Rep. Michael Conaway, R-Midland - Bush's longtime friend and former accountant - is pushing the idea. All 20 Texas Republicans in the U.S. House have signed on, as well as 10 of the 12 Texas Democrats.The comments at Foolocracy say it all....The holdouts are Dallas Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson and Austin Rep. Lloyd Doggett. Aides to both declined to comment.
...The bill would turn the George Mahon Federal Building in downtown Midland into the "George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush United States Courthouse and George Mahon Federal Building."
The only place deserving the Bush name would be the local sewer plant. As far as I am concerned, any city's dog pound named after this primate, would insult the occupants therein, the DOGS!!!!In related news, the Obama administration may release secret memos by Bush Admin officials related to torture, detention and warrantless wiretapping.Sewer plants provide a valuable public service, generally competently and at a reasonable cost. In other words, nothing remotely related to the Bush administration.
How appropriate. A courthouse with a criminals name on it.
I'd like to see his name on a prison cell door.
Only a nuclear waste dump could take the name of GWB. Poisonous then, now, and for hundreds, if not thousands of years. A legacy of toxicity.
This is another example of why Texas is the asshole of America.
Aren't there still a few outhouses out there? W wouldn't have to share; he could have one of his own.
Since 'justice' in Texas is reserved for the rich or privileged, it seems only fitting. Sure... go ahead... name your courthouse for a bona fide war criminal who broke laws both domestically and internationally. Go ahead and name your hall of justice for a man who has left this country in the worst shape since Herbert Hoover. Go right ahead. I already avoid Texas at most every chance I get... and here's just one more reason.
In fact, why doesn't Texas seek to become a republic again? The biggest mistake (other then then allow George W. Bush into the White House) that the United States made was letting Texas into the union... when all they wanted to be was their own country.
Let's give Texas back to the Texans... let their motto be: Bring us your racist, your violent, your gun totin', your fascists...
Obama's freshly-confirmed Attorney General Eric Holder told senators that he was open to declassifying White House legal memos if no support for their original classification could be found, signaling a likely showdown with former President George W. Bush over executive privilege.
This is part one in a two-part series on trans-related terminology. Part two will be a discussion about how many classic transsexuals don't want to be labeled as transgender, and how new and legacy LGBT media needs to address self-identification when people who could fall under the term transsexual don't want to be unwillingly absorbed by transgender terminology into transgender community.
I believe there should be a lot of nuance to how lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) reporters, LGBT editors, and LGBT new and legacy media organizations using the term tranny, but in the name of "reclaiming" the term for the LGBT community, the nuance is often lost. Since I've seen two examples of LGBT media using the term tranny in a defamatory manner in the past week, and the defenses of the using the term tranny based on the reclaiming of the word by the LGBT community, I believe I need to explain the nuances in ways LGBT new and legacy media can understand.
Let me give you a case study to think about: This is a story I made up to make a concise point, but most of the elements of the story are taken from real life:
~~~~~
There are three gay men and a lesbian at a bar. Gay Man A calls Gay Man B a "faggot" in the course of the conversation. Gay Man B says to Gay Man A:
"Please don't call me a 'faggot'; I believe the term 'faggot' is derogatory. My friend was beaten up recently, and his attackers screamed 'faggot' at him while they were beating him up. I find the term offensive.
Gay Man A replies:
Gay Man C and I read in an interview that a bisexual who starred on the L Word said that gay people are reclaiming the word 'faggot.' So, we think it's identifying gay men as 'faggots' is fine because the actress said it was fine.Hey, we're going to keep calling us all 'faggots,' and we think you're overreacting in objecting to being called 'faggot.' We're reclaiming the word for our community, and you should too.
Lesbian A chimes in:
Oh, okay. Since gays are now reclaiming the term 'faggot' for their community members, I'll start calling all gay men 'faggots' too.
~~~~
As we see in the scenario above, "reclaiming" a word has can have an emotional impact for those who don't want to reclaim that word as a community term for themselves, and that some people within a subcommunity of the LGBT community -- in this case, gay men -- can't speak for all the people in their subcommunity.
So who gets to claim that they're reclaiming a community term is a function of the broad community? Under what circumstances should those who identify as lesbian, bisexual, or transgender feel comfortable in "reclaiming" a word specific to those who identify as gay within the gay subset of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community? Or those who identify as gay, bisexual, or transgender feel comfortable in "reclaiming" a word specific to those who identify as lesbian within the lesbian subset of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community, etc.?
