Emerging standards on references to the transgendered?

[Miriam-J]

I've followed the recent news with regard to Chelsea/Bradley Manning with interest from a number of perspectives, most of which clearly belong in other parts of this site. But one of the most intriguing facets has been the now visible struggle by the news media to define how they refer to transgendered individuals. Some news organization have been quite open about their internal discussions and decisions, while others have been secretive, inconsistent, or just plain mean-spirited. I think this split reflects the problems faced by the general population, and even those of us on this forum. Perhaps the more promising approaches by the news organizations will become the norm for society itself.

For example, one article included the following:

The AP will henceforth use Pvt. Chelsea E. Manning and female pronouns for the soldier, in accordance with her wishes to live as a woman. This is in conformity with the transgender guidance in the AP Stylebook. The guidance calls for using the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth.
Another article, in the conservative Washington Times of all places, provides a broader perspective (see http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/28/bradley-manning-gender-fight-escalates-fox-plays-d/). This is too long to quote here, but I'll copy in some key points:


Fox News has come under fire for refusing to cite Manning, who is still a male — despite his offer to pay for his own hormone treatments if the Army would allow them — as a woman. The news outlet drove home its stance Tuesday, heading into commercial with the Aerosmith song “Dude (Looks Like a Lady)” in the background and broadcasting photos of Manning dressed in his blond-bombshell wig as Chelsea.
[CNN] Executives announced its reporters and anchors would continue to call Manning a “he” because the soldier [...] is not actually taking hormone therapy or undergoing any medical procedure that would change his gender.
The AP, meanwhile, announced [as quoted above]

Whether we agree with Manning's actions or not, his case has brought the issues surrounging transgenderism to the public eye more than ever before. When I first saw the pictures of "Chelsea", I said to my (accepting) wife "Oh god, this is all we need!". But I've been pleasantly surprised. In many cases the response has been very thoughtful and thought-provoking, and I haven't seen the wave of pronounced hatred that I dreaded. Sure, there are plenty of crazies that "hate us" no matter what, but it does appear there's much greater acceptance than years ago, and perhaps even more than most of us expected.

Is it possible that this case has been a blessing for our community? Has it made it possible to emerge from the shadows, to crack the door open just a bit? I hope so.

Miriam

[Kelly DeWinter]

Miriam,

Looks like you beat me to the punch, I too have noticed a noticeably change in the reporting of Chelsea Manning's name and gender in the news. I believe it's a bigger change in the way our society is viewing people of trans gender. It's a start, but it has a long way to go.

[heatherdress]

Is it possible that this case has been a blessing for our community?

No. I strongly disagree. Although there is some confusion regarding how the press is struggling to be appropriately correct describing Manning's gender requests, the case overwhemling reflects negatively upon the transgender community. Manning performed dishonorably as a soldier - treason. He performed his crime as a male and, subsequently, used transgenderism to mitigate his actions. Transgenderism is being used by him and his lawyers as a weakness, or illness, not in any manner as a positive condition.

Any way you look at this "excuse" for his actions, it comes out negatively. Transgendered people are troubled and can't be blamed for their actions. They are confused and can't be trusted. Transgendered people need to be treated differently. There is nothing positive.

There are negative reactions for his implied expectations that he should be treated differently than other soldiers who are convicted of crimes and incarcerated because he is, or claims to be, transgendered. Again, this is rather negative for transgendered people.

Possible expectations on his behalf that the government should provide and pay for transition expenses while in jail will also have negative implications. Why should taxpayers support a criminal's transgendered needs?

Finally, if anyone thinks that he might be a poster child for the military to break down transgender barriers in recruitment and regulations, they will be disappointed. If anything, this will have a negative effect within the Services to change the culture. Service members and Veterns overwhelmingly will have little sympathy for one of their own who betrayed their oath.

My comments are not offered to debate his case, but rather to offer some perspectives about the effects upon the transgendered population. I offer that this is not positive for us.

A published perspective: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/08/chelsea_manning_is_no_hero_for_trans_soldiers_her_ condition_was_no_excuse.html

[AllieSF]

I agree with you Miriam and disagree with you Heather. I agree that on the surface it may look bad for the "T" community. However, these issues need to occur and be addressed properly. Since for many this is somewhat new for them, I can understand the struggle to try to come to grips with it. Some take the hard line and others do not. Just like Jane and John Q. Public. They will eventually learn and adjust either based on learning what is the right way to deal with "us" or by being forced by peer and market pressures. In my view we need all the exposure that we can get, even good can come of bad, and that good will greatly out weigh the bad. We can't live in the dark and we are not all the same, so we and the rest of the world needs to learn how to live and deal with us as we are, however we are, and not how we wish they were. I do not expect you to change for me, so don't expect me to change for you.

