Its a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world

[raybear]

I need to come out about something. I really, really dislike the use of the word "tranny/trannie". I'm not even talking about that Project Runway dude. I'm talking about my friends and neighbors.

I'm more okay if its used to describe some sort of event/space/concept that is about being intentionally provocative, like "Trannyshack" in SF. I'm not okay with it being used a general noun or descriptor of a category of people, e.g. "you could come, its full of trannies!!" or even things like "tranny yoga class" or "tranny dance night." Even if this is supposedly being used as a positive selling point. If a trans person uses it self-referentially, I don't notice as much, since I respect any homos right to call themselves a fag, a dyke, a lesbian, a queer, etc. But non-trans people saying it really gives me the willies the most. Its like all the gross fetish buttons get lit up on my emotional switchboard.

So, I'm curious to know what others think.

[Poll #1226144]

Please don't be shy about checking any box, as all of them are things I've thought myself while pondering this question.

Comments

[penpusher.livejournal.com]

There's transgender and transexual... and I'm never really sure if "tranny" applies to both or one more than the other, or whether both those terms are viable.

I wasn't even aware that "tranny" was a specific slur, as opposed to a very loose definition.

To me, it's not the word, it's more who is saying it and what they mean by it. Are they intending to use it to hurt, to be insulting or to cut someone down, or are they unaware that this word is considered hurtful by the people it's supposed to be describing?

Ultimately, everyone's vocabulary should be bigger and better and people should choose the words they use with more care and sensitivity. But we look to specific groups to know what those words should be. It's tricky in many cases, because often the word that is acceptable to be used by people within the group could be frequently used, while people outside of the group are discouraged or forbidden to use it.

Of course, that goes back to my first point about how a word gets used. I'm somewhat opposed to "banning words," as a rule. I'm more about learning the meanings of words and learning when it's appropriate to use them.

We should all have more respect for each other, and that requires listening to groups to know how they feel about such topics.

[trooper6.livejournal.com]

"Tranny" is interesting in that it doesn't tend to be used by people within the group. It isn't like queer/fag/dyke at all. While some transfolk may use the word, it is not a generic in-group term. So people using it for all their tranny porn didn't get it by looking to the transcommunity to figure out which words are appropriate.

And generally, it isn't the case that insiders use a word first then get offended when people outside start using it. Generally it is some sort of process or attempted process of reclamation...some sort of coping mechanism for dealing with oppression. Fag/Dyke/Queer/Nigger/Guinzo/etc...those were slurs made by outsiders first. Used as epitaphs of hate. And ubiquitous. Insiders start picking up the word in order to try and take some of the sting out of it...or in bitter irony...or to try and gain some sort of twisted control of their lives. This is not what outsiders are doing when they pick up that word...even if they aren't bigoted people.

Lastly, I don't give a hoot about intentions. And I think relying on them as a marker of something being okay or not is a problem. First off, people lie about there intentions all the time--even to themselves. Secondly, if we make intentions the important thing, then it all becomes about judging the person who said whatever. You are a bad person because you have bad intentions...you are a good person because you have good intentions. I'm not interested in judging a person who says jacked up things. I'm not interested in if they meant it or not...I'm interested in the action and the result.

By focusing on intent we end up shutting down dialog. For example, somebody says something racist. I say, "Hey, that was a racist thing that you just said." Automatically I get, "No it wasn't racist, because I'm not racist." "Or, no it wasn't racist because I didn't intend for it to be racist"-- which generally then means "I'm not racist."

I never said you* were racist. I don't know if you were racist. I don't know what you intended. You may not even know what you intended. You can still be a good, happy person. But...that thing you said? Racist. Note it and move forward.
(*generic you, not you penpusher)

It's like, if I run you over with my car, it doesn't really matter to you if I meant to or not...you are still in the hospital. And me saying I didn't mean it doesn't magically erase your injuries.

[penpusher.livejournal.com]

You're equating a phyisical injury with a 3000 pound vehicle with the use of a word. Maybe that's overstating the issue on your part.

A lot of the time, when a word gets into mainstream vocabulary, people don't know where it came from, who coined it and for what purpose. That's one of the interesting things about language in general and English in particular; the fact is it is a living, changing growing language that ebbs and flows constantly.

I didn't meant to imply that the word in question was coined by someone within the group. I'm not that familiar with the history of the word to know anything about it, which is why I stated what I did and also why I didn't vote in the poll.

By focusing on intentions we end up creating dialog, as we are doing here. for example, somebody says something racist. I say, "hey, that was a racist thing you just said, and here's why..."
the response would be "Oh, I understand and won't do that again."

The point being, you can't know everything; you have to be taught and you have to understand. That's the point of discussion.

[trooper6.livejournal.com]

Words have power. And they are often linked with institutional oppression. And sometimes linked with physical violence. I don't think I'm overstating.

Also, I think very few people are somehow unaware that nigger is a racial slur. Or that fag is a homophobic slur. Just seeing pictures on the news of Fred Felps with his "God Hates Fags" should be enough. But also ignorance really is not excuse...because words have social power beyond and individual's intentions. That is how language works, after all.

And your experience has been very different than mine. Focusing on intentions has always been used as a way as a defensive maneuver to stop conversation by a person who doesn't want to be labeled X-ist or X-phobic. It has always been a way to minimize the complaints of the offended party and to reject responsibility for the consequences of those actions or words. You must hang with very different people than I have.

I agree a person can't know everything and that we need to be taught and have a discussion. But the focus on intention rarely does that, in my experience.
Examples:

Situation 1 (Intentionality-focused)-
A: Transmen are so great because they are really women on the inside.
B: That is a really transphobic thing to say.
A: No it's not! I'm not transphobic, I didn't mean anything transphobic by it. You're being too sensitive. I meant it as a compliment.
Now the A is all defensive and isn't listening and the conversation is basically over.

Situation 2 (not Intentionality-focused)-
A: Transmen are so great because they are really women on the inside.
B: That is a really transphobic thing to say.
A: Oh...I'm sorry. I didn't realize. Would you be willing to explain why?
In this conversation person B apologizes for being offenses, accepts that they said something offensive and asks for an education without the annoying demand that A educate them all the time--recognizing that A might not be in the space to do educating right now.

[penpusher.livejournal.com]

I think the problem we're discussing here is in the punitives of the situation.

The thing about language is how the person is using the word, not the word itself. Just like a box of matches, you can use them to start a fire to heat your home, or burn the house down.

Words have power, definitely. What power you give to them is a part of this equation as well. Some words are widely known for being used as epithets. Others haven't gotten that kind of publicity yet. And ignorance *is* an excuse... the FIRST time, only. It has to be... if you didn't know, you didn't know.

But to get to the punitives point: we all have egos. We don't want to see ourselves as being "bad." That's why we need people, not to accuse us of being "wrong" when we make a mistake, but to point out what and why what we said was hurtful. In that scenario, it's a little easier to both deal with the error of our ways and to make changes in our behavior specifically to avoid that situation in the future.

If I say something offensive, unwittingly, I will be embarrassed by that no matter what, once I discover my mistake. But if someone calls me out for it, turns it into a scene, that may be a venting opportunity for the offended person, but it doesn't make me feel any simpatico for them. It distances me from them. That's counter to what should be happening.

In your two "situations," clearly 2 only happens in sociology film scenarios. But 1 likely happens often, with the second statement being emotionally charged and accusatory. That provides the impetus for the defensive reaction and stops the conversation cold.

The "minority" always has to be the educator. How we teach is how the rest will learn, and will set the precedent for the future responses.

[trooper6.livejournal.com]

"The thing about language is how the person is using the word, not the word itself. Just like a box of matches, you can use them to start a fire to heat your home, or burn the house down."

But it isn't just a matter of the individual person using a word, because we are not individuals in isolation from the society we live in. Words also have social meanings, and those social meanings can be strong enough to override whatever you meant by how you were using the word. Witness the New Yorker satire of Obama and his wife and terrorists doing the fist bump. People got upset and they said...we were just joking. Didn't matter their intentions or how they used it. The originator of an utterance is not the only author in that utterances meaning. The receiver (listerner) and the context (society at large) also are the authors of meaning.

