transpeople (and transman and tramswoman) is dehumanizing.
“Trans people” and “cis people.” Otherwise it reads like, “blarglepeople” and “actual people.”
The mashing together of the words was the language of the early anti-trans propaganda. It was successful enough that even allies continue to use it, unfortunately. Mostly because they’ve come up with new and worse ways to deny our existence while specifically addressing us.
I would say that it feels like blowing into the wind, but I know things like this can change, especially if 'teh youth" get it.
For any other dsylexics like me out there. The complaint is using an adjective as a prefix.
I almost had a “am I too old” moment.
Totally agree OP.
Not dyslexic (I don’t think), but this clears up a lot of confusion for me, thank you
lol oops I used to use trans- as a prefix for myself like 20 years ago. Good to know to keep a space.
I am trans myself and I keep forgetting which form is the “correct” one. But thinking about “cispeople” is actually helpful, so thanks! :3
To preface, I’m a straight white cis male living in the west and I understand I’m speaking from both a position of privilege and from outside the community.
I absolutely see your point, but I offer an alternate perspective. I think a lot of people, especially in smaller communities, need labels to identify one another so that they can form networks of solidarity. There’s a yearning for a sense of belonging and labels make it easier to make connections with similarly ostracized or persecuted peoples.
There are some other critiques of labels, as well. Instead of a trans person being just a singular group, there are subgroups. There are trans-masc and trans-fem people. There are people within those groups who have their own sexual orientations, political ideologies, and other identities. I’m not critiquing the existence of these identities or labels. Rather, that can further sectionalize people into smaller and more insular communities where everyone is the same.
But the opposite is true, too. A portion of someone’s identity can connect them to a larger community just as much as other portions of their identity can isolate them.
The point is not to find those exactly like you in identity, but to connect with people with shared experiences, to compare and contrast oneself with others. When people choose to identify with only those people who share their exact niche, that’s when the problems of ideological echo chambers crop up.
I dream of a world where people can just be people regardless of who they are and how they came to be that person. But there are bad actors who seek to disenfranchise those who are different from them. You’re absolutely right: those bad actors wield the labels as a weapon, using them as slurs and epithets to dehumanize others.
Personally, I don’t think using the term “trans people” is the problem. It’s a tool of language, and it can be swung like a sword or used to plow a field.
So, again, I agree with you, but the use of labels is a lot more nuanced then urging people to stop using them. Continue to combat hateful people for violating the social contract. Keep ostracizing those who seek to only hurt people different from themselves. Make those who dehumanize “others” fear the people’s solidarity and strength. Shame them for being bad actors, make them confront their shittiness. Purge the hatefulness from society.
When everything is all said and done, maybe labels can be dissolved as a concept. Or, maybe labels can finally be used by everyone without any preconceived notions of oppression.
Trans rights are human rights.
don’t think using the term “trans people” is the problem. It’s a tool of language, and
It is supposed to be two word, just like that. Mashing them together is the issue.
Ah, I see. I thought the problem was a matter of labels and identity in the broader sense. Thanks for the clarification!
Yeah, it can actually a fairly useful way to pick up on reporting that is from a source that is anti-trans as folk who purposefully forget the space will use that as a dogwhistle to distinguish their pieces. It is so subtle you generally don’t notice it but of a specifc era of anti trans propaganda (around either side of covid particularly) you start recognizing it in places that try and appear to be ’ trans welfare centric’ to unwitting cis viewership while providing some heinous misinformation.
It’s not about removing the label.
Using trans as an adjective as in “trans woman” is fine, the post complains about using it as part of a noun as in “transwoman” 🌸
Trans- and cis- are prefixes, so I can understand how it feels intuitive to people to say “transman” as one word, but it’s only appropriate if one also says “cisman”, and for some reason combining cis with the respective words is less frequent. Transphobia, I’d imagine.
I feel like I’ve never seen someone write “transpeople” who isn’t actively being hateful. That one seems like there’s less of an excuse for it. But then, maybe that reflects more on the communities I move in than anything.
They’re not prefixes, they’re abbreviations for transgender and cisgender
Linguistically they’re prefixes I mean. You’re right, when used on its own it is an abbreviation but within transgender or cisgender they’re prefixes. It’s a relatively new thing to use “trans” or “cis” as an abbreviation instead of a prefix, so it feels natural to turn it back into a prefix by attaching it to the next word, and “transwoman” and “ciswoman” still kind of work as long as you do both because cis- and trans- are modifying the womanness. I agree that even that is uncomfortable and othering though, it’s definitely better to use trans as an adjective on its own and not divide women/men into separate subcategories based on transness. I just am more understanding of that particular faux pas because I get how people come by it.
“Transpeople” on the other hand doesn’t work the same unless you’re referring to those who are trans-person and don’t identify as people, which I imagine is not who these people are referring to on purpose and rather they are dehumanizing us as a whole. Both are bad, but I don’t think they’re equivalent.
deleted by creator
An example of allies adopting the language exactly so: https://lem.lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/33466411/17547002
You’re right. Incidentally, I searched lemmy for “transpeople” and found quite a few hits, some of whom were trans themselves. Not just allies can do it, I suppose. Maybe I’ve just not noticed it before.
I’ve never noticed “transpeople” before, but I’ve heard a lot of trans folk use “transgirl”, “transwoman”, “transman”, etc, including myself once upon a time. I think it’s an easy mistake to make if you don’t think about it that hard.
How about “trans people” and “cispeople”?
Honestly that just sounds confusing. It also feels akin to misgendering cis people to “teach them a lesson,” which is rarely helpful and usually just gives permission to do the same back to you.
I know, I was joking. However, it would be a great way of showing people why “trans people” should be used instead. “Oh, you don’t like being called cispeople? Feels demeaning? So please use trans people, thanks.”
I don’t mind being called a cisperson, though. It would sound a bit weird because it’s not a normally used word, but if it caught on and I saw it a couple of times in practice - without a negative context! - I’d probably accept it. (Maybe I’m not relevant as ESL, perhaps.) So it’s not necessarily a good argument, I think most people don’t pay conscious attention to this sort of details.
This thread isn’t about what cis people prefer, tho
It has partly become about that in the comment I responded to.