PS: Thanks for starting this post, because I was also thinking the same thing.

[arbon]

Is it possible that this case has been a blessing for our community? Has it made it possible to emerge from the shadows, to crack the door open just a bit? I hope so.

Miriam

you don't even have the courtesy to refer to her as her....what exactly do you expect from the rest of society?

[Jacqueline Winona]

Arbon, I think you misinterpreted Miriam's post- she was talking about the case, not Manning, when she used the word "it." She did not take any side on the issue of whether Manning should be referred to as a she, as she was simply talking about both sides of the debate. Nonetheless, I could be wrong but I thought it was apparent she sided with the "she" crowd on that issue.

[jenni_xx]

Jacqueline, the only time Miriam used a pronoun, she wrote this:


Whether we agree with Manning's actions or not, his case has brought the issues surrounging transgenderism to the public eye more than ever before. When I first saw the pictures of "Chelsea"

Referring to Chelsea using the pronoun "his". Also, Miriam put Chelsea's name inside quotation marks.


the case overwhemling reflects negatively upon the transgender community. Manning performed dishonorably as a soldier - treason. He performed his crime as a male and, subsequently, used transgenderism to mitigate his actions. Transgenderism is being used by him and his lawyers as a weakness, or illness, not in any manner as a positive condition.

I disagree. To say "overwhelming" is taking it far too far. And I think people are missing the point if they think that transgendererism is being blamed for Chelsea's actions. It's not. The poster Reine on this site highlighted this in another thread:

"Here's a piece that Jennifer Boylan (TS author of "She's Not There: a Life in Two Genders") wrote on Manning for Psychology Today. She obviously sympathizes with Manning even though she condemns Manning's actions. She sees a lot of sadness in Manning's face (there's a selfie taken while Manning was dressed) and says it’s isolation and depression that drive people to break the law, not transness itself."

I also think that your worry doesn't give the general populace enough credit. It's disingenuous to suggest that members of a "minority" group, be it gay, transgendered, ethnic, etc, are ALL maligned by the general public whenever one of it's "members" is portrayed (or does something) negatively. That view is simply outdated. It would also be disingenuous were it only ever allowed for media to talk positively about such minority groups. People in general long ago realised that there is good and bad, and difference, among any (and every) group. That's not to say that there won't be certain individuals who do use specific cases to put down a certain group, but that (as the majority of people recognise) is simply an example of their own bigotry rising to the fore. In other words, it's a view that such individuals already hold, and while negative reporting may result in helping them reaffirm their view, the crux is that no amount of positive reporting will result in them changing it.

[Miriam-J]

Thanks for your feedback so far. It's an interesting mix, and I'm glad I've provoked a bit of thought. Some follow-on thoughts on a new day ...

I was careful not to use gender pronouns as I didn't want to color the discussion, and I expected the discussion would then revolve around my own choice of pronouns. I see that I slipped up in one case where I used "he", which surprised me because I do tend toward the "she" side. But I'd rather not have the discussion be about my own leanings.

In the short run this will make some things more difficult. For example, it would be a really bad time for those of us in the military or working at a defense contractor to tell our employers that we're transgendered, even if we don't feel we're troubled by a "disorder", as security officials could point to this case as evidence that we're a security risk. At this point it would be difficult for many in the security establishment (who tend toward right wing views anyway) to understand that one can be transgendered without having a psychological disorder that inevitably leads to violations of security policies. But the light being cast on this case, and others being brought to light, may allow the idea of transgenderism to enter into the public eye enough that those who want to understand will gain a better insight. Bigotry can only end when we are seen as rational individuals with an acceptable perspective. If enough of us stand in the light and help them understand, many more people will cast off their bigotry.

Miriam

[Rhonda Darling]

The group GLADD.ORG has long taken hollywood and the media in general to task about the treatment of transgender individuals in movies and the news. See: http://www.glaad.org/blog/private-manning-will-be-called-chelsea-least-some-media-outlets for their discussion of Chelsea. As I understand it, GLADD has been a driving source for media to have a standard policy for referring to CD/TG/TS men and women, fighting the good fight mostly in the back rooms out of sight.

