Search This Blog

Thursday, July 1, 2010

PSA: "Transgender" or "Transgendered"?

This is a potentially controversial subject but nonetheless, my inner pedant feels the need to post.

I've been seeing the term "transgendered" a lot lately, and it bugs me, in the same way the term "transgendering" bugs me. Both are conjugations of a verb. But unless we're discussing drag queens, or perhaps purely recreational crossdressers, this isn't something we do, with a past and present tense form. It is something we are; we are transgender individuals.

The Huffington Post explains it as such:
"Readers of my age and older will remember a sad time when this country labeled African-Americans as "colored people." One problem with this label was that it implied something happened to make the person "of color," which denied the person's dignity of being born that way. Today, we are somewhat more enlightened and say "people of color" instead."
I think that pretty much nails it.

The Huffington Post piece goes on to make several good points, the last of which is that language is malleable and if individuals want to use the term "transgendered" to identify themselves, that's their business and there's nothing anyone can do about it. And I agree with that; so what if it bugs me, that's my problem, right?

Right. But if you are going to add the odious -"ed" and make a verb out of an adjective, it's helpful to understand the implications. Is this an activity for you, or is it part of your core identity?

70 comments:

  1. Not a noun but an adjective, right? A transgender person. And since it's an adjective, I used to think the "-ed" was appropriate. "Gendered pronouns." "A transgendered person." But the GLAAD style guide says no "-ed." And that's fine with me.

    I almost never use the word anyway. I go with "trans" if I need to. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. oh right, adjective! Damn, I write too fast, thanks for the catch! Correcting it now!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh, and your comment reminds me of another pet peeve of mine.

    "Trans" is an adjective.

    A trans woman is a kind of woman, in the same mode as lesbian woman or black woman.

    On the other hand, transwoman is a noun of its own and suggests someone bearing certain qualities of a woman, but not actually being a woman. It reminds me of, say, wolfman.

    I can think of a few people, even around here, who will see that explanation and choose to use "transwoman" on purpose to further their own divisive agenda. I guess that's their prerogative. But well meaning people who just don't know any better may want to take care with their phraseology.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think way too much time is spent in the "fill in your favorite word" community worrying about words.

    And we wonder why nobody else in the world understands what we're talking about half the time.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I accepted Julia Serano's logic (in her book Whipping Girl) and since then have used only "trans woman" and "trans man" with the space between.

    A worthy pet peeve, methinks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wholeheartedly agree! There’s no “transgendered” as there is no “transsexualed”.

    Olga

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ Olga

    I almost included that exact same phrasing in my initial post, but it didn't flow right with the rest of the text. Thanks for bringing it up because I think it works nicely as an example of what we're talking about. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. But...but...genderis a noun. That's why initially I thought that the "-ed" should be there, because that's how you turn gender into an adjective, as in "gendered behaviour."

    Sexual, on the other hand, is already an adjective.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ah, but sex is a noun, and what we're talking about is gender/sex. Nothing sexual about it, hardee har har har.

    In all seriousness, I'd kind of like to know the etymology of the word sex and how it came to mean both a person's biological gender and the act of intercourse between two people. It's no wonder we confound personhood with genitalia.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I thought "sex" used in that way was just short for "sexual intercourse." I don't know when the usage started.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Okay, this didn't work - the first time, I didn't get a captcha, and the next opportunity gave me a 404 error. Anyway:

    Conjugation of a verb?

    Where did you get that idea? Did you check? (There's no need to answer: you clearly did not.)

    Transgender is an adjective. Transgendered is also an adjective.

    There are 12 tenses in the English language:
    Simple present
    Simple past
    Simple Future
    Present Progressive
    Past Progressive
    Future Progressive
    Present Perfect
    Past Perfect
    Past Perfect
    Future Perfect
    Present Perfect Progressive
    Past Perfect Progessive
    Future Perfect Progressive.

    Nowhere in that list is there an adjective. (If you need to know example, may I suggest Azar, 3rd Edition?)

    Adding the suffix "ed" to an adjective does not make it a verb. Where did you get that idea? Transgendered is as acceptable an adjective as transgender; in some sentence constructions, it is the only possible option!

    GLAAD, the last time I checked, quotes a rule that doesn't exist. I quote: "Only verbs can be transformed into participles by adding "-ed" to the end of the word, and transgender is an adjective, not a verb." And they are wrong. Adding the suffix "ed" does not, in any way shape or form, transform "transgendered" to a verb. It's an adjective!

    We are transgendered individuals. Any other form is a passive construction. I prefer to be an active transgendered individual.

    But please: don't mistake an adjective for a verb.

    Carolyn Ann

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ahh, the SPACE between words. Maybe it always should have been about the space between...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Okay... I've calmed down a little.

    Where's the verb?
    Where is the verb that you're conjugating? (Present progressive.)

    Trans is a prefix. Gender is a noun. There's no verb to conjugate!

    Okay, I haven't calmed down very much.

    Carolyn Ann

    ReplyDelete
  14. Just as an afterthought: trans is a prefix. It's not an adjective. It's not a noun. It's a prefix.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It's so easy to get worked up over these words. I sometimes find myself using the 'wrong' word in someone else's company and get rebuked for it. Words or phrases like 'transperson' or 'real woman' as opposed to 'trans woman' and so on. I'm personally less sensitive than most about terminology, perhaps because I feel less insecure than most, but even I find it hard not to bridle at stuff such as 'sex change' or 'man dressed as a woman' or 'gender bender', all of which miss the point and seem to drag you back to another era. But you still see and hear them.

    Lucy

    ReplyDelete
  16. Actually yes, trans is a prefix. It's the prefix in the word transsexual and when we say "trans woman" or "trans man", as Veronica points out, what we're really doing is using shorthand to say "transsexual woman" or "transsexual man". We're not intentionally trying to use a prefix incorrectly; we're just being lazy and not saying exactly what we mean.

    Prefixes indelibly change the root word in some way...that's sort of their point, to add extra meaning, or as one grammar website succinctly advises, "to adjust or qualify [the root word's] usage or meaning". Most transsexual identified individuals aren't trying to "adjust or qualify" the meaning of the words "man" or "woman" (although I'm sure some will argue that the word "transsexual" automatically does so anyway); I, and I think many others, see "transsexual" and "woman" as related but separate, in much the same was as person's ethnicity or sexual orientation or religious persuasion are separate aspects of who they are. As the ones in the know, that's certainly our prerogative, and for us it only makes sense to keep the words apart and distinct.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Transsexual individual" is adequate; no verbs are needed. The verb identified in "transsexual identified individuals" shouldn't be there; you're using a verb as an adverb, and confusing your meaning.

    Identifiable is the adverb of identify.

    The adjective transgender (or transgendered) qualifies the noun man, woman or person (etc). In keeping with that convention, transwoman is acceptable, trans woman is not. Therefore, no space.

    I agree that trans is lazy; I think its usage shows a lack of care for the point being made; at best, it demonstrates shoddy thinking. That being said, the colloquial transwoman and transman (etc) have gained acceptability; their definitions are reasonably precise. Some pedants might insist on "transgender/ed woman", but I doubt you'll find them within the transgender community. I will say that transindividual is absolutely unacceptable, however. :-)

    Considering that transgender and transsexual are two different, but related, concepts - the use of trans (as an adjective) is not just lazy, it's confusing, too. It enjoys some colloquial popularity simply because it has a generally accepted, astonishingly vague, meaning within the choir.

    Using transsexual as an adjective automatically changes the definition of the noun. More than a few transgendered bloggers, and others, are seeking to make the prefix unnecessary. Those people seek to change the basic definition of "man" and "woman". Their goal is to change the language, subverting the entire concept of gender. That their arguments are based on contrived strawmen merely indicates the overall weakness of their case.

    The transsexualed argument is a red-herring. It's like that ridiculous "reded" example GLAAD had for a while (do they still have it?). The claim, being a strawman of enormous proportion, and of unerring convenience, is far too trite. We don't say reded, but we do use blued and yellowed. Colloquially, greened is becoming acceptable. All of this tells us that transgendered is perfectly fine; it's only when facetious justifications are employed that it becomes odious. In many cases, it can help the sentence get out of bed; frankly, "I am a transgender individual" needs all the help it can get. It's not just passive - it's soporific!

