third gendering fuck
March 18, 2009 § 20 Comments
Let’s say you are talking about women, and want to be absolutely clear that you are including trans women in your statement. You can say, “women, cis and trans.” Or “cis women and trans women.” Or, “women, including trans women.” Or even “female-identified people.” What you should not say, is “women and trans” or “women and trans women,” as though trans women are never included in the category “women.” Because “women” should always include women who happen to be trans.
i have been saying this for years. women and trans folk. dammit. of course. trans folk are not necessarily gender queer. duh.
i mean that is the fucking subheading for raven’s eye: women and trans folk…when what i meant was, the bodies that i was really picturing were: women and gender queer. so what is with me conflating transfolk and gender queer? what is with me not listening to the tons of trans folk who have made it clear that they are women and men?
so this is my deep apology.
Language is fundamental to giving trans people the same respect that cis people take for granted. It signals how the speaker sees trans people, and can shape the views of both speaker and audience. The sex workers rights movement needs to respect people’s gender identities–whether cis or trans–and this means that everyone who identifies as a woman is a woman, and everyone who identifies as a man is a man.
so what do you guys think? about changing the subheading of raven’s eye…
women and gender queer folk of color….
women of color…
women, cis and trans, of color…
and all of these suggestions still leave out trans men. who live on the margins of gender.
i am still working out these issues. and how i relate to my own gender and its multiplicity and fluidity.
and much thanks to jaded hippy for hipping me to this article in her list of links…