Is It Trans-Bashing To Refer to XY-Humans With An XX-Aesthetic As "Dudes"/Guys/Men?
Responding to this video:
A friend (whom I dearly value and respect)
said this:
"It's really funny until the end when he bashes transwomen.
"----
That caught me off guard.
I needed time to reflect on the matter.
I took the time.
I reflected.
I'm ready to address this.
----------------------------------------------
Here's how it sounded to me, when I heard that part of the video:
"Trans people
who are bio-male to identify-female
are known
even among conservatives
as being
unusually sane, chill, fun, and hot.
He directly says this.
To me, that doesn't sound like someone who is intended to be insulting to trans people.
Now, granted, such trans people
don't usually like being called "tranny".
But that's old-school (boomer and Gen x) language
and isn't automatically meant derogatively.
The only word remaining that isn't going to set well with bio-male to female persons
is "dude"; when he says "that's a dude".
And I can't really say this part comports with left-side social-linguistic ideals.
It doesn't.
But (and this is very important) ...
It's not mean, unfair, an attack, or anything like that.
Instead, he is speaking from a vantage point
of "how he sees (such persons)".
He doesn't say "and they deserve (any consequence)".
He doesn't infer any hate or judgement.
He merely speaks from the vantage point of his:
perceptual paradigm.
--
--
I am an ally to LGBT+
I stand, as best I can, between them and hate.
I stand for their rights.
I stand for their health.
I stand for their equal-to-everyone's worthiness of respect and love.
I stand for their right
to speak their truth to power.
However,
the truth of their perceptual paradigm
is not obligatory
over anyone else's.
--
If it came out that Grace Jones
had a white great great grandfather
and now they identify as white ...
No.
Would I think of them as white?
No.
Would I refute them personally about it?
No.
Why not?
Firstly, because they wouldn't be "wrong".
It's not really a correct-vs-incorrect issue.
Also because:
I have no justifiable reason to push my perceptual paradigm over theirs.
But the same is true in reverse.
Would I be mad at anyone for nominating her for a Black Entertainer's Lifetime Achievement Award?
No;
not unless I had reason to believe they intended to attack her identity.
--
--
The future of humanity,
if our species will exist long enough,
will be a linguistic paradigm
that nobody today
currently honors.
Our language isn't done evolving.
If anyone in that far-future spoke the way today's trans/trans-allies speaks,
they would be immediately accused of using offensively outdated language.
Theoretically (and I think: probably), ...
Testicles and ovaries will be re-categorized
with some word that means "genetic seed pods".
They'll be joined with a prefix that either means "internal" or "external".
Penises and vaginas will be re-categorized
as something akin to bellybuttons; a mere appendage.
That new word
would be attached to a prefix
that means either an "innie" or an "outtie".
"Male" and "female" will be retired from language, except as biological terms.
And we must keep those (or some linguistic equivalent) for the sake of proper medical care and scientific methodology.
Trans people and trans-allies
will eventually stop using those terms to refer to sexual identity.
Why?
Because using those terms in those ways
promotes gender stereotypes.
-The very thing that trans and trans-allies have been ironically trying to get away from.
For that reason, they won't even be using any form of "masculine" or "feminine" as words to express gender traits.
And thus, they won't be using words like "man",
"woman", "masculine", or "feminine" as words to express gender identity;
not for anyone.
Gender-specific words like "man" and "woman" will only be used in reference to XY and XX-chromosome persons.
- But usually only by:
a.) physical healthcare providers,
b.) scientists,
and
c.) for dating.
Why will it still be using for people in search of dates and life-partners?
Some people will need to know if the other person can help them procreate.
Also, some people's perceptual paradigm, when it comes to sexual identity,
is biology-based.
This is not an evil paradigm.
People, socially, will stop assuming other people's chromosomes.
Gender-neutral words (they/them) will become the norm for personal-identity; because it's not usually important or relevant to identify a person's physiology.
It's just a matter of time.
In that more responsible new world,
anyone making the same video
would say something like "that's probably an XY".
However, ...
In the context of:
Over a decade ago,
in conservative USA-regions, ...
After clarifying that hypothetical person as unusually/uniquely chill, sane, fun, and hot, ...
for that guy to use a phrase like "that's a dude", ...
I think we need to be fair
and understand it in the context of his perceptual and linguistic paradigm.
He wasn't bashing anyone; as I see it.
He was just saying that XY-humans
who identify and project themselves with an aesthetic historically reserved for XX-humans
tend to outshine XX-humans
in regards to that aesthetic.
It's a compliment.
But not a backhanded compliment.
The fact that he only thinks of XX-humans as "women"
is only meant as a statement of biology
underpinning his perceptual paradigm.
He doesn't owe it to anyone
to speak contrary to his perceptual paradigm.
He doesn't owe it to anyone
to think of XY-persons with a traditionally XX-aesthetic
as "women".
Will further-evolved humans speak like he did there?
No.
But they won't speak like you/me do either.
Some of us are evolving faster than others.
But
(as I see it)
it's neither healthy, nor fair, nor helpful
to take it personally.
-imho
However,
I welcome all civil and thoughtful challenges to where I am 'at' right now about this.
Thanks for considering my thoughts on this.
Comments
Post a Comment