    And don't get me started on the infantile "cis"!

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Carolyn Ann: Your own logic undercuts your conclusion. Since transgender (or transgendered) is an adjective, then "trans woman" or "trans man" makes the most sense. Normally, adjectives are separate words from the nouns they modify.

    I don't think "trans" is lazy. It's a way of avoiding the transgender/transsexual dichotomy. I write "trans" to be purposely somewhat specific but not completely specific, not to be lazy.

    Either prefix, as it turns out, is unnecessary for me. You disagree, and so it goes. I tend not to think in terms of gender, since there is so little agreement on what the term means. I think more in terms of sex, either anatomical sex or core sex identity ("brain sex"). No language subversion there.

    As for "cis-," it was an adjective long before anyone used either transsexual or transgender.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @ Carolyn Ann
    We are transgendered individuals. Any other form is a passive construction. I prefer to be an active transgendered individual.

    Hmmm… I see this exactly the opposite way. If I would describe myself as transgendered, it would imply that someone or something has actively forced me into this state. I perceive the word transgendered the same way as the word transformed, which implies not only past-tense, but also the involvement of another entity.

    As for the use of trans, as a prefix, I don’t think it’s lazy… it’s just practical.

    Great discussion, by the way. I like picking the details!

    Olga

    ReplyDelete
  20. With any due apologies, I am abandoning this discussion. I am doing so for two reasons: the comment moderation, and my lack of time.

    It does take time to check on half-remembered grammatical rules, last dissected in high school; it also takes time to check if a word can be transformed into an adjective or a verb - or even a noun! - in some way that I've completely forgotten. We are, after all, discussing basic grammar. The rules should not be in dispute. Contemporary conventions and idioms that can't withstand even cursory scrutiny, notwithstanding... As you might guess, I'm not an expert on English grammar; I abuse the language in ways heretofore unseen, and likely as not, launch unwarranted attacks upon the sensibilities of professional linguists; I enjoy savaging grammatical pedants. My hope is that, one day, I will be somewhat accomplished in the use of the English language. I do think an appreciation of basic grammar is essential. Words reflect their author; if the language is sloppy, then it can be safely assumed that the ideas, and thinking behind them, equal it.

    My other concern is Renee's comment moderation. It has been a source of disquiet from the start; it's not something I appreciate. It implies that my ideas, and words, have to pass some arbitrary muster before being deemed adequate for publication. It also leads, as in this conversation, to a stilted experience; I check to see if my words passed their exam, only to find they're still waiting to be tested! It's a rarity for me to participate in moderated-comment blog, these days. It's often used to avoid the difficult or controversial; it's also used to extinguish any illumination of (often enormous) flaws in shoddily constructed arguments. When I come across a blog that has comment moderation, I know robust and forthright discussion is unlikely. How can you have such a discussion when your words, and ideas, have to pass some unknown filter before they can be considered by others?

    I was involved in a similar discussion over at The Guardian; it has been closed, presumably because some half-witted "radfeminist" decided the china shop needed a bull. Maintaining engagement in both conversations was taking up too of my time; I am supposed to be starting my business! And right now, that's where I need to focus my attention.

    Thank you for an interesting chat. :-)

    Carolyn Ann

    ReplyDelete
  21. With any due apologies, I am abandoning this discussion. I am doing so for two reasons: the comment moderation, and my lack of time.

    It does take time to check on half-remembered grammatical rules, last dissected in high school; it also takes time to check if a word can be transformed into an adjective or a verb - or even a noun! - in some way that I've completely forgotten. We are, after all, discussing basic grammar. The rules should not be in dispute. Contemporary conventions and idioms that can't withstand even cursory scrutiny, notwithstanding... As you might guess, I'm not an expert on English grammar; I abuse the language in ways heretofore unseen, and likely as not, launch unwarranted attacks upon the sensibilities of professional linguists; I enjoy savaging grammatical pedants. My hope is that, one day, I will be somewhat accomplished in the use of the English language. I do think an appreciation of basic grammar is essential. Words reflect their author; if the language is sloppy, then it can be safely assumed that the ideas, and thinking behind them, equal it.

    My other concern is Renee's comment moderation. It has been a source of disquiet from the start; it's not something I appreciate. It implies that my ideas, and words, have to pass some arbitrary muster before being deemed adequate for publication. It also leads, as in this conversation, to a stilted experience; I check to see if my words passed their exam, only to find they're still waiting to be tested! It's a rarity for me to participate in moderated-comment blog, these days. It's often used to avoid the difficult or controversial; it's also used to extinguish any illumination of (often enormous) flaws in shoddily constructed arguments. When I come across a blog that has comment moderation, I know robust and forthright discussion is unlikely. How can you have such a discussion when your words, and ideas, have to pass some unknown filter before they can be considered by others?

    I was involved in a similar discussion over at The Guardian; it has been closed, presumably because some half-witted "radfeminist" decided the china shop needed a bull. Maintaining engagement in both conversations was taking up too of my time; I am supposed to be starting my business! And right now, that's where I need to focus my attention.

    Thank you for an interesting chat. :-)

    Carolyn Ann

    ReplyDelete
  22. Renee, I have no idea if my previous comments made it to the approval queue. Some arcane technical issue with the Camino browser ensures my uncertainty.

    I will resubmit both comments; if they are already in the queue to be "approved", please treat them as you see fit. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  23. Trying again:

    I'm not following you, Veronica. I can't undercut my own logic - I'm simply explaining basic grammar. There isn't any logic to undercut?

    Transgender has no space between "trans" and the noun; neither does transsexual. Despite searching, I can't find any example where the prefix trans is separated from its noun. It therefore follows that no space is needed between trans and man or woman; so transman and transwoman are correct, and trans man (etc) isn't. That's not logic, that's grammatical convention.

    While transman (etc) are new words, They are adequately defined; they are reasonable replacements for transgendered man, etc. In some cases I'd stick to the longer form.

    How you use trans is not linguistically correct. Trans is a prefix; in chemistry, it's an adjective. In terms of gender, it's a prefix. You can try re-interpreting it to be an adjective; that's a common habit. But that doesn't mean you're using it correctly. If you're using it for convenience, you're basically admitting you're using it lazily. By avoiding the dichotomy you mention, you're saying that you do not want to indulge in the precision of language needed to overcome it.

    Olga states that using "trans" is a matter of practicality. Isn't that the same as saying "I'm not interested in being precise?" Trans can mean either transgendered, or transsexual. As you're probably aware, there's a minefield of vernacular (at the very least!) between the two. By using "trans", you're basically implying that an idea is common between the two groups. Sometimes that might be the case, many times it won't be. Precision would help; using trans as a convenience doesn't provide any precision. If anything, it helps confuse the point being made.

    There is agreement on the definition of gender. It's just ignored by far too many bloggers. For example, the 2nd definition in the New Oxford American Dictionary says: the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones): traditional concepts of gender | [as adj.] gender roles.
    - the members of one or other sex: differences between the genders are encouraged from an early age. (Their italics; that's how they denote usage.)

    Transformed, Olga, has no implication of a 3rd party or any external force. The change could come from within! The caterpillar was transformed into a butterfly, for instance. Or, the experience transformed him. In the first, the change has no external force (it might have external cues, but that's by the by); in the second, something caused the man to change.

    Transformed is past tense, but the -ed suffix does not always mean the adjective is such. The most significant difference is that transform is a verb.

    My antipathy toward the lazy construction, and even lazier justification, of cis- is something I have extensively written about. :-)

    And yes, this is a fascinating discussion. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Trying again:

    I'm not following you, Veronica. I can't undercut my own logic - I'm simply explaining basic grammar. There isn't any logic to undercut?

    Transgender has no space between "trans" and the noun; neither does transsexual. Despite searching, I can't find any example where the prefix trans is separated from its noun. It therefore follows that no space is needed between trans and man or woman; so transman and transwoman are correct, and trans man (etc) isn't. That's not logic, that's grammatical convention.

    While transman (etc) are new words, They are adequately defined; they are reasonable replacements for transgendered man, etc. In some cases I'd stick to the longer form.

