Thanks, Veronica. You understood the exact meaning I intended. I guess when people say they don't like labels, they mean labels other people use and define differently.
Thanks, Veronica. You understood the exact meaning I intended. I guess when people say they don't like labels, they mean labels other people use and define differently.
I started a thread a few days ago asking what definition I was.
It wasn’t a serious thread but I was interested in what I should call myself.
I have now read all your posts here and, Because of them and the posts I got from my thread I have taken my little label off, burnt it, and flushed the embers down the loo.
It’s obvious who I am, I am me!
It feels good. Thanks girls. [You are a clever lot you know]
Hugs, SUZY
Interesting example and I do understand your point. But that's painting with to broad a brush. Let me clarify...Originally Posted by ReineD
The problem I have with labels is how some people use them on myself in order to categorize me... as a person. I would rather choose the label or term rather than be put in one without asking me.
Many labels, or words, have multiple definitions, like bi-gender and two-spirited, which I currently use as a quick reference. But these labels have other meaning that do not describe me. So it is wise for a person to ask me to clarify. That's the element that is missing.
To not ask becomes like gossip without going to the person to whom it's supposed to describe. It can become a value judgement and sometimes an insult. We all know what happens when people assume things and not try to be fair and balanced.
Don't suppress who you are inside your heart. Let the world know how special you really are. Don't forget to smileas you share. It will come through in your beautiful words.
Your Sister/Brother,
Debbie/Steve
But this is true for anyone who forms a value judgement over another. For example, I may choose as an adult to go back to school, thus asking my family to pick up the slack in areas that have previously been my domain. Others may see this as being selfish especially if it requires others to make sacrifices, and categorize me as a selfish person.
It is up to me to explain my motives, if I care about the person making the value judgment, or ignore them if their opinion doesn't matter to me. In this case, I would substitute the term, "seeking self-fulfillment so that I can be a better mother", with "selfish".
Totally agree, some concepts are too complex to fully define in just one word. There are volumes written on biology for example, although there are many fields within the discipline. But, the word is an introduction to the science and it begs further clarification when discussing concrete studies, just as do the words "transgender", or "bigender".
Last edited by ReineD; 11-14-2011 at 03:06 PM.
Reine
Exactly! I guess my point is while we do what we can here to create a language that represents how we self-identify, the rest of the world is tossing some of the same terms about without the same kind of thought. Even if this evening we all came to agreement on a set of terms that fit us all perfectly we would see those same terms used tomorrow in the news or on a talk show in ways that would drive us crazy. The current trend, as Reine points out, seems to be for the media to use Transgender when they mean Transexual. So we may use Transgender because to us it means "crossdressing but not as a physical fetish but to bring balance to my perception of my gender". However the people you are trying to communicate with watched the news last night believe you are transexual. Instead of needing more information they already think they know the rest of the story and we are back to square one.
Sarah
Being transgender isn't a lifestyle choice. How you deal with it is.
It is dangerous to over generalization. To assume all media use a blanket term when they mean a specific one is just poor journalism on their part.
I also agree Reine when she says "media seems to be increasingly more comfortable with the term "transgender..." Of course they are selling a product and the general public find that term more palatable. If they get it wrong then they get it wrong. It's not our responsibility to be the public watchdog for our community, Transdog if you will.
Even within the global community there is a difference between the terms. I don't think one continent can draw a line in the sand over use of any single term.
Personally, this site can be a tough place to 'fit-in'.
Today, I like to 'label' who and what I am. Finally fitting in to a cubical is cool. There are few here that sit on the fence and let others tell them how and who to be. Case in point...
I don't have a problem with labels. I have a problem with labels that are murky and confusing.
Let's go for a little more clarity here. We're not talking about labels, we're talking about concepts. A label can be as particular as you like, naming an exact individual: Sophie, Sarah, Reine, etc. Concepts are general. They are meant to gather individual entities into a mental grouping in order to make them easier to think about. They are essential for human thought. We could not possibly deal with every single apple as if it were an entirely new phenomenon completely unrelated to all the other apples we've ever seen in our life. Multiply that by all the gazillion entities out there in the universe, and you can easily see how our brains would get nowhere trying to handle all that date if we did not form concepts.
So yes, concepts are good, they're essential. They only work properly, though, when they're formed properly. There are two important steps in concept formation. One is to make sure that the items being grouped have an essential similarity that makes them cognitively functional. One can't form a concept that groups tires with pencils. There's nothing we can do, cognitively, with that concept. We can group apples, cherries, lemons, mangos, etc, under the concept 'fruit', but tires & pencils is a non-starter. I'll gloss over the question of whether transsexuals and crossdressers are cognitively commensurate, and just stipulate that on the basis of gender non-conformity, they can be grouped together.
