater' for the privilege...

I don't want to leave somewhere I think of as home again... I'm just tired... All the energy I have expended in getting where I have has cost me more than I care to mention. I was asked today why I'm thinking of leaving... Truth is I don't have the will to fight anymore... I'm all burned out...

Reality is I'm an F, a Ms, a female and a woman... those are plenty enough labels for me and they are inclusive... not exclusive.

Lisa xxxx

The Gas Man Cometh

05-23-2010, 01:41 PM

Lisa we want to help you help us. I told you earlier that the reason I've not been active myself is because I was hesitant TO become so active as I figured what's the point? I don't really belong anyway, I'm usually viewed as "not really a CDer anyway."

I understand you feel burnt out, maybe you just need a break but don't leave all together.

You've inspired me to come out of the shadows and quit lurking here.

battybattybats

05-23-2010, 01:56 PM

The law in my state recognises transsexuals as women, even down to the birth certificate. It's needing reform on bi-gender and Intersex issues but it's managed to treat people like Lisa as women in every legal regard for well over a decade.

The Mychigan Womyns Festival is considered a transphobic hate festival for it's insistance on 'womyn born womyn' and treating FtMs as women and refusing MtFs.

One festival just kicked out their headline act 3 days before the concert because she defended michfests transphobia.

Yet most crossdressing websites do not manage this. Most crossdressing sites are as transphobic as the legendary hate of the michigan festival.

Let us all think about that for a moment.

Here is a standard policy. For websites that are suppossed to be supportive, suppossed to exist for the good of the community. And yet decades behind stuck in Transphobia?

Yes there can be occassions where the issues specific to transsexuals need to be discussed. Same too for Cisgender and/or cissexual people faced with dealing with their transphobia. So sure we do need terms to delineate those things when needed.. and only when truly neccessary. Otherwise though we are reinforcing the transphobia and sexism that causes every one of us these problems in the first place.

It's imperative that we all accept the gender identity of all sex and gender diverse people. No exceptions. If we cannot even manage that as a community for those legally women then we have a very big problem.

Lisa Marie

05-23-2010, 03:06 PM

The Gas Man Cometh

05-23-2010, 03:15 PM

Lisa Marie, It's not about adding more labels, it's actually about taking lots away. Replacing strict and exclusive labels and covering them all in one go. Sure, keep your old labels and favourite ones to use on yourself but to enforce ones on other people is not fair at all. It's not about making it PC just to make someone else happy, it's about being able to keep the labels for yourself that YOU like, and being able to let others escape labels they DON'T like. You wouldn't want to be pinned/stuck with a label you hated, don't expect others to put up with it either.

battybattybats

05-23-2010, 03:20 PM

Sorry, I'm a crossdresser and I'm quite happy with that. I don't need even more labels put on me.
I don't need laws and a scientists or anyone else for that matter trying to make things PC to make someone else happy.

No-one's saying your not gonna be called a crossdresser anymore. And you already have the transgender label too. Gender Diversity covers crossdressers by the very basic meaning of the word. Your also Human too. Words describe things, thats what they are there for.

And if not being rude to people is PC and getting things right is PC then whats bad about PC again?

wendy

05-23-2010, 03:29 PM

excuse me .... were i see the problem is not with the right label ... group subgroup gender issue ... birth sex chosen gender by way of how one feels more comfy of that it is how the truly have to be to be complete ... labels and that all suck ... just my own thought ...

were the real root of the trouble is we should all accept each outher as persons ... careing.... acceptance .......understanding ... thats were we need to start ... all the labels mean nothing without that....

we are way away from this ever happening .... lol we fight and attack each outher right in the forums that should be here for our own persons.... i think we all need to clean our own houses accept each outher even with our own thoughts and needs differ than the others ....

lol i have seen tras what ever go after each outher .... go after Cd's ... and gg's as well as Cd's and gg's do the same .... i have see the guy's (fmt's ) get treated like they don't matter .... it's wrong ... it sucks ... and we as a group can be pretty disrespect full of each outher ...... want to change the world and make a warm fuzzy place for every one ??? .... then suck it up take a step back practice what you all want ... from everyone .... extend to everyone cd... trans... gg's ... the guys.... even those pig headed persons witrh a bad case of anal cranium inversion (they got their heads up their A S SES)......

again my opion this is no way a reflection on any one ....my thoughts lets all play nice and respect everyone ..... remember as normal as you ... me and all of us are we need to extend the feeling and thoughts to everyone even those you think are twisted or wrong.....

sophie scot

05-23-2010, 03:57 PM

Cassandra Lynn

05-23-2010, 04:00 PM

I'm very sorry that the whole label issue can cause pain to you Lisa and Gas Man (?), and others, and while i admire you Batty for doing what you do, the need for correctness can reach a point of critical mass.
Maybe color coded uniforms and numbers for everyone?
The unfortunate fact is that we as humans can't help but use labels as a means to differentiate, and since we are so diverse as individuals, some are going to be caught in the gaps. Which leads to the next unfortunate action, that is asking the question: who do we alienate more, the majority or the minority?
When i first found these types of sites (just last fall), i was fraught with trying to be just exactly PC and all perfect and i was hammered several times, prolly by just the kinds of embeciles you mentioned Lisa, ppl saying "you can't be that unless", or "no, you can only say this", my point being that the problem is not only the titles and terminology but the ppl who can't be bothered to use them correctly, the ppl who take delight in being purposefully vague or outright rude.
I ultimately took the approach that i'm whatever i feel i am or want to be, within reason of course. Those that take issue with that, can politely go f**k themselves.
IDK, my useless ramblings aren't solving anything, but Lisa, your going away would not solve anything either, and how are we supposed to learn how to better understand not only ourselves but you and others like you? There are too few women like you taking part on here as it is!
I'd better quit while i'm behind, i've told myself to stay away from these "over my head discussions", then did it anyways. mj (Cassie)

Sauron

05-23-2010, 04:17 PM

There are too few women like you taking part on here as it is!

And why do you think that is?

When I first joined a site I was a total unknown and then when I did my photos I became the focus of attention. PM's started arriving... Are you CD or TS? It was as though they were attempting to claim dominion over me... process... and package me.

I declared myself 'The Original Glamsexual' and that was an end to it...

Course I knew what I was, but I didn't want to be less than I was because people couldn't see beyond a two letter tag and what they considered it mean't. I'm more interested in the people and the number of pm's I receive tend to show they want to talk about things they feel unable to discuss in open forum... Generally questioning if they actually fit the category they had been nailed to by peer pressure.

My issue now... and it is my issue... is that I feel second class on these sites. Everyone comes here to be free... accepted. I have that outside. I am Lisa... I am female... I don't have to declare myself as non-GG, nor do my female friends ever consider me as anything other than female.

I don't expect people to understand... In fact I've quite given up expecting understanding. You ask how you can learn from me if I leave... well surely that would be a lesson in itself.

Lisa xxxx

KathAdams

05-23-2010, 04:22 PM

Great area for discussion.

First up, I think we need to understand ourselves first and the last thing we need is a new set of labels! What may begin now as 'obvious' and 'non-offensive' will become that to some people as time goes on, so my punt would be to simplify things as far as possible.

I refer to myself as a 'crossdresser' and when writing I write t-girl for a male who is crossdressed and g-girl as a "female", be that by birth or post-op ts. It is simply shorthand and it makes sense in the world of 'gender' that I've constructed around my own dressing. If that offends some people, I'm sorry, it isn't intended, but I simply haven't the time or inclination to write a full length piece on the issues facing people who have some form of 'gender' issue, whenever I'm trying to quickly discuss something else.

My thoughts on the separate 'areas' of the site, surely that is a good thing? It isn't saying "you belong in this box", its saying "here's somewhere you may feel more comfortable if you aren't comfortable in the general arena"? I view that as giving people 'choice'. There is such a MASSIVE gamut of people and personalities that frequent a site like this that I see choice as being healthy and inclusive rather than divisive and restrictive. For example, the wife of a crossdresser may feel more uncomfortable posting a question about her husband in the open forum rather than asking other wives how they coped? But there are some wives who are more than happy to contribute in the general discussion area.

Back to the terminology, as I said, this is something that will go around and around, what is fine to one person is offensive to another. But that is their internalising the term rather than the message. If someone found out I crossdressed and simply said "so you're a trannie then?" I wouldn't be offended but if they said the same words with barely disguised contempt, I would be. That is to say it is the message and attitude behind the words that concerns me, not the words themselves. I mean, we can't even get the Yanks to say knickers instead of panties! *

*and as I write that, I appreciate that some people may think I was offensive by belittling a serious thread and others may be offended by the use of the word 'panties' or 'Yanks'. Where as the intent was simply to end with a smile!