    How you use trans is not linguistically correct. Trans is a prefix; in chemistry, it's an adjective. In terms of gender, it's a prefix. You can try re-interpreting it to be an adjective; that's a common habit. But that doesn't mean you're using it correctly. If you're using it for convenience, you're basically admitting you're using it lazily. By avoiding the dichotomy you mention, you're saying that you do not want to indulge in the precision of language needed to overcome it.

    Olga states that using "trans" is a matter of practicality. Isn't that the same as saying "I'm not interested in being precise?" Trans can mean either transgendered, or transsexual. As you're probably aware, there's a minefield of vernacular (at the very least!) between the two. By using "trans", you're basically implying that an idea is common between the two groups. Sometimes that might be the case, many times it won't be. Precision would help; using trans as a convenience doesn't provide any precision. If anything, it helps confuse the point being made.

    There is agreement on the definition of gender. It's just ignored by far too many bloggers. For example, the 2nd definition in the New Oxford American Dictionary says: the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones): traditional concepts of gender | [as adj.] gender roles.
    - the members of one or other sex: differences between the genders are encouraged from an early age. (Their italics; that's how they denote usage.)

    Transformed, Olga, has no implication of a 3rd party or any external force. The change could come from within! The caterpillar was transformed into a butterfly, for instance. Or, the experience transformed him. In the first, the change has no external force (it might have external cues, but that's by the by); in the second, something caused the man to change.

    Transformed is past tense, but the -ed suffix does not always mean the adjective is such. The most significant difference is that transform is a verb.

    My antipathy toward the lazy construction, and even lazier justification, of cis- is something I have extensively written about. :-)

    And yes, this is a fascinating discussion. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm not following you, Veronica. I can't undercut my own logic - I'm simply explaining basic grammar. There isn't any logic to undercut?

    Transgender has no space between "trans" and the noun; neither does transsexual. Despite searching, I can't find any example where the prefix trans is separated from its noun. It therefore follows that no space is needed between trans and man or woman; so transman and transwoman are correct, and trans man (etc) isn't. That's not logic, that's grammatical convention.

    While transman (etc) are new words, They are adequately defined; they are reasonable replacements for transgendered man, etc. In some cases I'd stick to the longer form.

    How you use trans is not linguistically correct. Trans is a prefix; in chemistry, it's an adjective. In terms of gender, it's a prefix. You can try re-interpreting it to be an adjective; that's a common habit. But that doesn't mean you're using it correctly. If you're using it for convenience, you're basically admitting you're using it lazily. By avoiding the dichotomy you mention, you're saying that you do not want to indulge in the precision of language needed to overcome it.

    Olga states that using "trans" is a matter of practicality. Isn't that the same as saying "I'm not interested in being precise?" Trans can mean either transgendered, or transsexual. As you're probably aware, there's a minefield of vernacular (at the very least!) between the two. By using "trans", you're basically implying that an idea is common between the two groups. Sometimes that might be the case, many times it won't be. Precision would help; using trans as a convenience doesn't provide any precision. If anything, it helps confuse the point being made.

    There is agreement on the definition of gender. It's just ignored by far too many bloggers. For example, the 2nd definition in the New Oxford American Dictionary says: the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones): traditional concepts of gender | [as adj.] gender roles.
    - the members of one or other sex: differences between the genders are encouraged from an early age. (Their italics; that's how they denote usage.)

    Transformed, Olga, has no implication of a 3rd party or any external force. The change could come from within! The caterpillar was transformed into a butterfly, for instance. Or, the experience transformed him. In the first, the change has no external force (it might have external cues, but that's by the by); in the second, something caused the man to change.

    Transformed is past tense, but the -ed suffix does not always mean the adjective is such. The most significant difference is that transform is a verb.

    My antipathy toward the lazy construction, and even lazier justification, of cis- is something I have extensively written about. :-)

    And yes, this is a fascinating discussion. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Renee, Blogger keeps giving me an error: "URL is too large". I'm not sure if you have my two comments in your queue, or not. If not, could you let me know? Just a quick note in your comments section is more than sufficient!

    Thank you in advance
    Carolyn Ann

    ReplyDelete
  27. I moderate the comments so please direct your wrath towards me, Carolyn. I get to them as time permits. Frankly, I haven't even had time to read your comments or any others. I skim through them to make sure they are relevant and then publish.

    This is a good topic, but not one I choose to comment on.

    Calie

    ReplyDelete
  28. I didn't even know T-Central employed comment moderation!

    Rest assured, I may disagree with the general tone of certain comments, but I wouldn't censor anything and I'm hoping that Calie wouldn't either. Fair readers can see for themselves what is written and decide how they feel about it all on their own. That's always been my policy on such issues.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ah - the process is even more opaque than I would ever have thought!

    One of my comments clearly didn't make it to the approval queue. I'll simply publish it on my blog, rather than try to figure out from Google's cryptic, nonexistent, error messages what the problem might be!

    May I suggest that if T-Central is going to cover controversial topics that your comment policy, and procedure, be explained? If I had known your comment procedure, I wouldn't have even entertained the idea of directly commenting. I would've restricted myself to exploring the issue solely on my blog.

    As it is, I will not darken your door with my comments again. The whole approval process leaves me cold.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Carolyn, I try to publish the comments as fast as I can. While I don't employ comment moderation on my own blog - yet - this site as such a huge following that comments just have to be moderated. Any legitimate comment is published but we also get a lot of spam comments. You always have something worthwhile to say and I would never not publish your comments.

    I always carry my Blackberry with me but I haven't figured out how to approve a comment on the Blackberry so need to wait until I'm at a computer.

    This past week, we have had quite a bit of spam come in via the comments section. It is possible that I may have rejected one of your comments while doing so for a batch of spam. Please check back through all of these comments and let me know if that comment is still missing.

    Calie

    ReplyDelete
  31. @ Carolyn,

    There may be some future discussion among us T-Central peeps about whether controversial topics are okay here or not. These piece amounts to an editorial, and it was something I just went ahead and did. But I generally like discussion, as long as it remains civil, and that's been happening here.

    After getting to read your most recent comments, I do understand what you're saying, especially about the precision of language. I definitely think there's ambiguity in just using "trans" as its own adjective. I'm mulling over whether ambiguity is always a bad thing; I think it definitely is some of the time, but not necessarily always.

    As far as the definition of gender goes...well I'm pretty sure we could dig up all sorts of definitions from all sorts of sources. But I do think there's a commonly understood definition of "gender", and I think it's pretty close to the definition you cite. I'm just one of those radical people in favor of migrating peoples' understanding because I really, really do think common perception of "man" and "woman" doesn't nearly do justice to whole of what gender really is. Which is, of course, a bigger and infinitely debatable topic...and probably one needing of its own topic if we were going to do it justice.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Wow! I guess that comment did get through. Three times! (I think I tried about a zillion times... Google kept giving me strange error messages. Ah well.)

    Thanks, Calie. :-)

    Thanks, Renee. :-)

    While it might be dangerous, I've given some thought to "I am transgender". There's actually nothing wrong with it; after it's woken up, that is. I am male; I am female are perfectly fine; male and female are nouns; I have to agree that there's nothing wrong with treating transgender as a noun.

    There's still nothing wrong with transgendered, and trans - as a prefix - always joins the noun it is modifying. That is: no space. As an adjective, it's insufficient: trans what? It's lazy, too.

    Cisgender and its variations will always be lazy, however. Any usage of "cis", as an adjective, rightly shows the user to be careless and shoddy. It is, as Ms Kaveney stated in her recent Guardian essay, without value. It is free of any value whatsoever.

    I will now resume my 4th of July weekend, and I wish you a grand holiday too! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Carolyn Ann might not be back, but I just wanted to add that I knew comments were moderated, but whenever I see a comment in the queue, I just release it. I'm a bad moderator. :)

    I see I left a gap in my own logic. Since transgender and transsexual are both adjectives, then trans woman and trans man are proper, with space, since in this context trans is short for transgender and/or transsexual (the part in bold was the missing link). In other words, "trans woman" because it stands for "transsexual woman" or "transgender woman." And I use trans that way because I don't necessarily know how someone identifies -- purposely ambiguous for a reason.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @ Carolyn,

    You're welcome, and have a nice holiday!