"Words have power, definitely. What power you give to them is a part of this equation as well. Some words are widely known for being used as epithets. Others haven't gotten that kind of publicity yet. And ignorance *is* an excuse... the FIRST time, only. It has to be... if you didn't know, you didn't know."

A person not knowing doesn't change the fact that they hurt someone. Rather than making excuses, just take responsibility and apologize. Is that so hard? When I make excuses, I put the focus back on me rather than on the person I just hurt...adding insult to injury as it were.

"If I say something offensive, unwittingly, I will be embarrassed by that no matter what, once I discover my mistake. But if someone calls me out for it, turns it into a scene, that may be a venting opportunity for the offended person, but it doesn't make me feel any simpatico for them. It distances me from them. That's counter to what should be happening."

If someone expresses to you that you insulted and hurt them, and that makes you feel less sympathy towards them...I suggest you might want to look inwards and think about yourself and your attitudes toward other human beings rather than blaming the person you just insulted for your own lack of empathy. That's what I would do.

"In your two "situations," clearly 2 only happens in sociology film scenarios. But 1 likely happens often, with the second statement being emotionally charged and accusatory. That provides the impetus for the defensive reaction and stops the conversation cold."

Really, whenever someone calls me on behavior I make a point to respond like situation number 2. Because if someone says I just something jacked up, I need to deal with it. It makes things work a lot better. You could try it if anyone every calls you on something. Also, the statement above seems to blame the victim of the offensive behavior. Person A says, if you didn't react badly to the fact that I hurt you, maybe we could be having a conversation...but I'm hurt that you were hurt by my actions, so conversation is over." I don't really think victim blaming is the best way to go.

"The "minority" always has to be the educator. How we teach is how the rest will learn, and will set the precedent for the future responses."

People also have the responsibility to educate themselves.

[penpusher.livejournal.com]

I won't get into The New Yorker/Obamas cover here, as that issue, from my perspective, has no bearing on any point that is related to this discussion. But I would say that you are right; we should apologize for our errors. However, in a previous comment, you seem to suggest that this isn't any more valuable than saying sorry to a car accident victim, comatose in their hospital bed.

I think you misread my comment. I didn't mean to suggest that if someone expressed to me that I insulted and hurt them makes me feel less sympathy for them. Let me make that clear.

However, if someone is going to rail on me with all of the anger and ire of all of the collective hurt they have felt for all of the injustices that have occurred for all of the people who have been mentally scarred for the use of a word that I didn't know was wrong? That makes me recoil. That doesn't endear me to that person or to their cause or to the process of what they are experiencing. Do you see the difference of what I'm saying here?

"People have the responsibility to educate themselves" is a glib comment, but how do you do that? How do you gain the knowledge you are supposed to have?

It is up to people to teach others what they know, to be advocates. People are only going to do research of that sort if it has some bearing on their lives. That's why it's up to the minorities to speak up, to demonstrate to people, yes! This DOES have a bearing on your life, we are a part of this community and we have to show you what is correct and not correct.

[raybear.livejournal.com]

"People have the responsibility to educate themselves" is a glib comment

I don't think its glib at all, I think its a radical notion that most people don't truly undertake. To go back to another word used, most people don't act with full and total intentionality -- instead we parrot back things told to us and assume them to be true/right, either because its "always been done this way" or "everyone is doing it" or other reasons that help established ideas and power stay established.

Pragmatically speaking, I understand what you mean penpusher, about the obligation of those in the minority to educate those in the majority. But this also requires at least twice as much energy than those in the majority have to expend, usually closer to 5 or 10 times more. I do my best to take up this mantle of education in the moment with people I care about, in the interest of communication, but it still comes down to the fact that I'm "managing" that person (and our conversation) and that also can feel exhausting. Which is why I understand trooper6's viewpoint that its the person in power, the majority, to ALSO take on responsibility of self-education, which to me means not acting as if they know the best and only way to say or do anything in life.

In other words, I feel like most people operate from a standpoint of "I'm right until you prove me wrong" and I would rather aspire that we all operate from a standpoint of "This seems right to me right now, but I assume nothing."

