Last year, in the second half of my piece A Personal History of the “T-word” (and some more general reflections on language and activism), I described what I call the activist language merry-go-round.
Here’s how it works: Because trans people are highly stigmatized and face undue
scrutiny in our culture, all of the language associated with us will face
similar stigma and scrutiny. At some point, every single trans-related term
will be called out as “problematic” for some reason or another—e.g., its
origin, history, aesthetic quality (or lack thereof), literal meaning,
alternate definitions, potential misinterpretations or connotations, or
occasional exclusionary or defamatory usage. And supposedly more liberatory or
inclusive alternative terms will gain favor. But over time, these new terms will
eventually be challenged too. Because the crux of the problem is not the words
themselves, but rather the negative or narrow views of trans people that ultimately
influence how these words are viewed and used by others.
So rather than constantly trying to eliminate certain words and
inventing new replacement terms, I argue that we would be best off challenging
the narrow or negative views of trans people that sometimes latch themselves
onto trans terminology. That is a brief synopsis of the activist language
merry-go-round; I encourage you to read the linked-to essay above, as I make my
case far more thoughtfully and thoroughly there than I have in these two
paragraphs.
The reason why I am bringing this up now is because I want
to share some of my personal thoughts regarding the terms trans* and
transgenderism, both of which have come under activist-language-merry-go-round
scrutiny lately.