Rhonda

[Diversity]

I hope this does open the door even more for us all. It is powerful stuff, filled with many emotions and prejudices. Let's hope something good comes out of this unfortunate circumstance.
Di

[xdressed]

I don't know if it's because I'm from the UK and have a different perspective, but there's been a lot of support for Chelsea over here that I've seen, both in regards to transition and there's even been a lot of outrage at her sentencing. I think it may not be the ideal way for Transgender people to get more recognition and understanding but it could well be a step in the right direction.

I'd just like to point out that 'Transgendered' isn't a word, no one comes up and 'transgenders' us, it's just Transgender.

[NicoleScott]

Finally, if anyone thinks that he might be a poster child for the military to break down transgender barriers in recruitment and regulations, they will be disappointed. If anything, this will have a negative effect within the Services to change the culture. Service members and Veterns overwhelmingly will have little sympathy for one of their own who betrayed their oath.

Heather, I think you're right about this. We will hear "See, trandgendered soldiers are emotional train-wrecks. They can't be trusted." citing the Manning case.

Too much ado about names and pronouns. Manning is considered by the Army as a man - a man who has not begun any transition steps. Evidence that Manning is a woman is "Because I say so". Let's allow it to play out, and in time there will be no confusion.

[Kelly DeWinter]

......... I see that I slipped up in one case where I used "he", which surprised me because I do tend toward the "she" side. But I'd rather not have the discussion be about my own leanings..........................

Miriam

OMG, you mean you made a slight mistake and got called on it ? in a forum ? NOoooooooooooooooooo , Whats this world coming to ? That would NEVER happen here ! (For those of you who canno't read sarcasim, THATS what the caps are for)

Miriam , no worries most will understand your meaning. The cynical side of me says Chelsea used the "TG defense" as a hail mary deflection for hopes of leniency for her crimes. It's too bad Leavenworth does not allow computer access , it wold be interesting to have her as a forum member.

[robindee36]

Oh, how far our society has come in accepting gender and sexuality issues. However, the case cited only emphasizes how much further there is to go.

Personally, I see it as a tempest in a tea cup, a novelty for the news, before they move on to the next 'Breaking News" story. Give this story 2 weeks and I wager it will be but a distant memory in the collective societal consciousness.

There may come a time when society can stop creating little boxes with alpha designations into which we must all fit. Just look at the animosity here within our little subset of society (can I say subset here without offending anyone?)

Time to move on to move fun things like lingerie, makeup and.......

If we're not having fun with this then what the heck are we doing?

Hugs, Robin

[scarlett]

The group GLADD.ORG has long taken hollywood and the media in general to task about the treatment of transgender individuals in movies and the news. See: http://www.glaad.org/blog/private-manning-will-be-called-chelsea-least-some-media-outlets for their discussion of Chelsea. As I understand it, GLADD has been a driving source for media to have a standard policy for referring to CD/TG/TS men and women, fighting the good fight mostly in the back rooms out of sight.

Rhonda

Might want to check those links.

[jenni_xx]

I don't know if it's because I'm from the UK and have a different perspective, but there's been a lot of support for Chelsea over here that I've seen, both in regards to transition and there's even been a lot of outrage at her sentencing. I think it may not be the ideal way for Transgender people to get more recognition and understanding but it could well be a step in the right direction.

I'd just like to point out that 'Transgendered' isn't a word, no one comes up and 'transgenders' us, it's just Transgender.

There has been a lot of support in the UK for Chelsea. I, personally, do support her.

As for the word "transgendered"...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transgendered


Heather, I think you're right about this. We will hear "See, trandgendered soldiers are emotional train-wrecks. They can't be trusted." citing the Manning case.

Too much ado about names and pronouns. Manning is considered by the Army as a man - a man who has not begun any transition steps. Evidence that Manning is a woman is "Because I say so". Let's allow it to play out, and in time there will be no confusion.

How many here are considered a man in the profession that they are employed? How many here have not begun any transition steps, nor have any intention of doing so? Yet here we are all sensitive and considerate enough to refer to each other using a female pronoun. Why shouldn't Chelsea be afforded the same consideration, both within this community and by the media?

[Nikki A.]

I have mixed feeling on this whole situation.
I do see a positive side in that it does show that we do exist and are a part of society and that the media has been generally non sensational about it.
On the other hand, he did wrong and tried to use transgenderism as an excuse. What does being TG have to do with leaking our county's secrets.

