In the interest of making your blogging experience a fresh, pleasant and informative one here at TransGriot, every now and then I'll slip in a few terms that you probably won't see elsewhere.
I'm going to break them down for you in this post.
When I want to insult Republicans or conservatives, I'll use either 'Republi' or 'conserva' in front of the word I want to insult them with.
example: conservalogic, conservaidiot, Republidolt, Republifool
I will sometimes use the Russian word 'nekulturny in my posts. Nekulturny means 'uncultured' in Russian.
When I'm slamming the Religious Right, I'll sometimes used the term 'faith-based' to properly attribute their stupidity and Hateraid to them
example: faith-based hatred
Sometimes I'll even come up with acronyms to whack my opponents with like those latte-drinking haters the WWBT's. WWBT stands for White Women Born Transsexual. They're the transgender community's version of the rad fems. Just as nasty, reeking with privilege, clueless, and just as deserving of any lack of civility.
Note to the WWBT's, the rad fems still hate you and don't want you either, irregardless of how much you spent on that neocoochie.
That's a nice segue into my next terms, neocoochie or neovagina. I will sometimes call the post sex realignment surgery (SRS) genitalia by those names. Neoclit is the genital organ of a pre-op/non-op transwoman.
I don't like the term 'passing', because when I hear it, my thoughts go immediately to our history and light-skinned Blacks who had the features and opportunity to do so passing for white. I also don't like the connotation of deception. I use the word 'blending' as a stand in for a transperson who looks their gender best and is easily fitting in with society in their desired gender role.
There are probably some others I've coined, and as I do, I'll define them for you in future TransGriot Speak 101 posts.
I get the whole neocoochie/neovagina thing, but 'neoclit'? Wouldn't a 'neoclit' refer to the magic button that comes free with every purchase of a neocoochie? If you're referring to the 'original article,' wouldn't it be something along the lines of 'protoclit'? 'Paleowang'? I dunno, you could totally have way too much fun with a prefix dictionary.
So do you think its right for a person to have her primary sex organs changed just to be accepted as women?
A, due to hormones, defenitly dysfunctionally organ makes you a men?
Are you on the 25 road?
I mean. Do you think you ever where a man? Only getting rid of that thing before 25 made you a woman?
(I don't know it Jenny, I ask)
First off, having SRS does not make you a woman. If you weren't before, you won't be afterwards. On the other side of the coin, having a desire to keep your penis means you really are not a woman. Sort of a paradox for some, but really very simple. If you are born with a woman's mind, then you won't want your penis, and you will seek to be rid of it. Getting rid of it does not make you a woman, it just makes you a whole person. Hanging on to your penis doesn't make you a man, as you are already one. Was I ever a man? No, I wasn't. Hormones help, and while I was on the path, I was thankful for what they did. But I don't care how dysfunctional it is, of you are not willing to part with it...if you can live will all the excuses that some give...you are not a woman. You are just a man with a desire to dress up as a woman.
You are just a man with a desire to dress up as a woman
you have got to be kidding right?
No, while unlike many, I have a quite nice sense of humor, in this case I am dead serious. If you like having a penis, then you are a man.
@Just Jennifer: Ah, still beating the same old worn out drum.
First off, having SRS does not make you a woman. If you weren't before, you won't be afterwards. On the other side of the coin, having a desire to keep your penis means you really are not a woman. Sort of a paradox for some, but really very simple.
No, not a paradox, just a contradiction. But the religious often believe contradictory things, and are proud of it.
I will have feminizing genitoplasty as soon as the province approves the procedure, but I will never disparage my sisters who either chose differently or had no choice.
If you like having a penis, then you are a man
...or maybe you're just fine with keeping all your body parts that you were born with that still function fine for you and you don't want or need to remove or modify it. Maybe you really are happy with the way you are and it's just society and OTHER PEOPLE that have issues not you.
and who defines what "dressing like a man" or "dressing like a woman" is?
Monica, thank you for suggesting the term "blending". A friend also pointed out the bad associations of the word "passing", but neither of us could think of a good alternative.