    @ Veronica,

    If I'm going to post controversial stuff, I guess I might have to check the queue more regularly...if I even have that much power. I'm not sure, I've never even thought about it.

    @ Myself

    I think I've learned a little something in this conversation.

    I approached my argument for these points using grammar as my source of authority, and I think that's disingenuous (as well as obviously full of holes, at this point).

    I'm a self-confessed fan of ambiguity in language, and a proponent of migrating the common understanding of certain terminology to be more inclusive and validating for trans men and women. That said, trying to rally the rules of grammar and language to defend my point seems almost hypocritical.

    What would have been better would be for me to have talked about the reasons our language is trending in this way, and why I agree with those trends. Now granted, that stuff was touched upon (the impression that the term "transgendered" leaves, the feelings that the word "transwoman" engenders, etc.), but that didn't become the focus. And I realize those talking points won't necessarily be less controversial, and may in some cases lead back to talk of grammar for those who maintain that precision of language is sacred (I don't hold it as such), but it would have been a more honest approach for my position.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Language changes. Words like, cool, bad, gay, hot, crack, killer, surf'n. chill'n, black, and white all started out with quite different meanings.

    The original intent of the word transgender has changed over the years too. We can voice out displeasure with the way words change but in the end popularity will win out.

    We've also changed meanings by adding words like, good shit, bad ass, couch potato, far out, trans woman or trans man.

    I've always seen trans as an abbreviation for transsexual, similar to "pro" for professional. "Trans" could also mean transgender I suppose. I tend toward trans woman because because the ambiguity between TS or TG suits me. I'm also in transportation. :o)

    Cisgender is a new word used almost exclusively by transgenders or trans fans and friends. Will it catch on to the main stream? Hard to say when we're still working out whether a person can be "transgendered".

    I've been gendered male and I've been gendered female so though I don't use transgendered I can see how it has validity for some. Both transsexual and transgender are words that imply a transition of sorts. Maybe if a woman is transsexualed it means she's been mistaken for a transsexual. :op

    I don't think we should avoid possible controversial subjects just because they draw heat. We need to talk this stuff out, especially if we want to ever have some sense of cohesive trans community. These are good discussions.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @ Common Teri,

    Actually, the term "cisgender" is gaining in popularity outside the trans community. It's certainly not mainstream yet, but among the younger generation - particularly 20-something, feminists - it's finding use. And not in a bad way, but in meaningful discussions in which cisgender men and women deconstruct their own gender privilege to arrive at a better understanding of what trans lives are like.

    But I think I'll leave it at that because we've done the "cis" talk around here before and I'm not interested in seeing that explode in this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hah, seems like things have really picked up since I stepped back. Maybe it wasn't as alive because of me! LOL, kidding

    This has been a very worthwhile discussion, and sometimes it takes a little commentary to spark things up. We can all remain civil and pray that the f***ng trolls stay out of it.

    Nowadays comment moderation is a necessity...damn Japanese spammers!

    ReplyDelete
  38. I am a transsexual woman (= transwoman, in short), therefore I fall under the umbrella of transgender people and belong to the trans community.

    Trans used on its own stands for both transsexual and transgender. Transwoman / transman is always short for transsexual.

    Precise, easy, practical — and not lazy.

    ReplyDelete
  39. -- Part 2 --

    As a sidebar, I'll note that I am a man who is transgendered. I am not a transman, nor am I a transwoman; I am not a transgender woman, either. A precise description of me is as I expressed: I am a man who is transgendered. Any other description fails to describe me; considering that we're discussing some of the tools of identity politics, I thought the example had relevance. :-)

    Of course, this is not to say that transgender woman is particularly exact, either. It is, however, fortunate enough to have a reasonably precise definition in reliable and trustworthy dictionaries. (Sorry, I don't mean to change the subject!)

    By your own definitions, Olga, by asserting that you fall under the umbrella of transgender people, you're saying you're a member of that community. You can't be a member of a community and a member of the same community! Unless you mean the trans community includes both the community of transsexuals and the transgendered community? But your own words indicate that you consider the transsexual community to be a subset of the overall transgender community; you're saying you are a member of a community and a member of the same community. Your meaning is unclear. I understand your general idea, but your expression of that idea isn't as precise as you assert it is. (This is not to pick on you; it was simply a convenient example of how ambiguous expression leads to incomprehension.)

    in closing, Common Teri notes that language changes. That's not in question; what is in question is how the new words and meanings are used. If someone says they're being precise, and they're using imprecise language - then we can safely discount their entire argument. Mostly because they, themselves, clearly do not understand it! Perhaps we need to discuss when something becomes "good" English? When one person uses an ambiguous word in a seemingly precise way, or when it's in common usage across a community? Does such ambiguity ever become "good" English?

    Which is why I say language is what it is. It's the thinking behind the usage that's interesting. :-)

    Carolyn Ann

    ReplyDelete
  40. Google has a problem with long comments. So I've split this one into two. I hope you don't mind! :-)
    ===
    Doesn't transwoman also mean transgender(ed) woman?

    Why not t-woman, instead of transwoman? Shorten it even more: twoman? Following the standards put forth, there's no particular reason why someone couldn't be a tman! This blog is called T-Central; it could be called Transcentral, but it's not. The name plays to the ambiguity of terms. That's fine, but no one can reasonably claim that it's a precisely defined appellation. No one can claim transwoman is a precise noun, either!

    Renee, your stated preference for the ambiguity implies that you're happy with inexactness and uncertainty of meaning. Are you really sure you prefer it if your ideas can be misunderstood or misconstrued? Ambiguity has never served anyone, except those who hope to profit from the ambiguity.

    To take, as an example, the post that started this discussion: imprecise understanding leads you to assert that transgendered is a conjugated verb - it isn't, it's an adjective. (I'm ignoring transgendering; it's not a valid word. Imprecision led to an embarrassing moment for you: why should I take your ideas seriously, if you can't tell the difference between an adjective and a verb? (I do seriously consider your words, by the way.) Imprecision reflects upon the writer; read any great writer, and unless the imprecision was intended, you'll find their words express their ideas precisely.

    As you can see, it's not the language that's lazy; language is what it is. It's the assumptions and reasoning behind the language that makes the thinking lazy. Olga assumes transwoman means transsexual woman; I make no such assumption - I generally consider it to mean a transgender woman; depending on context, it might also mean transgender and transsexual women. I can't make the assumption that a transsexual woman is a transgender woman; many transsexual women assert that they are women, not transgendered women. Who am I to deny the claim? (While I enthusiastically question it, I don't deny it.) I do know that a transgender woman is, often, not the same as a transsexual woman. Transwoman has an uncertain meaning. It is ambiguous. Therefore, any argument that uses it precisely must fail; if you can redefine an argument by simply having a different, but equally valid definition for a core concept, the argument must fail. There's a difference between willful misrepresentation, or misunderstanding, of an idea, or a word, and the simple misunderstanding of a concept because the noun used to describe it has a different meaning for the writer than the reader! As such, it behooves the writer to be precise in their expression.

    -- To be continued in the next comment! --

    ReplyDelete
  41. Part 2 of Carolyn Ann's comment Not sure why the system is forcing me to manually add it, Carolyn)

    -- Part 2 --

    As a sidebar, I'll note that I am a man who is transgendered. I am not a transman, nor am I a transwoman; I am not a transgender woman, either. A precise description of me is as I expressed: I am a man who is transgendered. Any other description fails to describe me; considering that we're discussing some of the tools of identity politics, I thought the example had relevance. :-)

    Of course, this is not to say that transgender woman is particularly exact, either. It is, however, fortunate enough to have a reasonably precise definition in reliable and trustworthy dictionaries. (Sorry, I don't mean to change the subject!)

    By your own definitions, Olga, by asserting that you fall under the umbrella of transgender people, you're saying you're a member of that community. You can't be a member of a community and a member of the same community! Unless you mean the trans community includes both the community of transsexuals and the transgendered community? But your own words indicate that you consider the transsexual community to be a subset of the overall transgender community; you're saying you are a member of a community and a member of the same community. Your meaning is unclear. I understand your general idea, but your expression of that idea isn't as precise as you assert it is. (This is not to pick on you; it was simply a convenient example of how ambiguous expression leads to incomprehension.)

    in closing, Common Teri notes that language changes. That's not in question; what is in question is how the new words and meanings are used. If someone says they're being precise, and they're using imprecise language - then we can safely discount their entire argument. Mostly because they, themselves, clearly do not understand it! Perhaps we need to discuss when something becomes "good" English? When one person uses an ambiguous word in a seemingly precise way, or when it's in common usage across a community? Does such ambiguity ever become "good" English?