[LeaP]

To my knowledge, Chelsea hasn't referred to herself as "transgender." What she said was "I am a female." I.e., transsexual.

I support female gendered language for her. But she is not a blessing. Just as bad cases make bad law, bad examples make for bad press. Yes there is public discussion over gendering, but the general population will remember Chelsea's coming out as a weird episode and associate that with all transsexuals.

[jenni_xx]

To my knowledge, Chelsea hasn't referred to herself as "transgender." What she said was "I am a female." I.e., transsexual.

I support female gendered language for her. But she is not a blessing. Just as bad cases make bad law, bad examples make for bad press. Yes there is public discussion over gendering, but the general population will remember Chelsea's coming out as a weird episode and associate that with all transsexuals.

Doesn't the term transgender encompass all varying aspects - kind of an umbrella term?

As for what the general populace will remember, I think you give too much credit to how much one individual (be they good for a certain group or bad) has over the mindset of the general population. I will categorically state right now that what Chelsea did, and the public reaction to what she did (which itself is wide and varied) will not result in the general populace associating the actions of one individual with every single other transsexual. It simply doesn't work that way. In much the same way as everyone doesn't think all crossdressers are comedians because of the existence of Eddie Izzard, or all are artists because of the existence of Grayson Perry. Or all are serial killers because of the Buffalo Bill character in fiction.

It's a fear that is simply unfounded. It's a misconception to think that way. The majority don't. Some may, but as I said earlier, they are simply using such examples (of negativity towards a certain minority group) in order to affirm their already cemented opinion in regards to said minority group. Those people are otherwise known as bigots. And it's bigots who are generally dismissed by the general populace, not the people such bigots attack.

[arbon]

I fail to see how her case will impact crossdressers or the so called transgender community.

Transsexual though - if she is able to obtain appropriate medical care while in prison it may help to further legitimize the medical needs of transsexual people. Thats about the only possible positive that i can see.

[DebbieL]

Manning's case is an interesting point in history. 5-10 years ago, Manning would have been forced to spend the rest of his life in a men's prison, getting no form of therapy of any kind, and probably being repeatedly raped - because he was transgendered.

The Supreme Court ruled that when a prison denies medical care as defined by the standards of the practice, it is "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" which is banned by the constitution. The test case for this was a number of cases where prisoners had been denied medical care for life threatening and painful conditions such as cancer, AIDS, and MS, because they were prisoners. The Supreme Court realized that these people were being forced to live under conditions that fit the "Cruel and Unusual" criteria.

In early 2012, the American Psychology Association declared that their standard practice for transsexuals was to encourage transition - that to attempt to persuade a transsexual to remain in his birth gender was UNETHICAL. In early 2013, the American Psychiatric Association established similar standards of care. The American Medical Association has also established similar standards of care, and reiterated it by recommending that HRT and SRS be considered essential care, covered by insurance companies.

Based on those decisions, the federal prison system MUST provide Manning with HRT and SRS procedures if he so chooses. Note that Manning has stated that he is a transsexual rather than just a cross-dresser. As a result, she will probably end up getting HRT and SRS and will serve his sentence in a woman's prison.

What may be even more controversial is that the Intelligence community knew he was transsexual and this may have been part of the reason he was assigned to intelligence work. Transsexuals usually guard their nation's secrets as carefully and effectively as they guard their own secret. During a security check, you are required to list all of your known aliases, and it's quite likely that Manning listed Chelsea among those aliases.

The problem with this is that transsexuals are often a bit more compassionate and more disturbed by certain types of violence and brutality. Most transsexuals have experienced brutality as a victim during elementary school, middle school, and early high school. Most people don't understand the distinctions between transsexuals and homosexuals, and there are many institutions that target both homosexuals and transsexuals for violence and brutality - not because of any actual wrong or crime, but merely because they violate the "kosher" laws as interpreted by the King James Bible.

Looking at most of the clips and leaks leaked by Manning, it's pretty clear that he had witnessed disturbing scenes of violence against innocent civilians, often celebrated by those committing the acts of violence. Manning observed these senseless acts on a daily basis. Clips show Apache pilots firing on a father who only wanted to get his toddler children out of the car, to keep them from being turned into hamburger by the Apache machine guns. Instead, he and his children were chopped up by the fire, even after the kids were pulled out.