[penpusher.livejournal.com]

I feel it is glib in the sense that it is easy to say, but not quite as likely when dealing with the realities of human nature.

For better or worse the ego each person has inside them is a major factor. It means putting down someone else so you can feel better about yourself. It means withdrawing when publicly humiliated. And everything in between.

It DOES require a lot of energy to force people to "unlearn" behavior. It is a proactive undertaking of the highest level!

The trouble is the majority isn't going to go out of its way to "learn" anything about the minority, unless it has some direct bearing on what's happening in their lives. That's a part of human nature too. We are resistant to doing work we don't think we have to do. How many US Citizens are volunteering to learn Farsi? Maybe if we knew we'd be going to the Middle East, there'd be a few hands.

The point is, the majority does rule, but we have to demonstrate when they are wrong and correct them in a way that doesn't hurt their pride. I know! Being the person getting slighted and trying not to harm the very people who made the comment? It is counter-intuitive to the max. And yet, that is the row to hoe here, unless we want a more violent solution.

I'm a firm believer that people want to do what's right, everything else being equal. The trouble is, everything else isn't equal.

[trooper6.livejournal.com]

For better or worse the ego each person has inside them is a major factor. It means putting down someone else so you can feel better about yourself. It means withdrawing when publicly humiliated. And everything in between.

Please don't project your way of seeing the world onto other people. I do not feel better by putting other people down. Putting other people down makes me feel bad. Perhaps you make yourself feel better by putting other people down, but that's not how everybody works. I certainly don't work that way.

As a matter of fact, Adorno, in his book The Authoritarian Complex, made the distinction between nationalists and patriots. Nationalists feel good by putting others down. Patriots feel good about their ingroup without reference to an outgroup. We don't all do what you suggest.

The point is, the majority does rule, but we have to demonstrate when they are wrong and correct them in a way that doesn't hurt their pride.

Sorry, I can't go with you there. Some people will be hurt the minute you mention something they are doing is messed up. If minorities made as their rule of thumb not upsetting the people in power as their means to getting social change, we never would have gotten any social change. If all we worried about was hurting the majority's pride, MLK Jr would not have been a leader. He was all about shaming the majority and assailing their pride. He wasn't about being a step'n'fetchit hoping that the majority would, out of the kindness of their hearts and feeling oh so comfortable, just cede some of their power over to the minority they are oppressing.

Great social change happens when people stand up and say no more. And that always upsets the people in power.

[penpusher.livejournal.com]

I most certainly was not suggesting that EVERYONE feels better by putting other people down. However we know that some people do. Those were the people I was referencing there. I hope I've clarified that point.

[trooper6.livejournal.com]

Okay.

But if I come across a nasty piece of work, who gets off on putting other people down, and who is hateful and self-centered. I am not going to spend my time on that person. Life is too short and I have better uses of my time. I can work on the people who are at least somewhat open.

Like in politics. There are people who are far right wingers who think all gays are going to hell. I'm not going to spend a lot of energy on those folks. Maybe if I have extra time. But I'd rather spend time on the undecided folks in the middle. Once I get them, then I can go and handle those other people.

[trooper6.livejournal.com]

I won't get into The New Yorker/Obamas cover here, as that issue, from my perspective, has no bearing on any point that is related to this discussion. But I would say that you are right; we should apologize for our errors. However, in a previous comment, you seem to suggest that this isn't any more valuable than saying sorry to a car accident victim, comatose in their hospital bed.

I think the Obama cover is quite germane...but we can move away from it if you like. I'm not all that invested in that tangent. As for the saying sorry. Saying sorry doesn't erase the injury, but it helps with the recovery. Whether you are stung by a barb or in a hospital bed. We can't erase the pain, but we can help with the healing...though only if we take responsibility for our part in the injury. It is why I think the Truth and Reconciliation Committee in South Africa was so amazing. There was none of this, "I didn't mean it." There was acknowledgment so healing could happen.

However, if someone is going to rail on me with all of the anger and ire of all of the collective hurt they have felt for all of the injustices that have occurred for all of the people who have been mentally scarred for the use of a word that I didn't know was wrong? That makes me recoil. That doesn't endear me to that person or to their cause or to the process of what they are experiencing. Do you see the difference of what I'm saying here?