Cassandra Lynn

05-23-2010, 05:14 PM

Drats! so much for slipping in and out quietly. I'll do my best here, but as i said i'm in over my head.

And why do you think that is?
When I first joined a site I was a total unknown and then when I did my photos I became the focus of attention. PM's started arriving... Are you CD or TS? It was as though they were attempting to claim dominion over me... process... and package me.
Couple of thoughts, perhaps they were just trying to better understand what they could not grasp, perhaps they were doing what you say subconsciously, and perhaps you were taking it personal when it wasn't meant to be.

My issue now... and it is my issue... is that I feel second class on these sites. Everyone comes here to be free... accepted. I have that outside. I am Lisa... I am female... I don't have to declare myself as non-GG, nor do my female friends ever consider me as anything other than female.
Second class? from my perspective, you are way more than any "class" that i could put you in, you are prolly more admired, respected and held in awe, than you are aware of.
I might add inspiring as well.
Maybe not in all the ways you wish, and i'm only guessing at what you seek; societies full approval, and the right and just designation? We all can only hope.
I don't expect people to understand... In fact I've quite given up expecting understanding. You ask how you can learn from me if I leave... well surely that would be a lesson in itself.
And is that the kind of lesson you want to deliver. "Screw you all, you can't understand what it's like so off i go"

I've got to go, so if i haven't offended you, and you reply, hold those thoughts and i'll catch up tonight. mj (Cassie)

Sauron

05-23-2010, 05:29 PM

It was a very divided site... fractured. If you decided you were TS after being CD you were basically heckled and jeered by the losing side. When I knew it was time to transition I vanished... It was easier.

Hmmmmm... I'm not the best at handling praise... I'm very shy you see... I'll pass over that bit.

No I'm not saying screw you... I'm just saying I don't fit like I used to fit. Maybe that is the ultimate achievement after 26 years progress... My great reward.

Take a lot more than that to offend me baby... I had professional haters on my case in the past. ;)

Beware the eye of Sauron... lol... one for Tristen that one ;)

Lisa xxxx

Bridget_Honeysett

05-23-2010, 07:12 PM

Cassandra Lynn

05-23-2010, 08:35 PM

Hmmmmm... I'm not the best at handling praise... I'm very shy you see... I'll pass over that bit.
Sorry for all that, just trying to make a point.

No I'm not saying screw you... I'm just saying I don't fit like I used to fit. Maybe that is the ultimate achievement after 26 years progress... My great reward.
Still think you need to be here, as Bridget attests too, you have knowledge to impart and experience to relate.
Beware the eye of Sauron... lol... one for Tristen that one ;)
Hmmmm, Tolkien? a reference to the One Ring? are we in danger of being bound? i'm as curious as a hobbit now, or is my feeble gray matter on overload? mj (Cassie)

Sauron

05-23-2010, 09:10 PM

Ok before this goes where it's going this needs to go to PMs. These discussions of late obviously bring up strong feelings. However let's not start getting personal in the threads. Not the place for it

Aye M'Lady...

I can't handle anymore pm's though... my fingers are all sore with typing...

Thank you Bridget for your post... Ill never be a GG though... I was for a time someone's girlfriend but she... well if you read my blog... well you know what she felt she needed to do for me.

Yes... the eye of Sauron would scour the land from the fortress of Barad-dûr... At those times I shut off from everyone. When the avatar becomes the eye... I'm no longer here.

Lisa xxxx

Amelie

05-23-2010, 10:06 PM

Cd sites are the biggest offenders of using labels, even after this thread is gone a thread about labels will appear just as quickly.

I never heard of the term GG until I came online and still, no one where i live uses that term, maybe if we take a poll in my hood I might be wrong with what I say.

It's the same for every group, whether it be ethnic, gender, sexual or whatever, they all want new words to describe themselves, and sometimes sub groups those words to specifically mean a smaller group of a larger one. I think(my opinion, not scientific fact) it comes from groups who feel lesser in society, people who feel that they are being mistreated so they need special rights and special words to describe who they are.

If one is confident in who they are, they don't need special words to describe themselves, although I do like to use words that offend people, cause I like offending people. I like the term shemale cause that word comes close to what I am and I lived among shemales in NYC, also as an added bonus, the word shemale sort of offends crossdressers, so I like this.

Oh, I agree, that some labels are needed and agree useful, but it's the constant changing of labels to describe basically the same thing that is kinda silly. The bad part is when one group uses a label to keep certain people away from an area, whether it be a section of a forum or an area of a bus. One can not use segregation as a reason to keep people separate, it's just wrong, labels can be good but segregation under any circumstance is wrong. But cds are men and men can be pig headed when it comes to dealing with women,, they let their naughty bits do the thinking rather than their brains, hey,, I kinda understand this thinking, if Johnny Depp was to join this forum and request a special section for himself,, I could see giving him one just so he'd stay here,, it's my naughty bits doing the thinking.

So in a nut shell, I am a Cajun, Shemale ,Rudegirl, Blonde, sometimes gay, aryan, trash, weirdo, big boobed, sneaker wearing, NYC native, graffiti writer, voodoo worshiper, night creature, drug addict, pizza eating hoe. These are my labels,, just don't call me transgender. lol

PS-I'm also a zombie

Tristen Cox

05-24-2010, 01:32 AM

The Gas Man Cometh

05-24-2010, 03:35 AM

So are we saying the many partners of Crossdressers who are supportive,and describe themselves as GG are Insulting themselves and a section of the Community then,I think it is wrong of us to say that.
Indeed before I came on sites like here,and others I was happy considering myself as a Transvestite,and had done for many years,now im told that's disrespectful.Do we have to label ourselves,theres plenty hatemongers out there who label us enough,dont you think

I've already said that it's perfectly OK for us to use labels WE LIKE to describe ourselves, but to place them onto other people without asking what they label themselves instead is NOT fair!

Which leads to the next unfortunate action, that is asking the question: who do we alienate more, the majority or the minority?

We don't have to alienate ANYONE if we just use the ALL-inclusive term S&GD, as every single human being has a sex (Or both) and they have a Gender Identity (Or both) until an individual expresses to us personally their preferences then this term is going to cover everyone.

No I'm not saying screw you... I'm just saying I don't fit like I used to fit. Maybe that is the ultimate achievement after 26 years progress... My great reward.

Screw that Lisa, I've NEVER fit in anywhere. I barely fit in with Goths because I don't drink like a fish, nor do I take drugs or smoke. Plus I like music designed for little kids and screaming 16 year old fangirls.
- I JUST fit in with other Adult Babies only because I face similar struggles as them but only a handful of them are also furries or S&GD as well.
- I barely fit in with the furries because I have more than one fursona, I have a male AND female one!
- I barely fit in with people who have multiple personalities because they aren't whole personalities where they have their own minds, they're just kind of persona outlines.
- I don't fit in work as a woman because cabinetmaking is soooooo "male dominated" and I'm "just a woman trying to make it in a man's world."
- I don't fit in in this site much either because hardly anyone can work me out, they all think I'm a MtF CDer.
- I never fit in in highschool, let's just leave that hellish mess right there.
- I never fit in at home as a child as you already know via PM about all that.

The only place I fit in is my own skin and my head. Thankfully I have found a place in Batty's heart where SO FAR that's the ONLY place I truly fit in.
AND I'M ONLY 21! I have the rest of my life ahead of me to keep not-fitting-in but you know what? I already do as you suggested last night, and keep my chin up. I live life a misfit and MAKE myself fit in. I EDUCATE those around me as to who I am and so that then gives them a chance to sit me snug right amongst them all.

I suggest take your own advice and keep your chin up as well!

Cd sites are the biggest offenders of using labels, even after this thread is gone a thread about labels will appear just as quickly.

I never heard of the term GG until I came online and still, no one where i live uses that term, maybe if we take a poll in my hood I might be wrong with what I say.

I agree, I never heard these terms until I came to these sites either.

It's the same for every group, whether it be ethnic, gender, sexual or whatever, they all want new words to describe themselves, and sometimes sub groups those words to specifically mean a smaller group of a larger one. I think(my opinion, not scientific fact) it comes from groups who feel lesser in society, people who feel that they are being mistreated so they need special rights and special words to describe who they are.