With this in mind, it needs to be discussed when it's okay for journalists to use a community related word that's been claimed to be "reclaimed," and how to use a "reclaimed" word in media reports when the term can be offensive to subsets of people in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community.
So, a real life example: Pam doesn't personally identify as queer; she identifies publicly as a lesbian. Is it okay to identify as a queer because many in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community have been in the process of reclaiming the word queer for many, many years? And more importantly, should mainstream or new media identify Pam personally as a queer, or identify groups without queer in the title or mission statements that Pam belongs to as queer groups?
And, what if Pam found the term queer okay for others to identify themselves with, but for herself she found the term derogatory, defamatory, and/or offensive? (She doesn't think the term queer to be derogatory, defamatory, and/or offensive when used by LGBT community members to describe her, but let's run with the idea that she does for a moment just to make a point.) Would you still call Pam a queer, or the community groups she belonged to queer groups, if she didn't want to be called queer, and found the term derogatory, defamatory, and/or offensive?
And, if you identified yourself as belonging to the LGBT media and thought it was okay to identify Pam with the word queer with her considering the term to be derogatory, defamatory, and/or offensive, would you justify calling Pam queer by saying that many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community are reclaiming the word queer for themselves? -- or say it's okay to call Pam queer because an actor or entertainer that identifies as queer says it's okay to call lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community members queer because the community is reclaiming the word? (Remember that last question -- there's a real life parallel pointed out to that scenario that I highlight later in this piece.)
I believe the nuance her is that most people (but not all) who identify as queer would consider themselves as belonging to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community, but not everyone who identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender would say they belong to the queer community. In other words, for the most part the nuance of using the term queer is that queer functionally is a subset of the LGBT community -- which is why many people add a Q to LGBT -- but that LGBT isn't a subset of Q. With this in mind (in my opinion), legacy and new LGBT media should reflect in it's coverage that the term queer community isn't interchangeable with term LGBT community.
[Below the fold, RuPaul seems to indicate that it's okay to call him by the N-word. And, referencing the NLGJA and GLAAD Media Stylebooks, I discuss use of the term on tranny in relationship to use of the word queer.]
Reflecting this in their recommendations for the use of the term queer, the National Lesbian and Gay Journalist Association (NLGJA) Stylebook Supplement states this about the term queer:
queer: Originally a pejorative term for gay, now being reclaimed by some lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as a self-affirming umbrella term. Still extremely offensive when used as an epithet.
And, this is what the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Stylebook Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual Glossary of Terms states about the term queer:
Queer: Traditionally a pejorative term, queer has been appropriated by some LGBT people to describe themselves. Some value the term for its defiance and because it can be inclusive of the entire LGBT community. Nevertheless, it is not universally accepted even within the LGBT community and should be avoided unless quoting someone who self-identifies that way.
In my opinion, these are well thought out lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community related style guidelines for the word queer. And, in my opinion, if a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender new or legacy reporter or media outlet (new media to include blogging) doesn't follow these LGBT media guidelines for the word queer, then they should be ready to logically justify why they don't agree with the LGBT media styleguides, and expect to have LGBT media watchdog organizations and LGBT people to take them to task for their decision to deviate from one or both of the LGBT media stylebooks.
Well, let's redirect our attention to the term tranny, keeping in mind the nuances of how LGBT people and LGBT media use queer in mind.
First, what the NLGJA states about the term tranny in their Stylebook Supplement:
tranny: Often a pejorative term for a transgender person, it is now being reclaimed by some transgender people. Caution: still extremely offensive when used as an epithet and should be avoided except in quotes or as someone's self-identified term.
This is what GLAAD Media Stylebook states about the term in their Transgender Glossary of Terms:
DEFAMATORY TERMINOLOGYDefamatory: "deceptive," "fooling," "pretending," "posing," or "masquerading"
Gender identity is an integral part of a person's identity. Please do not characterize transgender people as "deceptive," as "fooling" other people, or as "pretending" to be, "posing" or "masquerading" as a man or a woman. Such descriptions are extremely insulting.Defamatory: "she-male," "he-she," "it," "trannie," "tranny," "gender-bender"
These words only serve to dehumanize transgender people and should not be used
A number of months ago, I complained in an email to the editors of OutSports about how they use the term tranny; I specifically complained about an Outsports article from last July that used the term trannies (entitled How effective will gender testing be?) offended me.