I would like to point out that my examples never involved person B going on a long rant...but a simple "That was a jacked up thing you said" (also not "You are jacked up"). So I cry strawman there...but to take your point seriously. I would say this. Let's say I said something jacked up and didn't realize it was sketchy. And some person I was talking to went off on me. You know what I would do? I'd realize that innocent thing I said actually is actually part of some clearly larger problem. I'd realize I probably have some sort of internalized -ism or -phobia going on I haven't dealt with and I'd listen. I'd listen to the ranting and try to empathize and try to learn. Being presented with a rant that distills injustices that have occurred for all the people who have been mentally scarred by the use of a word is a powerful privilege and opportunity for learning...and an opportunity to empathize with something I clearly haven't started to do yet. I'd embrace that rare opportunity.

"People have the responsibility to educate themselves" is a glib comment, but how do you do that? How do you gain the knowledge you are supposed to have?

It is up to people to teach others what they know, to be advocates. People are only going to do research of that sort if it has some bearing on their lives. That's why it's up to the minorities to speak up, to demonstrate to people, yes! This DOES have a bearing on your life, we are a part of this community and we have to show you what is correct and not correct.

There are lots of ways to educate oneself. Sitting, listening, and lots of empathy are some of the best ways I have found. Reading books. Being open to uncomfortable moments. We should be grateful when minorities choose to take time out of their lives to educate us, but that is not their purpose in life. I regularly do trans education. I go to various classes and organizations and work on educating cisgendered people about transpeople. I've done it for LA sheriff's department, budding medical professionals, hip queer kids, all sorts of people. But let me tell you something about that. It is really draining. And often hurtful. I deal with really inappropriate and invasive questions and attitudes. I deal with people telling me they think I'm nice but they could never imagine dating a person like me because that would be gross. I deal with all sorts of ignorant, hurtful isht. And I do it because I'm committed to making the world better for other transfolk. But, I don't necessarily want to do that when I'm trying to get my groceries. When I'm trying to relax with friends. When minorities complain about the expectation of education, it's because the ignorant person often treats us like show ponies for their edification when they haven't even done an internet search to get some basics down.

[penpusher.livejournal.com]

The reason I feel less inclined to speak about The New Yorker cover here has to do with what I think about the history of that magazine and how out of character this cover was with it, and that's not really related to this discussion.

Perhaps I made this into a strawman argument. If so, I apologize for dissolving the discussion to some sort of mockery.

But the point is, we have to try to keep emotion out of the discussion. People are looking for reasons to discount, to ignore, to continue the Status Quo, and if someone reacts... well, maybe it was intended and the reaction was what was wanted. Schoolyard bully games. Or, it might have been unintentional, and the message received by the accused is "this person is freaking," i.e. this wasn't my fault.

What I'm saying is human nature is the element that we all have to deal with here. It takes an exceptional person of the majority to go out of their own way to even learn about the minority, let alone adopt their skills and change their ways to fit. This doesn't happen spontaneously. It happens when the word gets out (npi).

I didn't mean to imply that it is the minorities' role to educate. But, if we are going to have a better world, that's partially the way it's going to happen. People simply don't care about things that they have no interest in. That's a part of human nature. They may listen for a bit, but at the end of the day, if it doesn't affect them, it's yesterday's news. That's why we need minorities to help us understand how these issues affect us, affect the community and the world at large.

I wish it weren't that way.

[trooper6.livejournal.com]

"I didn't mean to imply that it is the minorities' role to educate. But, if we are going to have a better world, that's partially the way it's going to happen. People simply don't care about things that they have no interest in. That's a part of human nature. They may listen for a bit, but at the end of the day, if it doesn't affect them, it's yesterday's news. That's why we need minorities to help us understand how these issues affect us, affect the community and the world at large.

I wish it weren't that way."

Then take heart. Because it isn't always that way. If it really were that way, then we wouldn't have had the Quakers creating the underground railroad, or AWARE (Allied White Women Against Racism through Education), or MAR (Men Against Rape), or any number of other organizations. There are lots of examples of people in the majority who don't know any minority people in specific who went out of their way to educate themselves and make change. Those white kids from segregated all white neighborhoods who when on the freedom rides...some of whom got killed for their activism...springs to mind.