    Which is why I say language is what it is. It's the thinking behind the usage that's interesting. :-)

    Carolyn Ann

    ReplyDelete
  42. -- Part 2 --

    As a sidebar, I'll note that I am a man who is transgendered. I am not a transman, nor am I a transwoman; I am not a transgender woman, either. A precise description of me is as I expressed: I am a man who is transgendered. Any other description fails to describe me; considering that we're discussing some of the tools of identity politics, I thought the example had relevance. :-)

    Of course, this is not to say that transgender woman is particularly exact, either. It is, however, fortunate enough to have a reasonably precise definition in reliable and trustworthy dictionaries. (Sorry, I don't mean to change the subject!)

    By your own definitions, Olga, by asserting that you fall under the umbrella of transgender people, you're saying you're a member of that community. You can't be a member of a community and a member of the same community! Unless you mean the trans community includes both the community of transsexuals and the transgendered community? But your own words indicate that you consider the transsexual community to be a subset of the overall transgender community; you're saying you are a member of a community and a member of the same community. Your meaning is unclear. I understand your general idea, but your expression of that idea isn't as precise as you assert it is. (This is not to pick on you; it was simply a convenient example of how ambiguous expression leads to incomprehension.)

    in closing, Common Teri notes that language changes. That's not in question; what is in question is how the new words and meanings are used. If someone says they're being precise, and they're using imprecise language - then we can safely discount their entire argument. Mostly because they, themselves, clearly do not understand it! Perhaps we need to discuss when something becomes "good" English? When one person uses an ambiguous word in a seemingly precise way, or when it's in common usage across a community? Does such ambiguity ever become "good" English?

    Which is why I say language is what it is. It's the thinking behind the usage that's interesting. :-)

    Carolyn Ann

    ReplyDelete
  43. -- Part 2 --

    As a sidebar, I'll note that I am a man who is transgendered. I am not a transman, nor am I a transwoman; I am not a transgender woman, either. A precise description of me is as I expressed: I am a man who is transgendered. Any other description fails to describe me; considering that we're discussing some of the tools of identity politics, I thought the example had relevance. :-)

    Of course, this is not to say that transgender woman is particularly exact, either. It is, however, fortunate enough to have a reasonably precise definition in reliable and trustworthy dictionaries. (Sorry, I don't mean to change the subject!)

    By your own definitions, Olga, by asserting that you fall under the umbrella of transgender people, you're saying you're a member of that community. You can't be a member of a community and a member of the same community! Unless you mean the trans community includes both the community of transsexuals and the transgendered community? But your own words indicate that you consider the transsexual community to be a subset of the overall transgender community; you're saying you are a member of a community and a member of the same community. Your meaning is unclear. I understand your general idea, but your expression of that idea isn't as precise as you assert it is. (This is not to pick on you; it was simply a convenient example of how ambiguous expression leads to incomprehension.)

    Part 3 to follow from Carolyn Ann

    ReplyDelete
  44. Part 3 of Carolyn Ann's comment (had to be manually added by admin)

    in closing, Common Teri notes that language changes. That's not in question; what is in question is how the new words and meanings are used. If someone says they're being precise, and they're using imprecise language - then we can safely discount their entire argument. Mostly because they, themselves, clearly do not understand it! Perhaps we need to discuss when something becomes "good" English? When one person uses an ambiguous word in a seemingly precise way, or when it's in common usage across a community? Does such ambiguity ever become "good" English?

    Which is why I say language is what it is. It's the thinking behind the usage that's interesting. :-)

    Carolyn Ann

    ReplyDelete
  45. There's something really screwy with Bloggers' comment system, of late.

    Thanks, Calie! I appreciate your assistance. :-) Sorry you had to do so much manually!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hey , WTF, I posted a comment earlier (albeit a silly one) and it dun got eat'n!

    Can you say 360?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Lori, I see a comment from you on the 5th but that's all I see.

    Calie xxx

    ReplyDelete
  48. @ Carolyn

    I think my love of ambiguity comes from the fact I love to hear people discuss things. I'm not saying it's always great for communication, especially when it's really important to convey understanding, but I do like fuzzy lines most of the time.

    And like I said before, expecting the rules of grammar to lend authority to my argument was probably the wrong tack. In fact, it's probably the wrong tack for anyone trying to sort out this issue (and this is an issue for many in the community). It's disingenuous because we're not really upset about someone's proper or improper use of grammar to describe us; we're upset because of the way certain words make us feel, or because of the perception they create in the minds of others. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the validity of those feelings, that's what the discussion should have been about because that's what's really important to me and the other proponents of the "transgender" vs. "transgendered" debate.

    We did touch on some of that, of course. Some people are comfortable with the term "transgendered" or "transwoman". Others aren't. We're not really going to be able to prioritize one person's feelings over another - I certainly won't anyway - but that does sort of beg the question of how does this work itself out? And maybe it does come back to the evolution of language. Indeed, when does something become "good english"? That would definitely be a fun conversation.

    This one has been fun too. It's caused me to be introspective, which is good, and I don't think that would have happened if the lines weren't at least a little bit fuzzy.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I'm not saying imprecision is necessarily bad, Renee. Heck - politicians would be quickly silenced if they had to be precise... Hmm. There's something there... Can't quite put my finger on it... :-)

    I haven't read any decent argument why transgendered is bad. Either the rules are misinterpreted, the words confused with verbs (GLAAD), or the prejudice is based on a misapprehension of definition. Transgendered is an adjective. Trans is a prefix. Gender is a noun. The result of trans+gender is an adjective.

    Gendered is an adjective. You might as well object to that! Which would be silly - because it means biased toward a sex. Transgendered doesn't mean that, but it might as well. I think that would be more accurate than "trans"! The prefix on its own is meaningless; that some give it meaning is without meaning. (How's that for deconstruction? :-) )

    If the prefix has no fixed meaning (it doesn't, we've already proved that) when it's used as an adjective, or worse, a noun - then what possible meaning could it have?

    I'm not saying don't use it. I am, however, suggesting you use it with a heck of a lot more care than most bloggers on your list do!

    I'm separating comments by overall subject, so another coming up... :-)

    ReplyDelete
  50. Next one... :-)

    Your original blog post heavily relies on that idiotic Huffington Post piece by Joanne Herman. In it she manages to prove that she knows:
    - very little about the English language
    - has no clue on how to check if a word is verb or an adjective
    - and doesn't know much about grammar.

    I think that covers it.

    The rule she quotes from GLAAD doesn't exist. I've told them that. Their representative asked for my phone number. Seriously! The whole "The word transgender never needs the extraneous "ed" at the end of the word. In fact, such a construction is grammatically incorrect. Only verbs can be transformed into participles by adding "-ed" to the end of the word, and transgender is an adjective, not a verb" is incorrect. They are wrong. Yellowed is an adjective. Blued is, too. GLAAD, if memory serves, uses the example of a "reded" house. Reded isn't a word. Transgendered is.

    Transgender doesn't need the suffix -ed, but it has it available, anyway. Sometimes, an active construction is needed (he passively, er, asserts?).

    Just purely out of curiosity: I'm surprised you haven't struck out your original post. You do make a number of assertions that are wrong, undermining, negating, your entire point. For myself, when I make a mistake, I like to strike out the offending post, and write an "oops!" Your entire argument relies on an assertion about verbs that isn't true, and is demonstrably so. Can I (gently?) suggest that you strike it, and write that perhaps you need to rethink the basis of your objection to transgendered?

    I sincerely hope I'm not being too forward - even as I am being far too forward! It just seems that if the basis for your objection to something like transgendered has a basis that is demonstrably incorrect, you're better off rethinking why you object to the word. And, having publicly put your stake in the ground, it's often wiser to admit the placement of the stake was erroneous. (If I could, I would have privately counseled thusly. That was not a request for your email, by the way!)