If one is confident in who they are, they don't need special words to describe themselves

No one I know wants special rights, we just want to be included. S&GD covers every.single.human.being on this Earth as a polite accompaniment to peoples' own labels for themselves.

The bad part is when one group uses a label to keep certain people away from an area, whether it be a section of a forum or an area of a bus. One can not use segregation as a reason to keep people separate, it's just wrong, labels can be good but segregation under any circumstance is wrong.

So in a nut shell, I am a Cajun, Shemale ,Rudegirl, Blonde, sometimes gay, aryan, trash, weirdo, big boobed, sneaker wearing, NYC native, graffiti writer, voodoo worshiper, night creature, drug addict, pizza eating hoe. These are my labels,, just don't call me transgender. lol

PS-I'm also a zombie

You hit the nail on the head when you say segregation is a bad thing. I did a small rant earlier in this thread about the secret clubhouses for strict labels on this site alone.

I like your labels for yourself xD

Renee

05-24-2010, 04:56 AM

There is power in words as they are used to form ideas. The late great George Carlin said that the same words that can hurt can heal. If we could all know how someone wished to be labeled, we could do either willfully. Alas, we can use the same labels and please some or hurt others. I can call myself on thing but I cannot make another do so. I may say crossdresser and another call me freak, queer, pervert, etc. Sadly that is their choice over which I have no say and wish none.

Like Amelie, I have a torrent of labels that could apply to me. Many of them seemingly contradictory and compartmentalized from each other. Lifes variety must be sampled like a wine tasting. Swilling Milwaukee's Best all the time just doesn't cut it for me.

I find more and more that I prefer the label 'child of God' and try to remember that all others are too.

battybattybats

05-24-2010, 04:58 AM

I can see why some would want the term changed, or just to outright stop forcing labels on us. I can even understand why some labels offend others. But I dont think any of them are going to go away.

Most people need to define who they are to others. I think alot of the GG's want to define themselves as different, as if to say, no no, im not one of you, im on the outside. Others need those very same labels to define how they see themselves. Im a CD not a TS, on and on. For most its to separate themselves from something they dont want to be seen as. Silly when you really think about it, but it is all through our lives. Im anglo saxon, im mexican, im columbian, im african, etc. Yet the reality is we just look different. If we were all blind half of this wouldnt matter.

Well there's quite a few labels we rarely hear used anymore like (and apologies foir using them, i list them only as an illustrative point) coon, chink, slopehead, kyke, nigger, halfbreed, half-caste, full-blood, gypo and many more. We don't use them for very good reasons. We replaced rude offensive discriminatory terms with respectful ones.

We can remove GG without leaving women who are cisgender cissexuals without a term to define themselves as cisgender cissexuals. Ciswomen for a start. Which puts them on parity with Transwomen, who as i already pointed out are girls through genes. Both two types of women, transwomen and ciswomen. Makes sense doesn't it?

So Bats, are the Australian human rights circles, the forefront of progressive movements in our community? I am not asking that to be rude, I really dont know, nor am I familiar enough with the community to have an educated opinion.

It is in some matters. Some states have anti-discrimination laws that cover crossdressers. My own state, briefly, allowed a sex-not-specified cardinal identity document (a birth certificate equivalent for naturalised immigrants) this though hit a legal hurdle which we are working to get fixed. 85% of the population supports Gender Identity being covered in proposed federal anti-discrimination legislation. Other countries have better success on aspects like Transgender Marriage. There's still lots of serious problems to fix as anyone who has ever heard of the surgeries done on Intersex Infants would know.

All of the terms are a bit confusing and I think a nice simple conversion chart would work wonders to clearing things up. Maybe then you could explain what defines each term. I am not against reform for the better, the hard part is getting people to change what they are familiar with.

Ok. Well i'll let someone else do a chart but here's some help on terms. Crossdresser we know right. Same with transsexual.

* Genderqueer: someone who mixes male and female expression or alternates between them rather than making a permanant transition.

* Transvestite, latin for crossdresser. coined along with transsexual by a German who started the first gender clinic which the Nazis destroyed. Polite in some countries rude in America because a) association with transsexual which some transphobic transvestites who consider transsexuals 'sick' and 'crazy' for wanting surgery found offensive to be connected to and so coined the english translation Crossdresser instead b) because of continued use of the term Transvestic Fetishism in the APA's DSM as a (though clearly false) mental illness which strengthened the use of the term Crossdresser as the polite term. Still Transvestite is a polite acceptable term in many countries.

* Bi-Gender. Predicted to exist by scientific studies with plenty of evidence in favour of it this is where someones biologically wired Gender-Identity is either wired neutral or weak where they could happily exist however they were brought up or are wired to have both male and female gender identities. Current information from Intersex studies suggests as much as 1 in every 3 people may be some form of Bi-Gender!

* G.G. Genetic Girl. Problem is science shows Transsexuals are Genetic Girls too directing them to be female in their Neuroanatomy (wiring and structures of the brain and nervous system)

* Intersex. Now there are literally hundreds of types of Intersex. Being Intersex means being one or more of: Genetically, Chromasomally, Hormonally, Neuroanatomically, Physiologically somewhere between male and female or being both. This includes people with XXY chromasomes, XYY XXYY and others. PAIS and CAIS (partial and complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome), what used to be called 'hermaphrodites and pseudo hermaphrodites', xx/xy mosaics where two twins merged at the beginning of development making the person a mix of both male and female cells and lots more. 1 in every 60 people are Intersex! Many don't know it! Which means someone may be a Genetic Girl and even a Chromoasomal Girl and yet look male and live their entire life from birth to death with everyone thinking they are male!

* Transgender, Trans means on the other side of, going beyond, transcending, or crossing. It's often used to cover all of us. But some transsexuals (especially transphobic crossdresser-hating ones but still some with legitimate reasons too) object to this because they feel their gender was always the same, it was only their Sex which was Trans'sd to match their Gender Identity. That's a good point really.

* Cis. Cis is the opposite of Trans. It means on the same side of, not having moved. It's most commonly used in chemistry these days but comes from the same language roots as Trans.

* Cisgender. Gender not having changed or fitting on one side of a binary-model of gender. So not a crosssdresser, not a genderqueer, not androgynous etc.

* Cissexual. Sexual characteristics not having changed etc. So not a Transsexual etc.

Are there any other terms you would like definitions of or explanations of?

In the end though, a lot of people will need a label to separate themselves from you or me and they wont want to follow inclusive terminology. Which is part of the reason we are where we are now.

If people want terms there's no harm in having the terms be true right?

Well GG doesn't work because Transsexuals are by Genetically Girls. In fact there are men out there walking around totally oblivious of the fact they are and always have been since conception actually Genetic Girls even though they look male in all external and even functional aspects!

So if we are going to have a seperate term for non-transsexual women thats fair and true and G.G. judt doesn't work then what can it be?

We can't even use GNG and GAG, Genetic Neuroanatomical Girls and Genetic Anatomical Girls, to seperate them because after surgery a GNG is a GAG. And again some GAG's will actually have XY chromasomes but geneticallly have CAIS so their body was immune to Androgen even in the womb and so their bodies developed as female Genetically and Anatomically but against Chromasomes. So we can't even use terms with C or CH for chromasomes in neat little packages unless we consider Intersex fully.. which almost no-one gets tested for so while 1 in 60 is Intersex only those with major cases who got surgery for it (often the wrong surgery for their gender identity its important to note! Done on them as babies..) or those disscovered testing for other conditions know about it.

Cisgender Cissexual
Cisgender Transsexual
Cisgender Intersex
Transgender Cissexual
Transgender Transsexual
Transgender Intersex.

All make sense because of what the word-parts already mean in our own language. Covering the diversity of us all and giving all equality.

You can still keep cultural labels like Crossdresser etc and of course they can be very useful for further defining different aspects of peoples identities.

But recognising that Transwomen are actually women, are genetically women cause genes make them that way and that they have womens brains with womens brain function, even womens sense of smell is important. If we don't recognise that they are women w are being transphobic. The law manages to recognise that so so should we.

So women is what they Are. And if we do need to define which of the two types of women we are talking about then we call them equally, Ciswomen and Transwomen. Each with a prefix, not one as 'normal' with no prefix and the other as 'other' with a prefix. No the only nondiscriminatory non-rude way to do it is to give both a prefix. And as Cis is the opposite of Trans in century upon century of language accross many languages then Cis is the only natural logical fair and true prefix surely?