Now we have one. :)
It's important to point out that;
Men have a penis.
Women have a vagina.
This is true throughout the animal kingdom.
This is the way things are.
Anybody borne with a female mind has the desire to have a female body.
Get real guys even gays and lesbians know this.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In living color, the world according to the WWBT's.
Told y'all they were our version of the rad fems and Joke Jennifer just proved it.
@Just Jennifer you never miss an opportunity to be hateful do you? Seriously it is not your business what someone has in their panties. Gender is a social construction and that is sociology 101. Why are you so concerned about the body parts of others. At this point it seems not only destructive but compulsive. I think you should spend more time worrying about what is in your undergarments and learn what is and isn't your business.
Jesus, I don't even want to touch some of the comments here. And it's mind-boggling to me that there would even be a group called White Women Born Transsexual. Damn. Just...damn.
Also, I'm interested in your passing/blending distinction. You're right about the negative connotations. I've been thinking a lot about passing lately, as it seems to me that everyone, trans or cis is really passing in a way. I mean, given that gender is a somewhat arbitrary social construction with a script that we're taught to perform from birth, to some extent we're all passing, some better than others, and some of us learning how to pass as a new gender at an older age than others, so it's more visible and a more conscious process. But I'm still processing this idea, so it may have some serious flaws.
I do think that "blending" doesn't have the negative historical connotations as passing, though. On the other hand, if you're trying to de-essentialize gender, which I think would be a good thing, then the term passing (especially when referring to cisgendered people) is better because it suggests that nobody actually really is their gender, deep down underneath it all somewhere, but that this is a cultural layer that we take on or is imposed on us. But this seems to conflict with some people's view of the distinction between gender expression(the script) and gender identity, which is a concept that's really hard for me to conceptualize when it's separated from the script. But I'd be interested to hear other people's perspectives on this. For a more clear discussion of this (especially in the comments) I posted on this topic earlier this week here.
Joke Jennifer - if you want to play make believe
um no. you're the one mindlessly following fairy tales such as the social construction of gender.
Decided to whack leave only two of the WWBT comments up from the comedy team of Joke Jennifer and Liz.
Their problems and long history of hatred of the transgender community are too many to list here, but I refuse to have my cyberhome disrupted by a bunch of mirror-destroying sheet wearing thugs who have been banned from myriad blogs and transgender discussion groups across the blogosphere because of the same bullshit.
The only 'reality' they peddle is the reality that they can't work and play well with others and they're mad because they probably haven't had dates since the first Bush administration.
And if they hate the transgender community so much, why do these wannabe rad fems bother coming on our blogs.
That's based on an odd conception of gender. What it is to "be" a woman (as in "gender") is historically and culturally contingent, so it's strange to think that there's some mysterious state of being corresponding to either gender. We learn how to "act like a lady" or "be a man" as we are socialized into our culture. I'm cisgendered but not particularly girly, and I've never understood what people meant by "feeling like a woman." I can't imagine what that would be like. I also don't "feel like a man." I just feel like a person, but I recognize that I've been socialized to fill a certain set of gender roles, use a particular kind of body language and verbal patterns, etc. I don't rule out the possibility that others may have this experience, but claiming that everyone really is one or the other, at the core of their being is bizzarre. Knowing how to act out the social script that corresponds to a social identity(or "pass," perhaps) is different from actually being that thing.
And I think both you and Liz would benefit from reading a basic sociology or anthropology text to come to understand the difference between sex and gender. "Male" and "female" refers to sex, which is in fact tied to physical feature such as genitalia, chromosomes, and gonads, as Liz mistakenly suggests gender is. "Man" and "woman" refers to gender, which is culturally constructed (as Renee noted) and varies greatly from one cultural and historical context to another. So claiming that it's some kind of essential thing that emerges from biology is both bizarre and quite antiquated.
ahh, the WWBT troll patrol has returned... I guess traffic at their hate blogs at its usual snalis pace and they didn't have a Klan meeting to attend.
Post a Comment