    A blogger can't be too careful with meaning, these days. ;-)

    Carolyn Ann

    ReplyDelete
  51. I suspect I made a bit of an ass of myself, last night! :-) <-Embarrassed smiley.

    (What?!? You were sleeping, Calie? :-) )

    If I did, my apologies!
    If I didn't: there really is a first time for everything!

    Sometimes, in the dead of night, an idea seems pretty good. In the more revealing light of morning, I realize it was not just not a good idea, it was a pretty stupid one!

    Sorry. :-(
    Carolyn Ann

    PS This doesn't change the fact that transgender and transgendered never become verbs! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  52. If something is yellowed, that means it is possible to yellow something. If something is blued, that means it's possible to blue something. Yellow and blue are verbs in that case.

    No, reded isn't a word - that's because the word is "reddened".

    In all 51 comments, the only argument I've seen that the '-ed' ending doesn't imply 'transgender' is a verb, is Carolyn Ann saying it's wrong (and then saying she's done with the discussion, and then coming back. Repeatedly.) She says "Your entire argument relies on an assertion about verbs that isn't true, and is demonstrably so." Well, I've read carefully, and the only proof that it isn't true is that Carolyn Ann says it isn't so, and demonstrates it by saying yellowed and blued aren't verbs. "The piece of paper yellowed when left out in the sun." It's a verb.

    Carolyn Ann states "As you might guess, I'm not an expert on English grammar; I abuse the language in ways heretofore unseen, and likely as not, launch unwarranted attacks upon the sensibilities of professional linguists; I enjoy savaging grammatical pedants." As someone who is not an expert, it is probably not a good idea to pressure the original poster into changing the post to say "Ooops - I was wrong, as I've been told by that non-expert over there".

    Oh, and admitting to enjoying savaging [a class of] people? Probably not the best way to make friends in a community of folk who know all too well what it's like to be attacked simply because someone takes pleasure in it.

    That said, this cis woman - who has no problem being referred to as such - is leaving this discussion at this point. And emphatically not returning to it. Feel free to lambast me to your heart's delight.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I have absolutely no concern what you think of me - I think the reason I said I was leaving the discussion, and then rejoined, was adequately explained. :-)

    I also would like to point out that many of my comments were duplicates, caused by a technical glitch over at Blogger. You can hardly blame me for that!

    Sorry if you found that, or me, annoying. Well, I don't really give a hoot if you find me annoying. :-)

    You might want to check a dictionary, or basic English, before telling me I'm wrong.

    Yellowed and blued are adjectives. I don't see anything to indicate those words are verbs. How could they be? An adjective describe an attribute of something; a verb describes an action to something.

    The yellowed newspaper - adjective.
    The blued steel - adjective.
    Yellowing lace - a verb; the yellowing describes what's happening, it's an action.
    The pollution was bluing the air - verb. It's describing an action. The pollution blued the air - adjective, it's describing an attribute of the air (it's blue in color).

    Simple. Right?
    Please don't rush to be condescending when you tell me the basics of English. I'm not an expert, but I do know the difference between an adjective and a verb. :-)

    Reddened is, of course, a word. I was, apparently ineptly, using GLAAD's example against them. :-) Sorry!

    Transgender is an adjective; I think, in this discussion, Renee demonstrated that it can be a noun, as well. I thought her argument about that was pretty powerful, very convincing and correct. She persuaded me! What no one has done, however, is persuade me that transgender is a verb. It's never been a verb, and never will be!

    Transgender is an adjective. Transgendered is also an adjective. Putting the -ed suffix on the end of transgender doesn't change it into a participle. There's nothing about that's a verb: trans is a prefix. Gender is a noun. It's not like "working" or "being": they are verbs turned into adjectives.

    By your insistence, transgender is a verb: it's an action. It's not a property, an attribute, of something. According to you, transgender is what you do to someone. Is that right, then?

    I really don't give a hoot what you think is a good idea. To be as personal as you were: you have already demonstrated that you don't know the language. Why should I care about any further imprecision of yours?

    And yes, I enjoy poking pedantic grammarians. It's good fun. You should try it, sometime. :-) Perhaps I used "savaging" as an allegory?

    What, exactly, is a ciswoman, anyway?

    Carolyn Ann

    ReplyDelete
  54. Sorry, I was thinking about Ms Sage's statement:

    If something is yellowed, that means it is possible to yellow something. If something is blued, that means it's possible to blue something.

    I can't derive that. If something is yellowed, we're describing an attribute of something: the yellowed newspaper. We're not contemplating if it can yellow, but if it is. If need to tell someone not to leave the newspaper in the sun, we need to be explicit: "the newspaper will yellow if you leave it in the sun". Likewise, we blue steel: there's no implication that the steel will be blued, or become blued. Blued steel has an adjective, an a noun. Blued describes an attribute of that steel: it's been blued.

    We can say "the newspaper is yellowing in the sun"; that describes something that is happening to the newspaper. (The object of the sentence.)

    From this, we have to conclude that Ms Sage is wrong. Yellowing and blueing are verbs: they describe an action happening to the object of the sentence Yellowed and blued are adjectives: they describe an attribute of the object of the sentence.

    Transgender is not a verb; it's an adjective, and (as Renee has ably proved) a noun. It's not something that happens to a person, it's simply an attribute of someone: I am transgender(ed). My wife is not transgendered. ("My wife is not transgender" just doesn't seem right, although I'm uncertain why. Something to do with the sentence structure, I guess.)

    In this sort of discussion, it helps to keep a good dictionary handy. Consulting it is even better! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  55. @ Carolyn

    I'm not sure what you were apologizing for, but fwiw, I'm not going to strike out the post. It works as a jumping off point for a conversation, and readers can see what transpired via the comments.

    And I have conceded that a better argument would have been to talk about the impact of the words, rather than their grammatical rightness or wrongness. I've done so twice.

    "Colored" is a grammatically correct construct, and yet we all understand it to be offensive. The black community didn't like it, they raised awareness around it, and they (mostly) weeded it out of common usage. If the majority of transgender people feel the same way about "transgendered", then we can do the same. But maybe the 50+ comments here suggest the trans community isn't of one mind on this issue...it's certainly interesting to see, at the very least.

    That said, and regardless of whether it is a verb or not, I've seen "transgender" used as a verb in various conjugations more than once. "She transgendered the night away", is the sort of thing one sees on spouse support forums sometimes. Or even in comments left by opponents of trans rights. Dan Brown insulted transgender people by comparing "transgendering" to the likes of "body-piercing", "body-building", and steroid use (he also lumped bulimia in there, which is even more ridiculous. I mean, I know people misunderstand transgender a lot, but bulimia?). I've even seen the word "transgenderer" once or twice, which has to be the ultimate grammatical mutilation of our identities.

    Anyway, that last paragraph isn't an argument for one grammatical construct over another. It's just to point out there's a lot of misunderstanding out there.

    ReplyDelete
  56. (Blogger is misbehaving, again. My apologies if this is posted multiple times!)

    I've just listened to Peter Sokolowsky, the Editor of Merriam-Webster discussing "penultimate", and how it's often incorrectly used: "that pizza was the penultimate!" The utterer wants to say it was the best pizza, so they pick a word that sounds like it means "more than ultimate". They use the word incorrectly.

    You seem to imply that is okay; you have less concern for the rules, because if a person uses a word a certain way, then that's how the word is used! That's a linguistic approach to language.

    Because some people incorrectly use transgender as a verb, you seek to curtail one variation because you find the implied meaning offensive. Under such circumstances, I can hardly blame you! I look at the issue differently: if someone can't be bothered to use the language correctly, then why should I pay any attention to their ideas? They are sloppy in their language, and therefore their ideas are sloppy, too.

    As a matter of sheer practicality, if someone is hell-bent on being offensive, I doubt that prescribing rules on how they can avoid giving offense is, well, going to work. If someone is unaware a particular usage is offensive, they need to be informed not just about the offensive nature of their language, but also on correct usage. That automatically implies correctly identifying a word as either an adjective or a verb! (Or a noun, or an adverb.) :-)

    If there's a need to correct someone, then surely the better standard is to ensure your correction is correct? Ms Sage tried to correct me, but her correction is so rife with errors she not only fails to do that, she does the exact opposite of her intent. She basically, nay - enthusiastically!, asserts that it's okay to be ignorant of the basic components of the English language!