Sauron

05-24-2010, 07:31 AM

I suggest take your own advice and keep your chin up as well!

We are but warriors for the working-day;
Our gayness and our gilt are all besmirch'd
With rainy marching in the painful field;
There's not a piece of feather in our host--
Good argument, I hope, we will not fly--
And time hath worn us into slovenry:
But, by the mass, our hearts are in the trim.

Katie B

05-24-2010, 09:54 AM

We are but warriors for the working-day;
Our gayness and our gilt ...

Beautiful!

But give Shakespeare his due (who knew a thing or two about cross-dressing): Henry V act 4.

KathAdams

05-24-2010, 12:45 PM

Well there's quite a few labels we rarely hear used anymore like (and apologies foir using them, i list them only as an illustrative point) coon, chink, slopehead, kyke, nigger, halfbreed, half-caste, full-blood, gypo and many more. We don't use them for very good reasons. We replaced rude offensive discriminatory terms with respectful ones.

Yet some 'African-Americans' will use the term "nigger" among themselves and that's okay.

We can remove GG without leaving women who are cisgender cissexuals without a term to define themselves as cisgender cissexuals. Ciswomen for a start. Which puts them on parity with Transwomen, who as i already pointed out are girls through genes. Both two types of women, transwomen and ciswomen. Makes sense doesn't it?

Well, no, not really. Firstly, much of this use of language is becoming increasingly intellectualised and secondly (unless, quite possibly, I'm misunderstanding) we'd need everyone to take on these terms for them to have effect? Women 'generally', who have no contact with the our 'minority group' would have to accept 'CW'? I'd rather energy was spent developing acceptance of people, regardless of terms. Returning to your earlier point, isn't the real reason the offensive words stopped being used generally because we, as society, 'grew up'? The terms were dropped because people 'of colour' became more widely accepted (helped no doubt by legislation).

Ok. Well i'll let someone else do a chart but here's some help on terms. Crossdresser we know right. Same with transsexual.

* Genderqueer: someone who mixes male and female expression or alternates between them rather than making a permanant transition.

* Transvestite, latin for crossdresser. coined along with transsexual by a German who started the first gender clinic which the Nazis destroyed. Polite in some countries rude in America because a) association with transsexual which some transphobic transvestites who consider transsexuals 'sick' and 'crazy' for wanting surgery found offensive to be connected to and so coined the english translation Crossdresser instead b) because of continued use of the term Transvestic Fetishism in the APA's DSM as a (though clearly false) mental illness which strengthened the use of the term Crossdresser as the polite term. Still Transvestite is a polite acceptable term in many countries.

* Bi-Gender. Predicted to exist by scientific studies with plenty of evidence in favour of it this is where someones biologically wired Gender-Identity is either wired neutral or weak where they could happily exist however they were brought up or are wired to have both male and female gender identities. Current information from Intersex studies suggests as much as 1 in every 3 people may be some form of Bi-Gender!

* G.G. Genetic Girl. Problem is science shows Transsexuals are Genetic Girls too directing them to be female in their Neuroanatomy (wiring and structures of the brain and nervous system)

* Intersex. Now there are literally hundreds of types of Intersex. Being Intersex means being one or more of: Genetically, Chromasomally, Hormonally, Neuroanatomically, Physiologically somewhere between male and female or being both. This includes people with XXY chromasomes, XYY XXYY and others. PAIS and CAIS (partial and complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome), what used to be called 'hermaphrodites and pseudo hermaphrodites', xx/xy mosaics where two twins merged at the beginning of development making the person a mix of both male and female cells and lots more. 1 in every 60 people are Intersex! Many don't know it! Which means someone may be a Genetic Girl and even a Chromoasomal Girl and yet look male and live their entire life from birth to death with everyone thinking they are male!

* Transgender, Trans means on the other side of, going beyond, transcending, or crossing. It's often used to cover all of us. But some transsexuals (especially transphobic crossdresser-hating ones but still some with legitimate reasons too) object to this because they feel their gender was always the same, it was only their Sex which was Trans'sd to match their Gender Identity. That's a good point really.

* Cis. Cis is the opposite of Trans. It means on the same side of, not having moved. It's most commonly used in chemistry these days but comes from the same language roots as Trans.

* Cisgender. Gender not having changed or fitting on one side of a binary-model of gender. So not a crosssdresser, not a genderqueer, not androgynous etc.

* Cissexual. Sexual characteristics not having changed etc. So not a Transsexual etc.

Are there any other terms you would like definitions of or explanations of?

If people want terms there's no harm in having the terms be true right?

Well GG doesn't work because Transsexuals are by Genetically Girls. In fact there are men out there walking around totally oblivious of the fact they are and always have been since conception actually Genetic Girls even though they look male in all external and even functional aspects!

So if we are going to have a seperate term for non-transsexual women thats fair and true and G.G. judt doesn't work then what can it be?

We can't even use GNG and GAG, Genetic Neuroanatomical Girls and Genetic Anatomical Girls, to seperate them because after surgery a GNG is a GAG. And again some GAG's will actually have XY chromasomes but geneticallly have CAIS so their body was immune to Androgen even in the womb and so their bodies developed as female Genetically and Anatomically but against Chromasomes. So we can't even use terms with C or CH for chromasomes in neat little packages unless we consider Intersex fully.. which almost no-one gets tested for so while 1 in 60 is Intersex only those with major cases who got surgery for it (often the wrong surgery for their gender identity its important to note! Done on them as babies..) or those disscovered testing for other conditions know about it.

Cisgender Cissexual
Cisgender Transsexual
Cisgender Intersex
Transgender Cissexual
Transgender Transsexual
Transgender Intersex.

All make sense because of what the word-parts already mean in our own language. Covering the diversity of us all and giving all equality.

You can still keep cultural labels like Crossdresser etc and of course they can be very useful for further defining different aspects of peoples identities.

But recognising that Transwomen are actually women, are genetically women cause genes make them that way and that they have womens brains with womens brain function, even womens sense of smell is important. If we don't recognise that they are women w are being transphobic. The law manages to recognise that so so should we.

So women is what they Are. And if we do need to define which of the two types of women we are talking about then we call them equally, Ciswomen and Transwomen. Each with a prefix, not one as 'normal' with no prefix and the other as 'other' with a prefix. No the only nondiscriminatory non-rude way to do it is to give both a prefix. And as Cis is the opposite of Trans in century upon century of language accross many languages then Cis is the only natural logical fair and true prefix surely?

So how would you write something when what you are referring to is a broad generalisation? If I want to quickly refer to that group of people who are outwardly 'women' and who have the genitalia of a woman, possibly who can get pregnant? CW?

I've re-read that to myself and it still isn't quite the point I'm trying to make, but I can't think of another way to word it, so I'll try another approach...

If we, in Europe say "Americans" we generally mean "people living in the USA". We are not intentionally being offensive to people who live in South or Central America. We are not intending to marginalise people who live in the Caribbean. And, although we run the risk of doing so, we don't want to offend those Canadians who object to being 'dumped in' with those folk from slightly further south. And within "America" itself, there are a myriad of different people. So even if we remember "USA" there may be some groups of people who object to the 'generalisation'. We could try to refer to "the USA and illegal immigrants, not including Hawaii because that's not really in North America" to narrow our point down further? Although as we become more clear, we increase the chances of alienating other small groups who wonder why they aren't included/excluded? Okay... instead of "America" we will now say "the USA and illegal immigrants, not including Hawaii because that's not really in North America, or Alaska for the same reason and excluding those Texan separatists that we saw on a documentary last month, because they've got guns and looked a bit crazy so I wouldn't want them to come looking for me..."

As I mentioned earlier, I don't want the language I use to be offensive but it is unlikely to become more complex at a time when I think we should be more concerned about the attitude 'behind' the language and to challenge that, rather than get upset about the language that we, as a minority, use to describe each other.

People can call me a crossdresser, transvestite, trans-gender, gender-diverse, 'T', 'G', 'C' or anything else, as long as their attitude is positive But I'd rather not get beaten up between the hotel and the bar because of what I'm wearing.

The Gas Man Cometh

05-24-2010, 02:33 PM

I'd rather energy was spent developing acceptance of people, regardless of terms.

Acceptance means getting the terminology right. I'd rather we intellectualise the world with proper language than dumb down the language for the world as they've done in America.