The other important step when forming a concept is to give it a name. If the name is made up from whole-cloth, then no problem. Where in the world did the word 'fruit' come from? Who knows? But someone came up with it, and it stuck. Scientists like to invent words out of Latin and Greek roots. When they do so, those roots should be employed properly. If they describe a creature as 'monocephalic', it should have just one head. People who know what the root words mean are going to expect that, and it would be confusing to call something with two heads monocephalic.
The naming schemes they come up with should also be internally consistent. For example, if scientists doing research in human sexuality want to come up with a name for heterosexuals who have occasional sexual fantasies about members of the same sex, it would be a grave error to call them 'polysexuals'. Sure, they can stipulate their own definition of the word, and give it the weight of expert authority. Given current usage of the words 'homosexual', 'heterosexual' and 'bisexual', however, people will misunderstand that word. They will take it to be a statement about the person's sexual preference, not about his sexual fantasies. The people saddled with that "label" will constantly have to explain that it doesn't mean what it appears to mean; or they will simply reject it--perhaps by saying they hate labels.
In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the underlying concept that groups people together by the fact that they rebel against gender conformity. The problem I have is with the name that has been given to the concept. The similarity in form of 'transgender' and 'transsexual' leads people to think that they are synonyms. There is simply no reason to read the 'trans' in 'transgender' differently from the 'trans' in 'transsexual'. The two words have the exact same construction, and should be read the exact same way. When transsexuals decide that they can be happy with changing their sex just for a few hours every other week, then I'll believe that the 'trans' in 'transgender' means "crossing back and forth," rather than crossing over permanently.
This is why we need comprehensive gender and sexual education in schools. Our children can learn the difference between these two terms, just as with "telescope" vs. "television". And then they can teach their parents.
Reine
Sorry If Im not really adding any solid content to the thread, but I just thought this was weird.
On one of many occasions googling 'Crossdresser', I came across a website the professed to know the difference between a transvestite and a crossdresser with this little pearl of wisdom...
"Male transvestites generally will dress entirely in female attire, often with makeup, wig and other accessories to complete the outward appearance of femininity, where-as a cross dresser will only wear feminine underwear beneath his male clothes".
Now this was a random site, Im sorry that Im unable to link, but the point is that if this sort of knowledge is allowed to be shared with the world, its very little wonder that society and the media are getting their ideas and opinions screwed up.
I know it's not factual, but nor is it the worst fabrication ever ie...'where-as a crossdresser will ask a friend to nail them to a cross made from an old dresser'.
But based on this, I think it's fair to state that the internet, while being a valuable, often lifesaving resource for us, can also be our worst enemy, even when people aren't tranny-bashing.
Samantha -x-
Okay. Just keep refusing to listen.This is why we need comprehensive gender and sexual education in schools. Our children can learn the difference between these two terms, just as with "telescope" vs. "television". And then they can teach their parents.
Sophie, I'm not wanting to be flippant, really. But we do have many words that share the same root. "Trans" means to cross over and it makes sense that many of the words in this community would share that root.
People confuse the two because they are ignorant of the fact that gender is separate from sexuality. I mean, most people are gender conformant and they are hetero. They take it that gender and sexuality are tied together, it is "normal" to be opposite-sex attracted, they don't know the difference between a person who wants to change their sexual characteristics and someone who doesn't but wants to express femininity, and they don't immediately think that "sex", "sexual", or "sexuality" means both, a person's biology and also their attraction to others. They don't take the time to think deeply about gender and sexuality issues. This is why we seriously need to teach our kids what this is all about.
Last edited by ReineD; 11-16-2011 at 11:16 AM.
Reine
This has nothing to do with gender vs sex. It's about the prefix 'trans' and whether it applies to crossdressers. The parallel with 'transsexual' cannot be glibly dismissed. In that word, 'trans' means crossing over permanently. There is no reason to read it otherwise in 'transgender'. It would be far easier to simply use a different word than it would be to go around and explain to everyone on the planet that the word doesn't mean what it ought to mean based on its etymology.
Here's a question for you: Why do you insist that the word 'transgender' must be the name for this concept of gender nonconformity? Why are you unwilling to consider that a different word would be more readily acceptable to crossdressers?
Meaning of... trans-
Reference from...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trans-
Meaning of... transgender
Reference from...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transgender
Sophie...