    The idea, I suppose, is that as long as people sort of understand what is being said, the language is secondary. That's a bit like a carpenter arguing that as long as the cabinet doesn't fall apart, it's correctly built. The next step, I presume, is to say that its and it's are the same word! The same lax standard is being applied.

    Think of all the great writers (I might have mentioned this point before; if so, forgive me. It's an important one, and bears repeating.) Consider thinkers like Richard Feynman, or Albert Einstein. Great orators like Winston Churchill or Abraham Lincoln. Think about how they use language: with precision. Theirs is the standard we should be striving toward, not the laziness Ms Sage apparently adheres to! (She clearly did not take the time to check herself. That's laziness of thought.)

    Transgender is not a verb. I took the time, and consulted four reputable dictionaries: the Oxford English Dictionary, the New Oxford American Dictionary and Merriam-Webster and Webster's College Dictionary (print, pub. 2000). All four dictionaries agree it's an adjective. All four also supply transgendered as an alternative. Not one says the word is a verb.

    (You might be interested to know that Webster's agreed with you: transgender can be a noun. :-) )

    Basically: it's pointless trying to prescribe the language when the correction is wrong!

    I want to comment on your example, colored. The word has one context where it's offensive: the colored man (etc). It has one context where it's informative: she colored in the picture.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Oy vey. I've broken Google, again. :-) This comment is split into two.
    ===

    Part 1:

    We're going in circles, here. I'm not sure how I can get my point across? To be honest, I'm beginning to realize that my arguments just aren't believed!

    I'm not invoking esoteric English - it's stuff you learn in the early school grades. A quick check shows grades 3 to 6 learn these concepts. Verbs, nouns, adjective, adverbs: they are the building blocks of the language. Without them, we can't communicate. Punctuation, sentences, paragraphs, parenthesis, repositions, conjunctions, interjections, pronouns - they all help us communicate. We learn them as children, and often seem to discard them as adults.

    English is quite a bastardized language; it seemingly acquires new words and ideas with alacrity. There's no academie, no authority on what is good English, or what is correct English. Some try to impose standards upon the language, and there are some rules that do need to be adhered to. But there is no overall authority, and there never can be - not with a language like English! Heck - English speakers can't even agree on certain spellings: color, or colour? What is not in dispute is what words are: is that word a verb, or an adjective? A noun, or an adverb? A conjunction, or a preposition?

    I would never advocate for a strict formal standard. As "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" (Noam Chomsky), shows, you can strictly abide by the rules, and still produce gibberish. Besides, we use colloquialisms, slang, and have dialects and variations of English. Old words and meanings are discarded, new definitions and phrases get added. What doesn't change, however, is what a word is. An adjective is an adjective is an adjective.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Part 2:


    I'm not naive enough to assume that my argument will sway anyone; as I said, it seems no one actually believes me! I know rules are inconsistently applied. It will ever be thus. It's easier to misuse words; it's more convenient to have vaguely defined concepts. Precision can be difficult. Understanding the tools of a trade takes time; no one picks up a chisel and starts using it correctly without first learning how it should be used. Words are the building blocks, the materials, for a writer. Sentences, paragraphs and grammar are the tools we use to put those building blocks into a coherent form. Words provide the foundation for the edifice a writer constructs. Ideas are its architecture.

    I will not architect a shoddy edifice. I might do so, inadvertently, but I will never do so for a simple lack of effort at understanding my tools, my materials and my language. It's easy to construct lazy arguments; it's hard to construct concise ones. It's hard to be precise with language; it's much easier to use a vague definition, coupled to a lax thought, and to present it with a failure to understand whether a word is a verb or an adjective. It's easier, as your examples demonstrate, Renee, to denigrate others when you use words incorrectly. It's easier to argue about the incorrect classification of a word than it is to argue about the basic rules of grammar! (Which should not be in doubt.)

    I take pride in my blog posts; they might not be the best out there, but I do strive to construct meaningful posts. When I write code, build a garden planter, or put together an engine, I take pride in my efforts. I want that code to be more than "adequate". I want that wooden planter I built to be the best I've made; I want it to reflect not my current skill level, but a higher level. I want that engine to run smoothly, and not seize up because I couldn't be bothered to check the torque setting on that bit that's a little difficult to reach. When I build a cabinet for someone, I try to make it the best cabinet they own. I endeavor to improve my skills with each cut, each measure, each piece of wood. I strive to do the same with my writing.

    I just think precision is important; others disagree. That's fine: I have no objection if they fail to communicate their ideas. I have no objection if they don't know the language they use. I do will object when someone tells me I'm wrong, when they haven't taken the time to confirm their own points.

    Ideas are important, words are important. I know precision is hard. That doesn't make it not worthwhile! Words and ideas reflect the writer. They always will.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Oops: "repositions" should, of course, be "prepositions". (It's in the second paragraph: Punctuation, sentences, paragraphs, parenthesis, prepositions, conjunctions, interjections, pronouns...

    Just in case anyone is gleefully planning a riposte to the double negative in the penultimate sentence: it actually was deliberate.

    If I had known my qualms about it would get the better of me, I would have stated the same thing differently!

    Thanks Calie, for your time getting this conversation onto T-Central. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  60. Is there a single instance of an adjective ending in -ed that isn't a participle of a verb? (ex. charmed, excited, desired) Even "bored" is a participle of the verb "to bore" (although the participle bored and boring are more common than the verb). Same with colored- it's a participle of the verb to color.

    If there is- I'll go with the idea that adjectives can end in -ed. If not, ending an adjective in -ed implies it's a participle, a form of a verb.

    @Renee- The only person I've seen on the thread arguing with it is Carolyn-Ann. That doesn't even reflect a majority of commenters on this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  61. astersimzone, just because you don't know the English language doesn't mean you're right! as I pointed out, it's third grade English. Sixth at the extreme.

    Try: yellowed (adjective), blued (adjective), and so on.

    Renee, do you think I could write this with your inaccuracy?

    In language, accuracy is pretty much all we have. It's of vital importance, and not the luxury you seem to think it is. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Yellowing. http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/yellowing
    Blueing. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blueing
    Participles of verbs that are based on adjectives, strangely enough. English really doesn't make sense, does it?

    Language EVOLVES due to inaccuracies- if everyone used 100% accurate language 100% of the time, we'd still be speaking the first language ever spoken. The English language only exists as it is today due to inaccuracy.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Also, on yellowed, that's a very useful point to bring up. Thank you for reinforcing what the original post said! Yellowed is only used for something that has, usually over time, become yellow. Such as yellowed paper or lace. If the paper started out yellow, it'd just be called "yellow paper". Yellowed means it started out something else and became yellow later.

    Seeing as transgender people were born this way- transgendered is inaccurate.

    ReplyDelete
  64. @ Ry

    I only wish I could have been as succinct from the start. Nice. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  65. Ry: So you're saying transgender is a verb?

    And you cannot possibly claim that all transgendered people were born "that way". For the simple reason: you don't know that for a fact.

    You have, at most, circumstantial evidence of such. But if you're trying to be accurate: sweeping statements don't exactly help your point.

    By the way: I do know what yellowed is. I think I used that knowledge in my example.

    Language evolves; whether that's due to inaccuracies, or just to usage is easily refuted. Some words entered the language as-is; some were bastardizations, for sure. Some words entered the language because someone like Shakespeare invented them. That's not an inaccuracy - the word didn't exist before that point. So your statement is utterly wrong.

    Renee: I'm hurt. You take the time to respond to Ry, and - of late - not to me? Perhaps you prefer a discussion about language where so many are wrong, but everyone agrees to be wrong?

    Which is better: to be agreeable, and wrong, or right, but a mite unpopular?

    What I don't understand is why 3rd grade English is treated as something that's open to debate! It's about like arguing your time-tables!

    Ry's statements aren't nice: they're wrong. Plain and simply wrong. Unless you can prove to me that transgender is a verb.