In other clips, a news cameraman and the rest of the crew, were mowed down because someone decided his TV camera was a grenade launcher.

Manning's job was to observe these events, and write summary reports, which were supposed to justify the acts against the innocent civilians. The point came where Manning snapped and said "My commanders are committing crimes, and nobody is willing to do anything about it", so he leaked it.

Manning knew the penalty for releasing this information, and didn't even try to run away or deny his actions. He did make it clear that he was not trying to aid the enemy and that he was attempting to stop actions he considered illegal and against US and International law. He knew he could face life without the possibility of parole, and even his sentence of 30 years in federal prison is probably a life sentence.

Had Manning been sent to a men's prison as a transsexual, he would have been raped daily, viciously attacked, sold like property, and eventually would have been killed, probably while being raped. This would have happened BECAUSE he was a transsexual. It's not that easy to hide it.

Even in the women's prison, Manning will likely be assaulted, sexually molested, and otherwise attacked, but at least he doesn't have to spend the rest of his live reliving the constant terror he experienced as a child IN ADDITION to the trauma being experienced at the moment.

Extensive research has shown that, once in a men's prison, Manning would be very likely commit suicide or be killed by another prisoner, probably only weeks or months after arriving. The suicide rates among untreated transsexuals is over 50% with 75% attempting to kill themselves multiple times. Prison is already a dangerous place, being a transsexual in prison is the choice between a quick and merciful death, or daily torment and torture which may STILL result in a slow and painful death.

[Lorileah]

But she is not a blessing. Just as bad cases make bad law, bad examples make for bad press. Yes there is public discussion over gendering, but the general population will remember Chelsea's coming out as a weird episode and associate that with all transsexuals. I agree. Another piece of negative ammo for the world to cite. I am not saying she isn't, just that so far the whole thing has the ring of "circus act" following the court decision. That, as has been pointed out, her defense team is using it as a wedge. I think most past military here will agree (and yes we are legion...so being transgendered isn't new to the military) that this is a case of treason no matter your gender. If a GG had done this she would get the same sentence. A convicted criminal cannot be a good role model for the TG community no matter what.


I fail to see how her case will impact crossdressers or the so called transgender community. Add criminal and traitor to the stereotype list of pervert, mentally incompetent, felon or clown. We see Chelsea as a member of the TG community and we empathize with her. 90% of the US population see a criminal who is now claiming to be TG and they see it as an excuse. They won't buy it.


Transsexual though - if she is able to obtain appropriate medical care while in prison it may help to further legitimize the medical needs of transsexual people. Thats about the only possible positive that i can see.
The military has already said it won't pay to treat her.

Manning's case is an interesting point in history. 5-10 years ago, Manning would have been forced to spend the rest of his life in a men's prison, getting no form of therapy of any kind, and probably being repeatedly raped - because he was transgendered. considering the crime in a military prison...Chelsea will be in solitary 23 hours in a private cell and 1 hour in the yard for exercise. For her protection from the general population. Even though the inmates are incarcerated by the military, many will still see what she did as a reason for violence. Same thing happens when a pedophile is incarcerated. Criminals have their own moral codes.




Based on those decisions, the federal prison system MUST provide Manning with HRT and SRS procedures if he so chooses. Note that Manning has stated that he is a transsexual rather than just a cross-dresser. As a result, she will probably end up getting HRT and SRS and will serve his sentence in a woman's prison. which is part of the men's facility at Leavenworth just a different wing. But see above about keeping her out of the general population anyway. Also realize that the military often is not held to the same standards as the rest of the country so expect that they will deny treatment for as long as possible. This will be a Supreme Court ruling eventually.



Even in the women's prison, Manning will likely be assaulted, sexually molested, and otherwise attacked, but at least he doesn't have to spend the rest of his live reliving the constant terror he experienced as a child IN ADDITION to the trauma being experienced at the moment. Wow...six of one half a dozen of another don't you think? You don't think PTSD is "reliving"? I truly think pursuing PTSD would have been a better defense. Not only because I think Chelsea has PTSD from the job as you described...but if there was sexual abuse earlier on.

As pointed out prison isn't a safe place for anyone who isn't on the top of the food chain. In this case I really think that Manning will be in isolation and no matter what gender, that would have been the case. I hope Chelsea gets what she needs to survive.

[arbon]

The military has already said it won't pay to treat her.

And that will be challenged.