I'm all in favor of exploring a new terms or words that would work better. But I was confused where you added... permanently... to the meaning of trans or transgender. I think this is being added incorrectly by someone... or altering it's meaning which is inconsistent with the word.
I can see where someone might confuse it with the word.. transaction... and it could seem to be permanent. But permanent is never mentioned in that words definition.
Last edited by sanderlay; 11-16-2011 at 01:52 PM.
Don't suppress who you are inside your heart. Let the world know how special you really are. Don't forget to smile
Your Sister/Brother,
Debbie/Steve
What? It has everything to do with gender and sex: "Transgender", "Transsexual".
A transsexual feels a disconnect with her biological sex, and her gender role/expression. She therefore wishes to alter her biological sex and change her gender role/expression.
A crossdresser does not feel a disconnect with his biological sex (except when he wants breast creams, maybe), but he does feel a disconnect with the expression assigned to his gender. This is why he wants to present as a woman.
Both cross the gender boundaries in some form, and they fall under the transgender umbrella.
If you don't personally fit under any of these two scenarios, that's fine. I am talking about the community as a whole.
Who ever said that crossing gender boundaries is permanent? It is for the transsexual. It is not for the crossdresser.
Because I think it's simpler to use established terms. You can get a lot more people to understand your meaning that way. Here's an example of several different gender neutral pronoun conventions. Everyone did their own thing, and so no one uses gender neutral terms, really:
http://genderneutralpronoun.wordpress.com/
Oh ... and I'm not the one who comes up with all these "trans" terms, although once in awhile I'll play around and come up with yet a new "label", just to yank people's chains.
Reine
So, if I follow your logic, no telephone conversation between people in (say) Paris and New York can possibly be considered transatlantic since the communication goes both ways and by your definition trans can only be one-way traffic. Alternatively, if we accept that the conversation is indeed transatlantic, then a flight carrying an individual from Washington to London would not be transatlantic because it only crosses the Atlantic in one direction, not both.
What description do you propose we use to differentiate these two concepts (in my examples) so that Trans does not merely mean "cross" but means either "crossing and returning" or "crossing in a single direction"?
Last edited by Rianna Humble; 11-16-2011 at 03:57 PM.
Check out this link if you are wondering about joining Safe Haven.
This above all: To thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any
Galileo said "You cannot teach a man anything" and they accuse ME of being sexist
Never ascribe to malice that which can be easily explained by sheer stupidity
While there is no reference to permanence in any of the definitions of trans, there is an implied sense of being on the other side in most of the examples used in the definitions. i.e.and“across,” “beyond,” “through,” “changing thoroughly,” “transverse,”and ""Astronomy . a prefix denoting something farther from the sun (than a given planet): trans-Martian; trans-Neptunian."I have to agree with Sophie on this one. The implied permanence added to the overall confusion over the differentiation between gender and sex, leads most people to equate transgender as being a form of transexuality. If you undergo the knife you are a transexual but if you have stopped short or are awaiting, then you are transgender. I am not stating that as my opinion, but simply as the way I believe that many people think.changing thoroughly: transliterate..transcending: transubstantiation"
In addition, the linking of "T" with LGB for political purposes, has the unfortunate effect of corroborating the false stereotype that crossdressers are all homosexual.
The concept of permanence to the prefix "trans" leads directly to the original sense in which the word transgender was used by Virginia Prince. She had ceased being a crossdresser in the sense that the word was used by Tri-ess, and had become full time and on hormones.
The digital age has speeded up the physical communication of messages and ideas, but it has brought about irreparable damage to the various languages used around the world. Things like spelling, grammar and definitions are being rendered unimportant nuisances in everyday usage and the world of texting, replaced by acronyms, spell check and smilies. Schools are neglecting to teach these subjects on the assumption that the machine will handle everything. However, the accurate conveyance of ideas, agreements, laws and intentions requires the use of proper language. I realize that languages evolve over time, but there was traditionally a logical sequence to the process over a considerable period of time. (step down from soapbox)
Veronica
Last edited by Veronica27; 11-16-2011 at 04:09 PM.
You raise a good question, and I am sure there is a logical answer to it, but one does not pop into my head at the moment. What you are describing is the "sloppy" use of linguistics that has been creeping into the lexicon of English over the past century or so. Trans means across or through, but there is no necessity for return in the definition. Once established on the other side, I suppose, the prefix would properly describe the return trip. A saw which goes back and forth to make its cut is referred to as a reciprocal saw. There are a number of usages of that word, and some version of it might have been more fitting for someone who fluctuates back and forth between gender expression, or simply choices in clothing. In the meantime, I will stick with crossdressing to describe my activities, as it seems the most apropos
Veronica
There is nothing sloppy about using transatlantic to describe both the conversation (2 way) and the flight (1 way) both cross the Atlantic.
