and now, the moment you've all been waiting for:

[bearsir]

Call For Submissions
GENDER OUTLAWS: THE NEXT GENERATION
Kate Bornstein & S Bear Bergman, edsDeadline: 1 September 2009

Comments

[fall_of_sophia]

:( is the use of the word "trannies" really necessary/appropriate? the use of it has really gone over the edge in "radical" spheres to the point that cis queers think it's just fine to call us that.

[angelikitten]

I believe it's clear from the text that one would not have to claim that identity in order to submit work to the book.
I'm sorry, but that word is in your second sentence. While you may identify that way, many transgender people still find the word hurtful, no matter who uses it - and you've just alienated them before they've even found out what you're actually trying to say.

In other words, removing that one word is something that will mainly work to your benfit if you want more people to participate.

trannies

[pir_anha]

hm. i am greatly in favour of reclamation of hurtful terms, and preferably with a big smile; it's IMO an incredibly powerful technique to counter people who use those terms to insult and hurt. i use "tranny" for myself when i speak casually, and when i want to counter people who use it as an insult.

however, i don't think a term that's still so much in the dark area between hurtful and reclaimed is particularly useful in this CFS. discussing it within the book is a great idea, but i can see why some of my friends are offended, and don't want to contribute to the book. is it worth excluding those people?

might be worth thinking about.

[shemale]

Fact: being a dismissive transmisogynistic douche is a great way to get good submissions for your anthology.

~Hey instead of calling me out for something why don't you go write about it over there somewhere, i'm sure someone would love to read it and maybe put it in their own anthology haw haw~

[product_junkie]

"But the fact of the conversation remains exciting to me."

It's not so exciting when you're on the butt end of it. God, I hate this "I'm creating a conversation! How exciting!" tack on things. It's a way of totally avoiding responsibility for your actions under the name of "stirring shit up" or whatever.

It's not just diction. It's violent language. I can't get down with that, either.

[gudbuytjane]

Violent language. Exactly. Why can't people get that?

[moondancerdrake]

I was wondering on that very thing. An a cisperson it's been explained to me "trannie" is as offensive to most transexual folks as "squaw" or a "half breed" would be to me. I would think using that term on a publishable piece of work certainly could cause a lot more damage then it would promote comminty solidarity among transexuals.

[anacas]

A better analogy would probably be to the word "queer" (and other reclaimed terms)--a word that has been used pejoratively by bigots and assholes, is still considered distasteful and offensive by some LGBT people, but is used as a vital and valuable part of their identity by others. I'm not aware of any concerted efforts to reclaim "squaw" and "half breed," but would you try to stop other people who belong to groups historically marginalized by those words from taking them back in a positive way to refer to themselves? I know I've definitely called myself a "half breed" in a positive way. Reclaiming words always runs into these problems; some members of the relevant group will inevitably be offended by the attempt. Others will be empowered by it. It's just how it works.

So really, it seems pretty fucked up to tell someone who's been marginalized by a word that they can't reclaim it in a positive light, which is clearly what's happening here. If cis people take up the usage in an inappropriate, transphobic way, that's their

[moondancerdrake]

I asked a question and made a suggestion in an attempt to understand the situation. I don't see how I was telling anyone what they couldn't do. I also don't believe I said I was trying to stop anyone from doing anything. How I personally feel about the word is insignificant, this is not about me. I did however suggest as did several transexual commenters that using a word found very offensive by many transexuals (it is often used against MTF in particular and I've been told by many of them they still find it very hurtful. I was under the impression the author of the blog was FTM who this term is not generally used as a slur against) in a professional piece of work might cause tension within the trangender community that their project is trying to bring together.

[wildeabandon]

So really, it seems pretty fucked up to tell someone who's been marginalized by a word that they can't reclaim it in a positive light, which is clearly what's happening here.

I'm not sure that is what's happening here. 'Tranny' has been used almost exclusively against trans women, and yet it mostly seems to be being reclaimed by trans men and transmasculine genderqueer folk, which I think is rather more problematic. There's also a clear difference between applying a term to oneself and using it for a larger group, some of whom won't identify with it.

[rowanparker]

I was going to comment with something similar to this but you captured it very well. Thank you.

[anacas]

I'm sympathetic to the argument about tranny being historically used as a weapon more against trans women and genderqueer/otherwise gender-variant male assigned at birth people than the rest of the trans community. I don't think it's quite that simple, but I don't think a comment thread about this call for submissions is the best place for me to talk about that.

But even through that lens, Kate certainly has the right to use the word "tranny", which she does often and with enthusiasm. Bear's already said here how zie feels about it. I don't think tranny is getting cut from the call for submissions any time soon.

[kynn]

Nobody's saying that they don't have the "right" to self-identify however they like.

It just seems clear from the way that Bear and Kate have approached this, though, that "trannies" is intentional and meant to convey their slant on what the rest of us should be using to refer to ourselves. At least, if we're gonna be part of this anthology.

I guess I shouldn't bother to contribute anyway; I'm not self-hating enough radically reclaimingish enough to consider myself some sort of "tranny" outlaw l33t rebel. I'm just me, living my life.

from the first of Hazel's posts that I initially linked in this thread

[fall_of_sophia]

"What I’m trying to make clear here is that rather than uniting the trans community under one banner (as it pretended to do), my and others’ “positive” use had just as much place in subversivism and trans misogyny as it did in “reclamation.” My political positioning, tied to my use of the term, was rooted in self-loathing. OMG pink indeed. I had even used it over other trans people’s-trans women’s-objections, and it was precisely through the intersection of subversivism and trans misogyny that I was able to do it-by constructing her as conservative, backward-, medical- & binary-thinking, I was able to push aside any concern about the specificities this term and pin her objection on a lack of understanding the concept of reclamation. In short, anyone-no, any woman-who wasn’t on board didn’t need to be listened to because they-she-could be immediately positioned as having bad politics."

Perfect, huh?

[anacas]

Tranny isn't a word I use to refer to myself or a word I like, and I didn't get any sense of "what the rest of us should be using to refer to ourselves" out of the wording above. Or any sense that people who don't self-identify with "tranny" aren't welcome in the anthology. I guess that's the trouble with interpreting text; your way of reading it isn't the only way

[rachel_explodes]

The existence of rebellious gender outlaws, non-binary-identified or otherwise, does not automatically fuck over binary-identified trans people. Gender outlaws being themselves and living their lives does not hurt or fuck over binary-identified trans people.

But I think that when a person uses a word that has been very hurtful to a group of people that they do not identify with, that can be hurtful to the individuals in that group and damaging to solidarity between groups.

I understand the value of discussing language related to gender identity, and doing so as much as possible. But the way things stand, people are being offended and hurt by a word that was used in this post, and I haven't found a compelling argument as to why they shouldn't ask that the offensive language be removed, even as dialogue about the language continues to be encouraged.