Secondly, regarding your post about America you are really missing the point here. We are making it EASIER, NOT harder to include everyone. Instead of saying "You know, gays and trans people. GLBT. Oh and Intersexed, and gender queer AND bigender... ok so GLBTIGQBG and crap is that the right order? I don't remember anymore!! Also what other labels am I forgetting? OH yeah. GG and GM and blah blah blah blah" We cut out that lot and just say S&GD. Simple, easy, all-inclusive and effective.

I really fail to see the issue here. I really do. We're making life and terminology EASIER people!

battybattybats

05-24-2010, 04:53 PM

Yet some 'African-Americans' will use the term "nigger" among themselves and that's okay.

Thats 'reclaiming'. A process where a group of people use a term thats used to demean them and instead use it for themselves with a different meaning to the original, changing the subtextual meanings of the term. Note they are using it amongst themselves and it's a minority of those people who do so. Note too that some Gay people use the word Faggot, however as the term came to apply to them from the use of gays stuffed amongst the outer parts of a woodpile round a witch-burning or heretic-birning stake so their deaths would get the crowd stirred up for the main event (a faggot is a short length of wood appropriate for burning) its really easy to see how they wouldn't appreciate others calling them that.

Well, no, not really. Firstly, much of this use of language is becoming increasingly intellectualised

Intellectualised? Cis = opposite of Trans. It's just a prefix thats unfamiliar to many people but heck Transsexual was a pretty 'intellectualised' word back in 1930's Germany.

and secondly (unless, quite possibly, I'm misunderstanding) we'd need everyone to take on these terms for them to have effect? Women 'generally', who have no contact with the our 'minority group' would have to accept 'CW'?

No outside of discussing trans issues transwomen are just women. We don't need the prefix trans attached to woman unless it's a trans-specific issue being involved right? So a ciswoman is just a woman unless a cis or trans specific issue is involved. There is no reason to demarcate Trans women from Cis women except when discussing specific trans or cis issues yes?

I'd rather energy was spent developing acceptance of people, regardless of terms.

But accurate terms can help, and if we cannot manage to get the acceptance right on crossdresser sites and in crossdresser organisations then we have a problem. Transwomen are women. And our community needs to accept that. This is an acceptance issue.

Returning to your earlier point, isn't the real reason the offensive words stopped being used generally because we, as society, 'grew up'? The terms were dropped because people 'of colour' became more widely accepted (helped no doubt by legislation).

Actually there was great debate amongst many civil rights movements about what was acceptable language and what wasn't. By determining the respectful terms and then fighting to have media standards accept those terms it changed a great deal. It's part of how we all 'grew up'.

So how would you write something when what you are referring to is a broad generalisation? If I want to quickly refer to that group of people who are outwardly 'women' and who have the genitalia of a woman, possibly who can get pregnant? CW?

It all depends on what specific trait your excluding from your generalisation. Otherwise Women would do wouldn't it? If you only wanted women who were anatomically female then Cissexual women says that specifically. And some of those cissexual women will be crossdressers and genderqueers and androgynes etc, if you wanted to rule those out instead you use the term cisgender. The terms relate to clear traits, gender and sex. Easy. And if you don't need to seperate women up you just say women.

I've re-read that to myself and it still isn't quite the point I'm trying to make, but I can't think of another way to word it, so I'll try another approach...

Ok.

If we, in Europe say "Americans" we generally mean "people living in the USA". We are not intentionally being offensive to people who live in South or Central America. We are not intending to marginalise people who live in the Caribbean. And, although we run the risk of doing so, we don't want to offend those Canadians who object to being 'dumped in' with those folk from slightly further south. And within "America" itself, there are a myriad of different people. So even if we remember "USA" there may be some groups of people who object to the 'generalisation'. We could try to refer to "the USA and illegal immigrants, not including Hawaii because that's not really in North America" to narrow our point down further? Although as we become more clear, we increase the chances of alienating other small groups who wonder why they aren't included/excluded? Okay... instead of "America" we will now say "the USA and illegal immigrants, not including Hawaii because that's not really in North America, or Alaska for the same reason and excluding those Texan separatists that we saw on a documentary last month, because they've got guns and looked a bit crazy so I wouldn't want them to come looking for me..."

Or you could say 'people from the USA' which is not much longer than Americans or North Americans in amount of characters.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't want the language I use to be offensive but it is unlikely to become more complex at a time when I think we should be more concerned about the attitude 'behind' the language and to challenge that, rather than get upset about the language that we, as a minority, use to describe each other.

SS&GD is simpler than GLBTTIQQ. S&GD is simpler than TGTSIGA. That simplifies things. "Transgender Cissexuals" is simpler than sayng "crossdressers, genderqueers, bi-genders, drag queens, drag kings, androgynes". It's not really complex compared to that huh? We can describe them by the linked trait. Seperate them out when we need to by a specific trait.

People can call me a crossdresser, transvestite, trans-gender, gender-diverse, 'T', 'G', 'C' or anything else, as long as their attitude is positive But I'd rather not get beaten up between the hotel and the bar because of what I'm wearing.

Of course.

jeanh

05-24-2010, 07:09 PM

[QUOTE=battybattybats]We have a problem.

No, you have a problem <%)

Sauron

05-24-2010, 07:44 PM

No, you have a problem

Actually it is I and women like myself that have the immediate problem. I'm seeking a constructive solution to something that hurts me personally.

There are deeper issues for some of us... but please do enter the debate if you wish. You are after all one of the GG's and as such at the very heart of my argument. So do you see me as female? As female as you? Less female?

Susy Doll

05-24-2010, 08:21 PM

So I guess I should stop saying to people that I am a woman with a physical birth defect.

I can see how S&GD or SS&GD would be so much easier to understand.

Sauron

05-24-2010, 10:22 PM

It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.

I hear so much more in these words today...

(Just for Katie... Same play same Act... )

Lisa xxxx

Michelle Gray

05-24-2010, 10:35 PM

jeanh We have a problem.

No, you have a problem

Ladies I can see this is starting to get a Little personal and may start offending others if we are not careful. Make your point but Please no attacks on anyone. I will close this thread if this continues..

Susy Doll

05-24-2010, 11:59 PM

OK, so here is my point.

I will start with the word gay. How does this word discribe the meaning we ascribe to it today? We all use it, assume it's meaning and association with male homosexuality yet, it's original meaning was that of happy, carefree, bright and showy.

This community, settled on a word, having no real connection to their sex*al or gender preferences and used it to their advantage. Some 30 +/- years later, we all associate it with sex*al preference, they have acquired rights, they have used it to market and advance their cause over the years with much success.

No one, except of course these people themselves care about the varieties of gay men, the handkerchief code, yadda, yadda. Those of us not involved don't care, don't want to know the minutiae.
--------------------------------

We on the other hand, continue to quibble over which word to use to describe ourselves.

Since I came out last August, I don't know how many people have said to me that they are fed up with us (as a group), we change the label like we change our socks, enough already!

Politicians use this as an excuse to deny us rights, "when you learn to speak as one voice, come back and see me, then we'll talk".

In our search for the perfect descriptive all inclusive terminology, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. There is NO such word and there never will be; let's go with what people are getting used to by now.

Is it perfect, no! Does it matter, NO!! We can make it mean what we need to make it mean, kinda like gay.
--------------------------------------

So now to my preference.

Most people that I speak with have a cursory understanding of the word transgender.

Meaning; across all genders, inclusive of all genders

As I have said, is it perfect, of course not but it doesn't matter, we can make it mean what we need it to, we can use it to market our needs, educate the public at large.

Marketers tend to tailor their material to the lowest common denominator for their market. There is a reason for this; many people still can't read, some don't want to. Most people don't want to know unless they are directly involved.

How many diseases do you know about? Do you care? Generally, not unless you or someone you know is affected will you show any interest.

This is why we need to keep the message simple, consistent and straight forward.

I am sorry to disagree with some of you, but I will continue to promote the word transgender as our all inclusive label, not perfect, not clinical, not legalize, but generally understood by an increasingly larger and larger portion of the public at large.

We now have countries going forward with transgender rights bills in their legislature, I think it would be a mistake to try to introduce new terminology now.

Respectfully,
SusyDoll

The Gas Man Cometh

05-25-2010, 04:55 AM

jeanh

Ladies I can see this is starting to get a Little personal and may start offending others if we are not careful. Make your point but Please no attacks on anyone. I will close this thread if this continues..

I would urge you to please not close the thread but instead simply remove the trouble makers. I'm not telling you how to do your job, please don't be offended by my plea. It's just that this thread is very important to me and to a lot of others as it voices a hurt that's deep inside us which we struggle to voice alone.