The reporter wrote the following (underline emphasis added):
The tests get into even grayer area when you take transgender athletes into consideration. IOC rules have allowed post-op male-to-female trannies to participate in the Olympics as female for years. How would they show up on these gender tests? You can only imagine.
In a reply, an editor wrote me:
I have established a long history of pro-trans reporting and writing. The post you refer to was pointing out the plight that trans people face, and it certainly had an empathetic tone. My use of 'trannies' in this case was not in an offensive context. If I use it in a mean way, BY ALL MEANS, I would change it. That is not the case here. 'Trannies' simply fit better from a writing standpoint than other identical terms.I have spoken to many non-activist trans people about this issue and 100% of them have told me it's no problem using the term in instances like this, so I will continue to when appropriate (there are many times when I don't; 'trannies', as I said, just fit better here).
...I am one of those who feel we should use words that others try to beat us down with and "reclaim" them. I feel that by consciously avoiding these words, I contribute to their power, and I can't let myself do that. I don't prescribe to the GLAAD/NLGJA doctrine. I certainly appreciate that they are there, and they do good work (we work with both of them). But on this matter, I simply disagree and feel fortunate that I'm part of a community with diverse perspectives.
Last week, a writer from LA.MetBlogs used the term trannies in a piece, and I wrote about my objection to using the term here, and in the comment section of the piece where use of the term offended me. In justifying use of the term tranny, she wrote:
The use of the word "tranny" to me is just as non-offensive as when people refer to lesbians as dykes - when I know the person does not mean it in the perjorative [sic] way. Let's go back to the NLGJA style guide - of which I am well aware - and read the rest of the paragrah [sic];"Often a pejorative term for a transgender person, it is now being reclaimed by some transgender people. Caution: still extremely offensive when used as an epithet and should be avoided except in quotes or as someone's self-identified term."If you look up "dyke," you'll see the same caveat. Clearly this wasn't be used as an epithet. I didn't get your permission to quote you, because I was expressly asked not to quote anyone. And so, though I didn't directly quote from the people who referred to the "T" in LGBTI as trannies, people who do identify themselves as trannies were both there and elsewhere at the Summit.
Then, this past Friday (January 30th, 2009), the Dallas Voice defended its use of the term tranny in it's piece RuPaul approves 'tranny' (The subheaders for the article are: Trans activists demand Dallas Voice to stop using 'drag queen' and 'tranny' and For words of wisdom, we turned to America's expert):
RU'S RULING: The 'Judge Judy of Drag' says, 'Sticks and stones - words will never hurt.'This week, the blog Planetransgender demanded that Dallas Voice cease using the terms "drag queen" and "tranny." They say the words are derogatory and inspire bigotry, which could result in the violent murders of our trans brothers and sisters.
Since journalists should act as guardians of free speech, the demand was way excessive. Besides, we've all seen the word "queer" go through transition - thanks to one television show. And it wasn't "Queer as Folk."
The phenomenal popularity of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" made wrinkly hetero dudes like Regis Philbin and David Letterman say "queer" without flinching. And without a hint of disparagement.
Is it possible to reclaim "tranny" and "drag queen"?
We're already there.
At the end of this piece, we quote Lena Dahlstrom who calls the writer and Life+style Editor of the Dallas Voice 'faggot.' Her point was reflecting on how offensive it is for her to call the writer by a defamatory epithet that he probably would fine offensive -- in the same way he was offending folk like Lena with the term tranny.
And, that's even if RuPaul says "Sticks and stones...words will never hurt."
Frankly, I'm totally bewildered by RuPaul's "logic," and mystified at the Dallas Voice's buying into RuPaul's "logic":
Okay, Let me put on my Judge Judy robe. People really need to get a life. And quit taking every opportunity to be offended by the world. Years ago, political correctness made it unbearable for anyone to have a laugh or be free. You can't make the whole world 'baby safe.' That's really the uneducated approach to dealing with issues.There are more things to do in this life than to try to correct people with how they should refer to you. That's your problem. That's not their problem.
