The Cellar - Ask the Transperson

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Home Base (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - Ask the Transperson (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=29771)

Too much hating in the world, don't you think?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lola Bunny (Post 902277)

Too much hating in the world, don't you think?

Oh, I hate that. ;)

Looks pretty successful to me, at least on the outside.
http://imgur.com/a/f5xno

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV (Post 887585)

Pronouns confuse me in this context. Can you give me any widely acceptable terms to use? "Transperson" does not fall trippingly from the tongue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pamela (Post 887733)

Certainly. Please use the pronouns that correspond to the gender that the person in question is presenting to you, even if you aren't "fooled". If still in doubt, it is not offensive to simply ask "What pronouns do you prefer?"

Great question.

Hi Pam

Thanks for answering my question so directly. That's a good, easy to follow suggestion. However, like all rules, there's an exception that makes it impossible to follow.

Look at this story here.

Dan Savage, a gay man, articulate, involved, knowledgeable and native English speaker tripped on this very problem: how to us third person pronouns.

Quote:

In addition to having a singular and a plural case, you may have already noticed that the third person has genders and a neuter category.

Third Person

(singular)

Subjective Case
he (masculine)
she (feminine)
it (neuter)

Objective Case
him (masculine)
her (feminine)
it (neuter)

Possessive Case
his/his (masculine)
her/hers (feminine)
its/its (neuter)
- See more at: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/edu....KJRP2HRw.dpuf

When I asked you my question, I was trying to clarify which gender to use. I would *never* have thought to use the neuter category "it". To me, that would be intentionally derogatory. Read the story and and read the comments. The range of points of view is vast. The comments are especially interesting. It's impossible to say anything of substance without running the risk of offending someone, somewhere (Redskins anyone?). While I may offend someone, it's probably due to ignorance than to malice. What a minefield...

Agreed, BigV. I dislike those of us who try to manipulate language like that.

This should not be so difficult to figure out. I find straight people stumbling over words that any first grader can use mor eoffensive than anything. I appear female, use female pronouns. I find the neuter case offensive because it dehumanies the person. And anyone trying to get you to use it to refer to any human being is being a total jackass and you may quote me. Apologies to all jackasses who may be offended by having their name used to describe such humans.

I do not hold with trying to create a third (or more) gender. There are two. That's it. This is why I feel that we need labels, however annoying they are.

In my presence, I am 'she'. You all also have permission to call me tranny. I have developed quite a thick hide whhile transitioning. I react less to the word and more to the meaning behind the use of the word. Calling me tranny as a contraction or for short. Transsexual IS a long word. And awkward. But, saying "You trannies all make me sick!" THAT I dislike.

See the difference?

Nice try to stump me, V. :) But us Grammar Nazis don't go down easily!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pamela (Post 903132)

... This is why I feel that we need labels, however annoying they are. ...

I was wondering about another aspect of that. We don't say Same Sex Oriented and add a qualifier MtM or FtF, we say Gay or Lesbian. Why are we stuck using MtF and FtM qualifiers with Transsexuals instead of having separate names? Is it due to a lack of consensus? Obviously, my exposure to the dialect occurs mainly here.

Labels, labels. We haven't agreed on new names. Just go with our given names, appropriate pronouns and a compliment or three. :D

"Ask the Transperson"

hm.. ok, phrasing my post as a question, a la Jeopardy, Pamela, have you heard of this story from the Western Washington Council of the Girl Scouts?

Quote:

A donor gave $100,000 to the Girl Scouts to exclude 1 group of girls. They gave it right back.
By Parker Molloy

Earlier this year, a generous donor gave $100,000 to the Girl Scouts of Western Washington.
According to the Seattle Met, that was almost a quarter of the council's fundraising goal for the entire year. This was a big deal.

Unfortunately, the donation came with one very big catch: The Girl Scouts had to promise that the money would NOT be used to support transgender girls.
"Please guarantee that our gift will not be used to support transgender girls," read the message. "If you can't, please return the money."
Wait, what!?
As a national organization, Girl Scouts has been explicitly inclusive in their messaging about trans members.
Earlier this year, the Girl Scouts made clear that they support trans girls:

Quote:

"Girl Scouts is proud to be the premiere leadership organization for girls in the country. Placement of transgender youth is handled on a case-by-case basis, with the welfare and best interests of the child and the members of the troop/group in question a top priority. That said, if the child is recognized by the family and school/community as a girl and lives culturally as a girl, then Girl Scouts is an organization that can serve her in a setting that is both emotionally and physically safe."

Way to go, Girl Scouts!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 932514)

Way to go, Girl Scouts!

I heartily agree!

In reality, it's the ladies that show the way.

Yes, I have.

Or was I supposed to answer as a question? ;)

I have to agree, only because donations should not come with strings. Either you donate to Girl Scouts or you do not. One doesn't get to donate to only SOME Girl Scouts.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I love it Where can I buy me one of those? (starts Googling)