That's all, I'm sorry to butt into your work I just wanted to share how important this is to me and others. Thank you <3 Sorry

battybattybats

05-25-2010, 06:32 AM

Susy Doll,

There are three key problems.

1. There is a small but vocal and active group of transsexuals who oppose the term Transgender some of whom even go so far as to campain agaionst legislation that uses the term. Unethical practice sure but they exist and we need to resolve the problems connected with that.

2. Intersex people are regularly excluded from legislative improvements (to be honest almost every transgender piece of legislation leaves them out) even though technically all of us may be Intersex. There's even cross-sex neurology evidence that Gays and Lesbians are also Intersex. Where Intersex and Transgender rights issues intersect we need a term that is inclusive of Intersex without being offensive to Intersex people and again many Intersex people do not find Transgender appropriate fpr themselves.

3. By applying Transgender as a descriptor seperate from but connected with Transsexual we gain a vastly improved and more accurate way of definning the connected non-transsexual parts of our community while also resolving fractious problems between cisgender transsexuals and transgender transsexuals. Nothing else so neatly and efficiently does this.

Now using S&GD and SS&GD doesn't mean abandoning Transgender as an umbrella term. In fact it still covers everyone it covered before who accepted that label!

However it does mean improved respect for other parts of the sex and gender diverse populations self-identity and labels and terms and facilitates the cooperation between all these in shared human rights issues. This is vitally important as sometimes poorly-worded arguments rsult in conflict between groups who should be on the same side.

Example: A general moritorium on treatment of gender issues in children while stopping the horrific genital mutilation of many Intersex Babies could very well stop the access of trans-kids from getting access to puberty-delaying hormone blockers so they can delay puberty till they are old enough to legally decide for themselves to transition permanantly or not.

Now that could be easilly resolved by ensuring that all medical decisions regarding children maximise their choices when they are of age to decide, so no surgery on intersex kids till they are old enough to say what surgery is appropriate if any and hormone nlockers become available to the transkids too.

Currently we don't just have a problem getting Intersex and Transgender cooperation, we have trouble with cooperation amongst those transgender groups, often legislation chucks crossdressers under the bus, often it chucks pre-ops and those without genital surgery under the bus, heck often it only covers those who have transitioned while actively making it harder for those still transitioning and yet to transition. Because of course who counts as transgender often varies and a lot of times crossdressers do not actually count.

Example: In New South Wales Australia Transgender under the law does not count crossdressers as recognised transgender! Seriously!

Transgender itself does not currently cover everyone that S&GD does. Yet We don't need to stop using Transgender to make use of S&GD!

You don't need to stop saying your a woman with birth defect to explain yourself, but if asked about other people well S&GD is easier than TT.CT.PrOpT.PoOpT.NnOpT.TV.CD.GQ.A.CAIS.PAIS etc etc or the smaller yet still messier and less self-explanatory TG.HBS.I. etc etc

Part of this problem is a lack of respect for other parts of the sex and gender spectrums amongst ourselves. And we need to address that. The reason past terms were changed was often either to end a discrimination but often it was to enact a discrimination. Homophobia and transphobia amongst parts of the community being a significant driving force behind seperation of Drag from Transvestite, the changing of Transvestite to Crossdresser, the pushing of the terms 'Classic Transsexual' and 'True Transsexual' and then onwards to the formation of the term Harry Benjamin Syndrome etc etc

I agree perfect terms won't exist. I've even made that argument myself. But that does not mean we should not continue to improve our language when after all everyone elses language is evolving. The Gay community now has bears and cubs and otters and twinks and boi's and MSM's and far more too.

And we need to start focusing on ending the transphobia in our own community. And that means terms like G.G. have to go. Because the gene discovery means transsexuals are G.G.'s! So the term when used to seperate ciswomen from transwomen is a lie.

And by all means convince the H.B.S. crowd that Transgender does cover them without offending them. Try convincing O.I.I. that Transgender covers them without offending them. I'd sure be grateful if you can resolve these conflicts. But S&GD was used by the Australain Human Rights Comission a couple years ago now to work past these problems. The S.A.G.E. advocacy organisation is spreading it's use around Australia and they are at the forefront of defending Trans reproductive rights, assisting court battles challenging coercive sterilisation policies and the refusal of governments to enact the reccomendations of the AHRC's S&GD report.

KathAdams

05-25-2010, 04:47 PM

Part of this problem is a lack of respect for other parts of the sex and gender spectrums amongst ourselves...

...And by all means convince the H.B.S. crowd that Transgender does cover them without offending them. Try convincing O.I.I. that Transgender covers them without offending them.

I'm probably going to butt out of the debate now because I've offered my opinion, but I would suggest two last points...

The 'lack of respect' goes in lots of different directions. I think it has to be accepted that this issue is far more important for some people than others. For some it may literally be a matter of life & death. Far too many people commit suicide because of the issues they face and that is a very real tragedy.

However, at the other end of the scale, as discussed in the 'self acceptance' thread,
http://crossdresserclub.com/home/showthread.php?t=12726
it is quite possible to be happy, content, 'in touch' and self aware, without being a 'warrior for the cause'. I have described my crossdressing as "a hobby", because that feels like a succinct way to contextualise it. It is far too glib really, but it will generally do. Especially when described as an expensive hobby! I don't need or want to fight, because I have so many other, more immediate issues to face. And globally, I'm happy being a member of Amnesty International and doing 'stuff' there. If I was a politician, I'd never vote against any of the positive measures that you/we deserve, but I won't be marching or picking up another drum to thump (I know that isn't what was being asked).

And the second point is subtle rather than pedantic. I've re-read the posts in this thread and I still don't know who/what the "H.B.S. crowd" or "O.I.I." are? This is what I mean about intellectualising the argument. It isn't as was suggested earlier, about "dumbing down the language", it is about understanding that if people who are part of the minority community are left confused then what hope have any of us got in changing the views and values of people who currently have no understanding of 'us' and very little interest in learning? If we are, as you suggest, to change our language, then people like you will need to write the full term and the relevant abbreviation in full, for a long time, until the rest of us 'get it'. By using and seeing the 'new terms' in context, there is a far greater chance of them being picked up and used instead of terms that are unintentionally causing offence.

Lastly, battybattybats, can I call you bbb? It's so much easier! ;) :rolleyes: :G

Cassandra Lynn

05-26-2010, 02:39 AM

The Acronym Annapolis becomes ever more over populated. mj (Cassie)

Susy Doll

05-26-2010, 03:33 AM

There are three key problems.

I am not going to disagree with any of those points however,

1) "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time".

If they can't be convinced to get on board, then so be it. I think the vast majority are or don't want to get involved. As KathAdams mentioned, they don't want to be on the front lines of the fight.

2) Absolutely true! Again though, in simple terms, if you wait until all your eggs are in one basket, you risk loosing all of them. We can take one step now while the public and legislators are on board and come back and get amendments to help the rest when they are better educated on the subject. We need to work on educating the public some more. One step, then another.

3) I am not sure I understand, why separate but connected, to what end? I am not sure I get your point here.

I am seeing three separate issues here:

1) Educating the public at large for our safety and sanity. The simple transgender message "all inclusive" for public consumption (in my opinion).

2) Legislative; here, I can agree that S&GD makes some sense. More precise terms are vital to any legislation and medical practice.

3) Infighting, you mentioned this already, the small vocal group of transsexuals you mentioned amongst others. I am all for trying to convince and include everyone as much as possible but if it can't be achieved, then so be it.

All minorities fighting for their rights had small groups of people dissenters within their ranks, they moved ahead anyways, in spite of them (think suffragettes..). We need to do the same.

By all means introduce more accurate legal and medical terms for the professionals, I have no problem with this, but for the public at large stick with the simple umbrella term and those that don't feel included, sorry but, that's life.

The intersex issue is a much bigger issue that will need to be dealt with as a next step in my opinion.

Jorja

05-26-2010, 04:21 AM

Where have I been to miss all of this? Oh, my usual lala land :G .
Well I am glad that I have missed the debate because after reading all the postings, I have no idea what I am. TG TS CD S&GD SS&GD XX YY XXY YYX TT CT PrOpT PoOpT NnOpT GQ A CAIS PAIS. For all I know I am M O N K E Y.

I am just me, a guy who feels sexy as hell wearing womens clothing and enjoying life.

Sauron

05-26-2010, 07:23 AM

I'm feeling very sad today...

The small hope I had entertained... I knew in reality would not be understood. I have seen the last of my strength washed away and fear the end of the day. It would seem far too much support is mute in public and I risked all for nothing...

Sadly I knew this would be the result. I kind of did it to ensure that I would be given enough reason to free myself... To disengage. I think the argument has reached the point I find myself in the wilderness.

That's maybe no bad thing either. You can think with a clear mind in the wilderness... I've often wandered there when I have felt close to the decisions that changed my life. The last was transition really... That was a very dark time... tempered only by a girl who ran a forum and who I knew felt some love for me. I followed her through her own wilderness to here where she built for you a new home away from division and loss.

I left soon after... I had a personal journey to pursue which did not allow for thoughts of home. I'm sorry I left you all that time ago... there was no choice... I had to decide whether I lived or died.

When you reach the dregs of life you are left with a very stark insight into your achievements. Everything I had done till the death of my Father had been done in a clear and desperate attempt to avoid what I was. The whole edifice was a lie and when he died everything collapsed around me. The fundamental truth was made clear to me during those days and I nearly lost everything as a consequence.

If I have had an idea to pursue it has been to have a better life, or at least equal to that I let go. I didn't want to feel second to a hollow man whose life was nothing more than watching time wear down the years with no purpose.

At moments I glimpse such happiness I never thought I would witness in my lifetime and though often small and fleeting they are so much more than I have ever had I am grateful I found my path. But I can't lie and say my life feels as complete as a it ought... at least not here. If I be vocal then I will be on this... I didn't ask to be a woman and it is something I fought with every sinew, but it was a destiny I could not choose to avoid... at least not if I wanted to see my 40th birthday.

Yet now I find that honesty has not yielded in your eyes the truth that lay in my heart for three and a half decades. That I am female... that I am a woman. Theis silence says only that I am not woman enough to be granted equality. If that be true... then what future lies here?

I'll write no more because I am convinced no-one really understands how hollow I feel... and that makes me sad beyond simple words and thoughts.

Lisa xxxx

Katie B

05-26-2010, 09:59 AM

Lisa, I'm not sure I've understood what's happening here, but can I offer this thought:

Batty, as those who know her understand, operates on the level of politics and sociology. These domains have their own vocabulary, and quite right too. I support Batty in her attempts to develop this and have written a glossary on the subject myself.

But you, Lisa, (and all of us) live your life on the practical and emotional level. The words that matter to you are the simple ones - "men, women..." What matters at that level is that you are a woman and you are treated as one. Let's face it, whatever any of us argue on this site (a very rarified atmosphere) will have little effect on that level. You're not going to go into the supermarket tomorrow and hear the cashier say: "Are these carrots yours, Cissexual?" or "Do you want to pay by card, Intersex?"

No, they'll call you Lady, Madam or Luv, just like they're used to. Let's face it, on my walk in the country yesterday I had four people say "Bonjour Madame" to me! If I'm accepted as a woman I have no doubt that you are too, and far more so than most of us.

battybattybats

05-26-2010, 01:35 PM

And the second point is subtle rather than pedantic. I've re-read the posts in this thread and I still don't know who/what the "H.B.S. crowd" or "O.I.I." are?

H.B.S. is Harry Benjamin Syndrome. not yet a recognised medical condition its a term created by a group of transsexuals some of whom are very nasty people indeed. They claim there are 'classic' or 'true' transsexuals and then the 'transgender' rest. They object to being called transgender or at all associated with most of us. They are very politically active and its claimed they haven't just influenced legislators and legislature but even the current DSM revisions!

O.I.I. is Organisation Intersex International. The name rather explains them pretty well.

If we are, as you suggest, to change our language, then people like you will need to write the full term and the relevant abbreviation in full, for a long time, until the rest of us 'get it'. By using and seeing the 'new terms' in context, there is a far greater chance of them being picked up and used instead of terms that are unintentionally causing offence.

Good point.

Lastly, battybattybats, can I call you bbb? It's so much easier! ;) :rolleyes: :G

If said in a polite positive respectful way then sure i'm happy with BBB, Batty or Bats. BBB after all was at the time of my birth my initials and is part of what the screen name Battybattybats is made from.

I'm feeling very sad today...

*hugs*

Yet now I find that honesty has not yielded in your eyes the truth that lay in my heart for three and a half decades. That I am female... that I am a woman. Theis silence says only that I am not woman enough to be granted equality. If that be true... then what future lies here?

I for one totally accept, respect and champion the medical, scientific, legal truth that you are a woman.

I'll write no more because I am convinced no-one really understands how hollow I feel... and that makes me sad beyond simple words and thoughts.

Lisa xxxx

Even if i don't understand exactly how you feel it is enough for me to hear from you that you feel this way. As a friend i am by your side. As someone who abhors injustice and tries to leave the world better than i found it i am by your side. As someone who cannot fail to see the inescapable logic and the evidence that supports your claim to womanhood i am by your side.

And to everyone might i add, we have had some interesting debate on the term S&GD but no-one has defended using G.G. to describe ciswomen and not transwomen. Is there no defence for it? Shall we take it then that the term G.G. no longer can be considered to exclude transwomen under it?

Liv J.

05-29-2010, 06:41 PM

I think we can't keep changing the terminology every five minutes as it takes wider society long enough to catch on to things as it is. I think it's very positive there is the umbrella term "transgender" that is now getting to be widely known (even if its French version transgenre is not that well known here yet unfortunately) and that when equality issues are mentioned people often now say LGBT, which is a good inclusive term for people who are different from the norm due to sexuality or gender issues (as opposed to race, for example), and will do fine without it having to become something silly like LGBTQQI or whatever (well maybe the "I" should be added, if anything, but I digress). I also like the term gender identity and expression which is often referred to in the USA, which seems to me (in some states anyway) the most advanced with this area.

Personally I like it because it is broad and people can then define themselves more precisely within that if they want to. A transsexual person is the accepted word for someone who specifically feels they have the wrong body morphology for their mental sex, and want to change it to match, and that word does that job. A postoperative transwoman or transman, IMO is just a woman or a man. As for "GG" I don't like it that much, though it is better than the old "RG". I would suggest an XX woman if that is what someone wants to refer to.

This is all a complex area and you can debate it for ages, and I don't think we will ever get everyone to agree completely, but I do think we should avoid overcomplicating as much as possible. As for what makes someone a man or woman, I think guess is mainly in your brain and there can be no generalisations. For example women with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome are XY, but they are accepted as women, so the importance of what chromosomes you have should not be over-emphasized. At the end of the day I would like a society where everyone is free to express their gender identity however they like involving whatever drugs and surgery or clothing or make-up choices and names and pronouns etc they feel happiest with (today =P ). I actually liked the argument put forward by Martine Rothblatt in a book called The Apartheid of sex, where she said we place too much emphasis on the division of everyone into male and female, with certain attached expectations, and ideally it wouldn't matter any more than what colour your skin happens to be - basically we are all humans at the end of the day.

As for the term crossdresser, I don't think it's too bad; it calls a spade a spade and is simple and not as clinical and with fewer negative connotations than "transvestite". Another option is not to have a label at all and just to say "I enjoy crossdressing".

Some other terms which I have toyed with include intergendered, bigendered and genderfluid, which are quite good and have no negative connotations because coined by people in the transgender community (sometimes I have also felt that "androgyne" fits me), but then again maybe , as I said, there is a risk of confusing people/overcomplicating with too many terms.

PS. The problem with something like "S&GD" and the other proposed terms, for me, is that no one's heard of it - it has taken the last 20 years or so for us to have terms like "LGBT"and "transgender" and "freedom of gender identity and expression" start to be known. I felt pleased but sad at the same time to see my old university now has an LGBT society instead of what it was when I was there, a lesbian and gay society, to which I never went as it was not aimed at me. I would have felt more accepted and less lonely to know that there was a club in my uni for people with feelings like mine.

Since I came out last August, I don't know how many people have said to me that they are fed up with us (as a group), we change the label like we change our socks, enough already!

Politicians use this as an excuse to deny us rights, "when you learn to speak as one voice, come back and see me, then we'll talk".

In our search for the perfect descriptive all inclusive terminology, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. There is NO such word and there never will be; let's go with what people are getting used to by now.

----

Most people that I speak with have a cursory understanding of the word transgender.

Meaning; across all genders, inclusive of all genders

As I have said, is it perfect, of course not but it doesn't matter, we can make it mean what we need it to, we can use it to market our needs, educate the public at large.