    The only bit I agree with is that English often makes no sense; it's not a "clean" language, like Esperanto. It's certainly not a romance language, and it's not Germanic, either. It has a wonderful and fascinating history, having bases in, and absorbing, so many words and phrases from around the world. It's the global lingua franca.

    What it does not have is a prefix-noun pair being labelled as a verb.

    Anyway, like I said: I'm quite hurt. Really.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Renee, I owe you an apology.

    Clearly the rules of English are open to debate. What a verb, an adjective or a noun are not the clearly stated things we all learned, long ago. Their very definitions are open to democratic debate. They are what a community decides they are - no more, no less. Your strangely unaddressed issue of transgender being, simultaneously, a verb, an adjective and a noun shouldn't be given the time of day; you insist on providing it with a calendar. I'm not used to debating what is a verb, an adjective, a prefix or a noun. Perhaps fortunately, I'd be rapidly stuck if we'd ventured into adverbs!

    Your lack of response to a rather pointed comment of mine led me to believe you'd dropped out of the discussion. I didn't presume to know why, but I see you're still participating with anyone who agrees with your incorrect assumptions about the English language. That was a bit unnecessary and hurtful, to be honest.

    You find transgendered offensive; I find it useful. Who is right? Neither of us. If your argument was based on the rules of English, you would have a case. It isn't, you don't. Mine is, I do.

    Anyway, who am I to argue if you transgendered objectionable? If your objection is based on an incorrect understanding the language we use, does it matter to me? That you use an argument that wrongly assumes, without stating as much, that transgender is a verb? Not really. That all of the arguments supporting your objection assume that transgender is simultaneously a verb, an adjective and a noun? It makes no difference to me. I know what transgender (the word) is, colloquially and formally, and that's fine by me. I lament that you're treating the word, the concept, exactly as the transphobic do, but ultimately, I trust that such languid thinking is not matched, but exceeded. (I believe such sentiment is called "faint hope".)

    Some of your defenders have told me that language changes; I would be a grand fool if I wasn't aware of that. I know the English language changes; furthermore, I know it has marvelous variations all across the world! It's not a static language, it's not subject to any arcane, arrogant, academie. It's almost a living entity! It's wonderful to be able to see how English is changing, adapting, so quickly to a new era. It really is - I love it!

    So I owe you an apology. If I had known then what I know now - I would not have engaged in this discussion. Experience should have taught me that defending this language is a futile exercise; rest assured: I provide no safe harbor for illusions of that futility, now. I'm sadder, but perhaps a wee bit wiser for the discussion, and for that I can only thank you. I enjoyed most of the discussion; I sincerely hope you did, too.

    Carolyn Ann

    ReplyDelete
  67. Despite my best efforts, I made a mistake or three. Sorry!

    The sentence "Anyway, who am I to argue if you transgendered objectionable?" should read "Anyway, who am I to argue if you find transgendered objectionable?" There's an "of" missing in the next sentence; it should be between "understanding" and "the".

    I didn't address "trans" because, frankly, it's not worth addressing. If people want to use it, who am I argue? I might as well argue that the moon is made of cheese; which is how I have come to feel about the whole "transgendered" thing. I have learned it's a pointless argument.

    I do wonder if we'll run out of adjectives to describe the experience of being transgendered. But I'm quite sure the bloggers on your list will either invent new ways of describing the whole experience. Those ways might not be intellectually consistent, but that's fine; I have never looked to others to describe my experience as a transgendered individual*.

    Carolyn Ann

    *That really wasn't a criticism of your series, Calie. I am quite fascinated by the experiences being described; it's an inspired series.

    ReplyDelete
  68. The only time that a noun-modifier ends in -ed is when it is the past participle of the verb.

    Unless YOU are saying that transgender is a verb, attaching an -ed to the word is inaccurate.

    Your example of "riled" is an example of this. "riled" is the past tense of the verb "to rile". So far you've only found examples that prove OUR point and prove YOU wrong. Really, this is "3rd grade grammar" you really should make sure you have a grasp on it.
    This is a waste of everyone's time, and I have no idea why you care so much. No one is forcing you to use the word transgender in favor of transgendered- Renee merely put out a request about what language she prefers and her reasoning behind it. You've spent a month dragging this debate on for no reason- is it hard to imagine that Renee got tired of replying to you when you say the same things over and over again?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Ry, Here's an amazing idea for you to try: look up transgender and transgendered in the dictionary.

    Tell us what it says.

    For comprehensiveness, you need to include which dictionary you used. For your information, I've consulted 5 reputable dictionaries, so far (I looked it up in an American Heritage dictionary at a local bookstore). I'm asking you look it up in one.

    I'm guessing you haven't read the conversation? I'm asserting that transgender is an adjective; I've conceded it can be a noun. I thought Renee made a very interesting point on that, and I thought she was right. So I changed my mind about that. (As it happens, one of the dictionaries I consulted this evening had it listed as a noun and an adjective. I think it was the latest Merriam-Webster.)

    Contrary to your assertion, so far no one has actually proven me wrong. No one has said "well, in the Oxford American Dictionary of two thousand and whatever, it says 'transgender can be a verb' and that proves you wrong!" I've seen examples that are sort of right (like yours, they use the wrong examples), egregiously wrong or best described as whimsical.

    So here's the challenge:
    Go ahead: prove me wrong. Prove that transgendered is an adjective and a verb.

    In case you're interested, I do respond to questions directed at me. I just don't walk off from a debate because it becomes a little more than I bargained for. I might make my excuses, but I'll try to be polite about it all. And I've always been lousy at leaving an interesting debate.

    I've stated that Renee can consider the words however she likes - who am I judge? If you had read my responses, you would have seen that.

    Why do you care that I care about the language we use? You're not my timekeeper, nor my scheduler. So what if it's a month long? I've found it interesting. Are you telling me I shouldn't be capable, or interested, in holding conversations that span more than a few moments of your time? No one forced you to read this discussion; considering what you've said, I'm not sure you have. I'm not apologizing for pressing my case; and I'm certainly not apologizing for taking up so much of your clearly valuable time! You elected to devote whatever few minutes you did to reading however much you read.

    Renee started the discussion by stating something that piqued my interest. I found it interesting because the claim she made about the English language was wrong. The error intrigued me. Should I ask for your permission before being intrigued? Should I consult you on how long a discussion should last before getting interested in it? Or can I go with the flow? Can I allocate my own time according to my (clearly) reckless desire to walk and chew gum simultaneously? Should I request permission to remember and remain interested in a discussion for longer than you're interested in it?

    Ultimately, I can only assume that Renee has chosen to abandon the discussion for whatever reason, rather than look up the words in a dictionary and write "here's why you're wrong, Carolyn". Perhaps she did? I don't know; at this point, I don't particularly care, either. I'm not about to enter any discussion with Renee on anything any time soon! She could write that the Moon is made of Green Cheese for all I care; I may know it's Blue Cheese, but why should I participate in a discussion that is likely to be abandoned when it passes beyond the superficial? Without going back to check, I think my last few comments have been responses to others, not Renee.

    Do I get a star for persistence? Oh, I guess not.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Oops, I forgot to answer your first point! My apologies.

    Yes: you are quite correct that past-participles end with the suffix -ed.

    They aren't the only words, however, that do so. So your statement about ONLY is incorrect. Gendered is a word, but gender is a noun.

    To save you the trouble of actually looking it up, Ry, here's Merriam-Webster's definition of transgendered: Main Entry: trans·gen·der
    Pronunciation: \-ˈjen-dər\
    Variant(s): or trans·gen·dered \-dərd\
    Function: adjective
    Date: 1979
    : of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or transvestite) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person's sex at birth

    Interestingly, Wiktionary has it as a verb and an adjective. Someone has inserted a comment about "transgendered", but considering that's what we're actually discussing, I doubt starting over is a good idea.

    So far - I've not been proven wrong.

    My knowledge of the word has expanded - although I can't say that Wiktionary is anything like an authoritative source. (It isn't; it's about as reliable as The Urban Dictionary.) My knowledge of English is somewhat better, and I'm still right on my central point.

    Now do I get a star for persistence?
    Still no? Oh well.

    ReplyDelete

The People - Personal Thoughts

Cobweb Corner - Older Blogs, Not Recently Updated