Our history is filled with people in the majority who didn't have to educate themselves and work tirelessly for the rights of people not-them. People who didn't rely on the minority to approach them first. Who took it upon themselves to do something...maybe out of religious reasons or who knows why.

I tend to have a much more hopeful view of humanity than you are stating in your posts. I believe that people are not fundamentally selfish. I believe that people are generally interested in others...and empathetic. I don't think that people generally get their kick putting down others. I expect the best out of people. And that means I expect them to educate themselves on matters once it becomes apparent they need to. And to step up apologize when they've hurt someone. I treat people they way I want to be treated. And I try to be the change I wish to see. That means, educating myself on topics I'm ignorant about. Listening when people freak out on me. Caring. And expecting others to rise to similar humane standards.

Oh by the way, you said: But the point is, we have to try to keep emotion out of the discussion.

I have found emotion to be one of the only ways to reach people who are hurtful. To get them to be empathetic by appealing to their emotions. If I say, "That statement could be construed as upsetting to transgender people because it dehumanizes them" The person I'm talking to often shrugs and says, "No it doesn't" or "I didn't mean to." But when I say, with feeling, "You have hurt me" -- that is harder to shrug off. It's like when someone has been kidnapped, it is recommended to humanize the victim, play on emotion to try to get the kidnapper to engage emotionally. Being too rational can make it too easy that we are talking about people...can make it all too abstract...and then too easy to justify hurtful behavior.

Of course, if you are succuessful in your social justice work appealing to logic only, good on you, and keep up the good work.

[fuzzilla.livejournal.com]

I really don't know anything about the trans experience, but I blow the "intentions don't matter" horn all the damn time. "...but I didn't mean to run over your kid..." "...but, you did..." True, it might make some difference in how I felt to know my kid was run over 'cuz the driver suffered a stroke and lost control of the car, as opposed to looking at my kid and licking his lips and saying "woo HOO! Ten points!" and hitting pedal to metal. The intentions don't change the end result, though. To pretend that the end result "doesn't matter" because the intentions were good/neutral is unfairly dismissive toward the offended party.

I can see what penpusher is saying, though. When person B labels person A, of course person A is gonna get defensive and probably stop listening.

[trooper6.livejournal.com]

I agree labeling a person is going to get that person defensive...that is why I avoid intentionality.

I have consistently said, "That think you said was jacked up" (which is a statement that doesn't take into account intentionality)...vs. "You are jacked up" (which is all about intentionality).

[fuzzilla.livejournal.com]

>I have consistently said, "That think you said was jacked up" (which is a statement that doesn't take into account intentionality)...vs. "You are jacked up" (which is all about intentionality).<

I think ideally, labels shouldn't be used at all, though. I try to say "I'm bothered by what you said, and here's why..." rather than "what a jerky thing to say..." Though I do agree that focusing on specific behaviors rather than the whole person is a better response.

[trooper6.livejournal.com]

It is not always useful to dance around things. Sometimes when a statement is racist, it just needs to be called out as racist. (or Sexist, Homophobic, transphobic, etc.)

[fuzzilla.livejournal.com]

>I have found emotion to be one of the only ways to reach people who are hurtful. To get them to be empathetic by appealing to their emotions. If I say, "That statement could be construed as upsetting to transgender people because it dehumanizes them" The person I'm talking to often shrugs and says, "No it doesn't" or "I didn't mean to." But when I say, with feeling, "You have hurt me" -- that is harder to shrug off.<

Hmm. This is an interesting point. I don't think anyone's saying "pretend you don't have emotions," though; rather, to control them to keep *yourself* emotionally safe and in control, no matter if the other person's response is shitty or ideal. I find using neutral language and other shrink-approved communication techniques helpful and calming. I don't think it dilutes my message or "dances around" what I mean (but then, I tend to be kind of a hot-head; my issue is not how to "allow myself" my emotions; rather how to "navigate the flood of"). ;o)