--

I am sorry to disagree with some of you, but I will continue to promote the word transgender as our all inclusive label, not perfect, not clinical, not legalize, but generally understood by an increasingly larger and larger portion of the public at large.

We now have countries going forward with transgender rights bills in their legislature, I think it would be a mistake to try to introduce new terminology now.

Respectfully,
SusyDoll

I agree. It will do. it is quite simple and distinctive and covers a big spectrum and is getting to be known and included in laws etc; that's all got to be good. Apart from when some people (I think mainly in America) start trying to say only a narrow field of people are transgendered (basically transsexuals as far as I can see), which doesn't seem helpful, it is used to mean the whole range of anyone with a gender identity or expression different from the cultural norm.

And the fact it is getting more known that there are such people, and they are quite diverse within this umbrella, and their feelings and rights matter, is good.

If an individual person within that spectrum, as a personal matter, then wants to define as being a pansexual genderqueer cistransoimnigendersexual (or someone else as a "guy who feels as sexy as hell in women's clothing" as one person said described them best), or whatever, then that's fine.

PS. I am sorry you have been feeling sad Lisa. I would just think of you as a woman and you look like a nice looking one from your other pic, which I prefer to your Sauron's eye one! I am sure transitioning is a very difficult thing to go through though. I researched it quite a lot at one point and wondered if it was what I wanted for myself, but decided no, it was probably not the right thing for me. I think it's something one needs to be pretty sure about and driven to do, not just thinking the grass might be greener in the opposite gender role.

Liv J.

05-29-2010, 08:20 PM

Shall we take it then that the term G.G. no longer can be considered to exclude transwomen under it?

That sounds a bit confusing. It is not possible to say that transwomen all specifically have an identifiably female genetics (not with our current science anyway, as far as I know), so it seems pointless to add transwomen into a term that was invented to refer to people who were born without any sort of trans issues. Also, even if you feel there are helpful reasons to do this, realistically you aren't going to get everyone to change how they use the term. If it's not a good term for the purpose it is used for then we need a different one, maybe like XX woman or your suggestion of ciswoman.

Amelie

05-29-2010, 09:59 PM

I understand what Lisa is saying. She has struggled for a very long time with deep hardships only to come to a forum of who I would have thought to be people who really understood and cared but they don't stand up for what is right, instead they cower in the corner of their closet hiding in fear.

Lisa is a woman,, it doesn't matter about genetics, she is a woman but coming to this forum makes her something less than a woman. And what is worse, I don't see anyone openly coming out and defending her right to be a woman, instead, you lot just hide and hope the topic goes away, the topic is that Lisa is a GG and she deserves the respect a GG gets, but no,, she doesn't get that respect and the cowards on this forum are silent, instead they talk about the color of panties or cow bells,,, yet I thought this forum was about support,, how can it be when you let a fellow member down by excluding her from who she really is, she is a woman..

You lot are a bunch of phony hypocrites, you talk about how society treats you .ot unfairly yet right in front of your frekin eyes you treat Lisa with much disrespect, you do this by being silent when your voice could actually change things.

Me,,,, I don't consider myself a full woman,, the term shemale is OK by me but I am still able to see wrong when it's right in front of me.

I don't care if I get banned or if you delete my post, but I will be back if you do and I will cause trouble but I gotta say that you freakin lot are a bunch of hypocritical cowards and if you expect society to bend over backwards while you let a wrong come to one of your own members then you will be a long time in that coward closet.

So go ahead and ban me, someone has to speak up for Lisa. She is a woman and deserves to be treated as such, and for those who don't know what I'm talking about, then get away from the panty threads and read some other posts.

For Gods sake, stop living like ostriches and get your heads out of the hole.

Andine

05-30-2010, 08:40 AM

Lisa .. You have just surprised the hell out of me !

Out of all the people here, I have always taken you to be a complete and fabulous looking woman!

I'm surprised to hear that you have problems .. I took you to be right at the head of the queue that I was looking at! ... so far away from where I trod water that I never thought that you were anything other than a completely satisfied end result! And beautifull as well .. something for me to aim at!

You've just burst the bubble !! I'm stunned.

Katie B

05-30-2010, 12:11 PM

...
This is all a complex area and you can debate it for ages, and I don't think we will ever get everyone to agree completely, but I do think we should avoid overcomplicating as much as possible...

I think we're singing from the same hymnsheet here, Liv.

Just to demonstrate how complex this is, I've devised a graphic way of plotting how many possibilities there are (new readers start here, those who've heard it all before skip to the next thread).

Les's suppose there are ten main ways in which we define our gender/sex. There are quite probably more than ten, but these are the ones I've identified so far:

Chromosomes
Hormones
Genitals
Secondary sexual characteristics (hair, voice, body-shape)
Legal status
Occupation and lifestyle
Dress
Sexual behaviour
Thought patterns
Self-identity

Each individual at a given moment may be anywhere along each of these vectors on a scale of (let's say) zero to ten. This can be drawn on a sheet of paper like a ten-point compass rose (the technical term is a radar graph) with zero = 100% female in the middle and 10 = 100% male on the outer edge. You score yourself on each axis, make a dot, then join the dots.

So an imaginary "girly" woman has XX chromosomes, long hair and size D breasts, wears dresses and skirts, sleeps with men etc... She scores zero in all counts and her profile will be a little circle in the middle of the graph. Her macho counterpart will be a big circle on the outer edge. But real people's profiles will be odd-shaped ovals, stars and so forth. And this is only a crude image of our infinitely complex selves.

Even on my very limited assumption that there are only 10 axes and only ten points along each axis, this means that there are 10 to the power of 10 = 10,000,000,000 possible ways to be. There aren't enough words in all the languages in the world to encompass all these possibilities. We have to keep sexual identity very simple in everyday speech simply because our minds can't cope with it otherwise. The secret is how to reconcile our limited mentality/vocabulary with the complexity of the real world, without falling into the trap of oversimplifying and saying (like bigots do) "Man and woman created He them, all the rest is abomination".

This thread could run and run...! :G

Dorothy

05-30-2010, 01:37 PM

Labels are just words. Yes words can hurt and tear deep into the soul of a person. I certainly can understand that. If calling me a GG bothers people than don't. If it would be better to use ciswomen; that's fine. In all honesty it really doesn't matter to me. I would rather have everyone be comfortable and not upset than worry about a term that really doesn't have meaning to me. Being a ciswoman does not make me who I am. I choose how to carry myself and what's inside makes me....me. At certain points of our lives, we all go through internal battles that we struggle with. Its how we chose to fight those battles or if we can shrug it off and say screw it. I say be who you want to be.......what others say truely doesn't matter.....because YOU know who you are and how special you are.

Liv J.

05-30-2010, 03:55 PM

Even on my very limited assumption that there are only 10 axes and only ten points along each axis, this means that there are 10 to the power of 10 = 10,000,000,000 possible ways to be. There aren't enough words in all the languages in the world to encompass all these possibilities. We have to keep sexual identity very simple in everyday speech simply because our minds can't cope with it otherwise. The secret is how to reconcile our limited mentality/vocabulary with the complexity of the real world, without falling into the trap of oversimplifying and saying (like bigots do) "Man and woman created He them, all the rest is abomination".

This thread could run and run...! :G

That's a good way to put it. Yes, we are all complex individuals, but at the same time we need certain reasonably simple terms for everyday use, especially when it comes to rights and politcs and describing things to people not in the TG community. As I recall, in her book about gender freedom Martine Rothblatt came up with a suggestion of describing people's genders using certain colour codes ("John is a turquoise kind of a person and his -- or more likely hir, or "their" -- partner Carol is beige"...). I wasn't that convinced, but the idea she was trying to suggest was that the most important things about who a person is are not necessarily connected to what they were born with between the legs.

Ps. I remember reading an article by the gender psychiatrist Russel Reid in which he said that he tended to assess a person who cross-dresses based on 3 main things, which were levels of cross-gender identification, sexual attraction to the same sex and sexual arousal from the activity, so at the opposite ends of the spectrum you would have a straight man who mainly cross-dresses because he finds it sexually exciting and a transwoman who gets no sexual kick from it but completely identifies with women and is attracted to men. Such criteria might look a bit crude or even outdated (are straight women always necessarily more feminine than lesbian ones, for example? do so-called "auto-gynephile" transwomen exist, and if so, do they always necessarily make bad candidates for transitioning? etc) but the point of mentioning it was that he said most people have varying levels of the 3 elements. But as you said, limiting it to 3 is probably not enough.

:18_1_37[1