The sloppiness comes when someone tries to strait-jacket the prefix trans into meaning only one or other of its senses - e.g. someone who insists that the prefix as used in transgender has to have the same precise sense (either uni or multi directional) as it does in transsexual.
Check out this link if you are wondering about joining Safe Haven.
This above all: To thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any
Galileo said "You cannot teach a man anything" and they accuse ME of being sexist
Never ascribe to malice that which can be easily explained by sheer stupidity
Our objection to the term has nothing to do with the gender vs sex distinction. Is that clearer?What? It has everything to do with gender and sex: "Transgender", "Transsexual".
It is for the transsexual, and since that word was established first in the public consciousness, the public assumes that it is also permanent for those who are transgender. Here's the definition of transsexual per the Random House Dictionary:Who ever said that crossing gender boundaries is permanent? It is for the transsexual. It is not for the crossdresser.
So by analogy one would assume that a transgender person wants the gender role, but not the physical characteristics, i.e., pre-op, but still with the same desire to live 24/7 as a woman. That's not me, and I daresay it's not the majority of people who qualify as crossdressers.trans·sex·u·al noun 1. a person having a strong desire to assume the physical characteristics and gender role of the opposite sex.
From the same source, here is the definition of transgender:
With the crossdresser, everything hinges on what they mean by 'to be' and 'habitual'. Are they talking about someone who wants to be a member of the opposite sex 24/7, to habitually crossdress every single day? Or do they mean someone who likes to dress up on the second Saturday of every month? This is not purely an academic quibble, as you ought to know. Go read Anne's recent post, if you need a refresher in what it means to a crossdresser to be understood on this score. Wives who are happily accepting of crossdressing can get decidedly nervous when it starts to look like their husband might be a transsexual.trans·gen·der noun 1. a person appearing or attempting to be a member of the opposite sex, as a transsexual or habitual cross-dresser.
Not if the terms are confusing, and this one is. It's established in academic circles and in the activist community, but it is not established with the general public.Because I think it's simpler to use established terms. You can get a lot more people to understand your meaning that way.
Last edited by Sophie86; 11-16-2011 at 06:47 PM. Reason: Fixed typo. First definition was of 'transsexual', obviously.
So what if we picked... either... What does this mean?
Meaning of... either
Reference from...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/either
From what I read... "... one or the other of two..." which works for the cross dresser... who moves in both directions. And it can work for a person who moves from one gender to the other. But it leaves out people like myself who present and say we are both male and female... or the third gender. The term is not flexible enough.
Trans... does have its advantages as it is a flexible term.
Don't suppress who you are inside your heart. Let the world know how special you really are. Don't forget to smile
Your Sister/Brother,
Debbie/Steve
*sigh* I'm just tired of all this arguing, with the same rehashing of definitions, the same points and counterpoints, with the same handful of people (no disrespect intended).
So ...I'm bowing out of this one too.
Sophie, you're more than welcome to come up with any word you like to define yourself with and I say this with all due respect.
Reine
Labels are labels and everyone's definitions seem different and honestly we are all different. I consider myself trangender because I fell like a girl inside and want to be able to be full time at some point. Because I am not on medical hormones or living full tiem I don't think of myself as transexual and honestly I think we are all crossdressers (unless one has fully transitioned) but to me its much more than just dressing in women's clothes.
Thank you.
::This space for rent::
Once again I state the obvious fact. This is where the problem lies. We (trans community) have people, who do not have the proper education nor expertise to employ logical structures and real-world references to convey, process, and assign meaning, as well as to manage and resolve ambiguity.
To this point we have allowed amateurs, popular celebrities, or medical personnel to coin a word or phrase. Would it be too difficult to involve a linguist in any attempt to untangle the terms and definitions we commonly use?
When and whom decided that the terms we use today are correct and proper for us? I have been involved in this community for some where near 40 years. No one has ever asked my opinion as to what I think I should be called or what I think a crossdresser should be called.
If the current words and terms are out of date we should correct them. But, we should do it as a community and not continue to allow just anyone to label us because they are some amateur of the street, popular, a medical quack and do not even belong to our community.
If we are going to do it, do it right once and for all.
Translation: since you all are too stupid to use words, shut the hell up.
Posting Permissions
