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]

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.