[Miriam-J]

Do I dare make a plea for the discussion to stay somewhere close to the original topic? Pretty please? The recent offerings are just going to lead to more and more emotional responses, and I avoided these facets of the case for that reason.

Miriam

[CynthiaD]

I'd just like to point out that 'Transgendered' isn't a word, no one comes up and 'transgenders' us, it's just Transgender.

"Transgendered" is just as much a word as "near-sighted," "short-legged," and so forth.

[Bootsiegalore]

it is interesting how the documentation released by manning and snowdon have esposed the US Government of illegal activities in multiples daily over the past 2 years. The news reported over 4000 violations of law. I want to know when do we say enough is enough. I can not understand why the whistle blowers get in trouble and prosecuted while the perpetrators get raises and promotions......

confused

[LeaP]

Doesn't the term transgender encompass all varying aspects - kind of an umbrella term?


Yes, one I reject as having negative consequences for transsexuals. In this case, its the other way around. To the thread topic, the "transgender," non-transsexual population would have been better off if public discourse made the proper distinction. If that were the case, only transsexuals would be excoriated and not the rest.

It's funny when you think about it. Almost all cases in the news involve transsexuals, not crossdressers or genderqueer people. But because of the breadth of the transgender concept, the public debate invariably devolves into topics that don't concern transsexuals or can be handled uniquely for them.

So who is helped? No-one. Transsexuals are hurt by being placed in a population where their concerns (medical, especially) are in the minority and thereby ignored or argued away as the exception. TG people are dragged into controversy over a tiny group whose most serious concerns are irrelevant to them.

So if you want the larger implication in the Chelsea Manning story, it's the lesson ignored. And that is why transsexuals constantly comment on the distinction, Jenni.

[NicoleScott]

You make a good point, LeaP. But I never hear transsexuals speak up when they are referred to as transgenders, in response to your last sentence.

[heatherdress]

I would only liked to add that I hope that there are positives regarding awareness and acceptance and understanding. I hope.

I am unfortunately skeptical that more negatives will result than positives.

I hope I am wrong.

[Veronica27]

No. I strongly disagree. Although there is some confusion regarding how the press is struggling to be appropriately correct describing Manning's gender requests, the case overwhemling reflects negatively upon the transgender community. Manning performed dishonorably as a soldier - treason. He performed his crime as a male and, subsequently, used transgenderism to mitigate his actions. Transgenderism is being used by him and his lawyers as a weakness, or illness, not in any manner as a positive condition.

[/url]

I tend to agree with you on this. I have only heard a great deal of skepticism from the general public about Manning and his wishes. I am reminded of the case of Russell Williams that occurred near my own neighbourhood a few years ago. He was the highest ranking officer in our nearby Canadian Forces base, but was convicted of two brutal murders of women, and numerous home invasions in order to photograph himself wearing his female victims' underwear. For several years, his so-called crossdressing seemed to garner more negative opinion than his actual crimes. It did not create a healthy environment for anyone in the region to admit to crossdressing or being a transgender . While the two cases are significantly different in all respects, the reactions are quite similar.


I agree.

An excellent reply with some useful information.


it is interesting how the documentation released by manning and snowdon have esposed the US Government of illegal activities in multiples daily over the past 2 years. The news reported over 4000 violations of law. I want to know when do we say enough is enough. I can not understand why the whistle blowers get in trouble and prosecuted while the perpetrators get raises and promotions......

confused

This is becoming an epidemic in the U.S.A. lately.

Just an interested Canadian Observer

Veronica


Yes, one I reject as having negative consequences for transsexuals. In this case, its the other way around. To the thread topic, the "transgender," non-transsexual population would have been better off if public discourse made the proper distinction. If that were the case, only transsexuals would be excoriated and not the rest.



I think that the term transgender has negative consequences for other members of the community as well as transsexuals, or as you point out in this case "the other way around". I don't deny that some individuals are transgender, but as an umbrella term it is extremely misleading for many resulting in their motivations and activities being terribly misinterpreted.

You mention what is becoming a hot topic recently; is trangendered a word? I am still unsure on this one, as I am having a difficult time finding another non comparative adjective that ends in er . I think it might have something to do with the fact that the word's primary root word is gender, a noun. Adding trans turns it into an adjective. Another reason why I stick with crossdress (verb) and crossdresser )noun.

Veronica

[Beverley Sims]

I think we will eventually reach a time when all this occurs naturally and directives will not be needed.