If words will never hurt, does that mean it's appropriate for me to refer to RuPaul by the n-word? By his own words as an African-American, it would be "[his] problem" if RuPaul didn't like me identifying him and his community by the n-word -- that just doesn't sound credible. And on top of that, the Dallas Voice seriously identified RuPaul as the go-to expert on the term tranny? -- a person who identifies as a drag queen, and doesn't publicly identify as transgender? F***ing amazing.
My comment is that their are nuances to using the term tranny, much as there are nuances to using the term queer. And, my problem isn't that some LGBT media and reporters use the term tranny, but that they don't comprehend the nuances of when -- and how -- to use the term.
And here's the nuance -- people who identify as a tranny (for the most part) identify as transgender, but not everyone who identifies as transgender identifies as a tranny. Those who identify as trannies are a subset of broader transgender community; the terms tranny and transgender aren't interchangeable terms.
And, just as it is with the term queer being considered a defamatory epithet to many LGBT people, to a good number of those who identify as transgender -- but not as trannies -- consider the term tranny to be defamatory epithet.
Most in the LGBT media understand that reclaiming the term queer doesn't make the terms LGBT and queer interchangeable, yet some LGBT media professionals have begun using tranny and transgender -- and even transsexual -- interchangeably, using the reclaiming justification for their use of the term tranny.
And, just as legacy and new LGBT media publications -- as well as individual new and legacy LGBT media reporters -- are for the most part nuanced in their use of the word queer, they need to be equally nuanced in their use of the word tranny. And, just as legacy and new LGBT media publications -- as well as individual new and legacy LGBT media reporters -- should be held to account for misusing the term queer, they should be held to the same account with they misuse of the term tranny.
I would prefer that LGBT media use alternatives to tranny (for example: transgender people, trans people or transpeople) when describing groups of trans people, but there are times when the term tranny may be the most appropriate term because of the self-identification of an individual or a particular group.
~~~~~
Lena Dahlstrom has a more gritty take on this issue. In her Pam's House Blend diary The only moral use of an epithet is my own..., where she states:
Dear Faggot:Now I know you won't be offended by me -- a hetero crossdresser who also does drag -- calling you that, since after all we're all about reclaiming terms, right? Just like you getting RuPaul to "rule" that it's OK to call trans people "trannies." The thing is, as far as I know, RuPaul identifies as a gay man, so asking his/her opinion on this issue is a bit like asking a white person whether it's OK for other white people call black people... well you know the term I mean.
The thing is, reclaiming an epithet is something that only gets to be done by the people who've been targeted by it. There's a big difference between members of a stigmatized group reclaiming a term as a way of saying "yeah I am a [insert derogatory term here], wanna make something of it" -- and quite another when someone outside that group decides to fling that term around carelessly. And no, we're not "already there" in reclaiming tranny as a cuddly term of endearment -- Christian Siriano's catchphrase "hot tranny mess" was clearly meant as a putdown down in exactly the same way as clueless straight kids use "that's so gay." ...
Lena goes on, and Lena's pretty angry. When someone feels that he, she, or ze, is referred to by language that he, she, or ze finds offensive or defamatory -- or when someone has a significant other, family member, or ally that has he, she, or ze, finds offensive or defamatory -- then we often see tempers flare. Lena uses much stronger language than I would, but I was as angry last week when I felt personally defamed in being personally referred to as a tranny -- I was harsher last week.
If one wouldn't call people by the n-word, the c-word, queer or faggot when asked to stop using terms like these, why would one who isn't trans-identified demand to right to reclaim the term tranny on behalf of the significant number of trans people who find the term offensive and defamatory? This insistence that one has a right to continue using a term that many find offensive and defamatory -- specifically because one is reclaiming the term on behalf or others -- is absolutely baffling to me.
And those LGBT people who do insist on exercising that right are people I'm now seeing as tone deaf, clueless, and offensive. Those LGBT media types who insist it's their right to use the term tranny in their written product -- when they know that the term has been identified in LGBT stylebooks as defamatory and offensive -- Well, they are very much insisting on a personal right to use the language of LGBT bigotry when referring to others who are not in their subcommunity of the broader LGBT community.
Should I now be calling these LGBT media folks "bigots" because of they insist on using the language of bigotry? I wonder.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment