"Press for Change", an advocacy group in Britain, has suggested an entirely new set of rules for grammatically handling the gender-challenged. [sic.] Instead of "transwoman" or "transman", this group suggests we use "trans man" or "trans woman".
Why is a little beyond me; Emily provides a far more coherent explanation than I could. I simply continue to be appalled by the cavalier way the conventions are discarded, and baffled by new rules being insisted upon.
My problem is this: "trans" is an adjectival prefix. Unless you're talking about chemistry, in which case it's something to do with molecules. Now, for those who have forgotten their English lessons, an adjective modifies a noun. A prefix must be attached to the word it prefaces. Trans can be used as a shorthand, with an implied meaning of "transsexual", "transgender", but it is most assuredly a shorthand - it is not an adjective on its own. (Chemistry notwithstanding; I'll assume that from now on.) Trans is an adjective, and a prefix: therefore, it modifies a noun, and it must remain attached to the noun it modifies.
Jillian Page wonders if it really is a prefix: she makes the assertion that it is shorthand for "transgender". She also notes that languages evolve; she errs in assuming that dictionaries are far behind, but where one dictionary might fail to reflect current usage, some other dictionary (even if it's the colloquial one of shared usage) will be current. The Oxford English Dictionary and it's offshoots are, by and large, quite contemporary. Obviously they can't be immediate, but I don't think that's important.
I agree that languages evolve; even the rules of English evolve. Usually in a fairly consistent manner, but not always. Languages get words added, meaning get subtly shifted and the world continues revolving. Shakespeare, I should note, invented more words that are in current use than other person in history. (Read some of the examinations of his language; your appreciation for this bastardized language of ours must improve!)
What I most object to is not that the language is being exercised, but that it is being abused! Yet again. On the right we have redefinitions of "freedom" and "liberty"; on the left we have various redefinitions, including those of personal identity. All of these redefinitions have one thing in common: an interested party, often the party suggesting the redefinition. And, usually, an ignorance of the basic rules of English grammar. (That applies to both sides, by the way.) Redefinitions are, obviously and necessarily, political - so it is not unfair to make the comparison.
"Trans" is, purely and simply, an adjectival prefix. As such it must be attached to some other word. There is no other way around "it"! Really. To say someone is a "trans man" is not the same as saying they are a "transman". One is grammatically correct, the former is not. The former is placing the word "trans" as a shorthand for "transgender"; that's okay (it's a colloquialism), but it is not a replacement for "transman". Transman means someone who crossed the gender divide to become the man (the mechanics, etc, of such a change I'll leave as a separate discussion; they really aren't important for this one). A trans man is, what? A man who's done something only molecules hitherto could?
We do not say the following:
Trans port
Trans literations
Trans Atlantic
Trans continental
Trans gender
They are all grammatically incorrect; trans is a prefix, and as such must be attached to its noun:
transport
transliterations
transatlantic
transcontinental
transgender.
Tellingly, the adovacy group does not suggest "trans vestite" or "trans gender". They only suggest that we suspend the ordinary rules of grammar in order to make some special case for a special class of person. In other words: they try to make a special class of person.
I can't help but think it's part and parcel of the endless label debate; an offshoot, to be sure, but still a part of the overall debate. I also suspect it's not going to be a long-lived suggestion. Newspapers probably won't accept it - it goes against the Chicago Manual of Style, for instance. Ultimately, it goes against the generally accepted rules of grammar - and that's my objection to it.
Carolyn Ann
(Hat tip to Emily for raising the topic, and the interesting "chat" we had afterwards. :-) )
I'm wondering
1 hour ago
6 comments:
I enjoyed reading your post, and I respect your opinions. I want to give this some more thought.
A very good discussion all around.
Cheers to you and Emily.
Jillian
And cheers to you, Jillian!
:-)
Carolyn Ann
Thanks for this discussion on this Carolyn Ann... It's been an interesting exchange of ideas and quite fun, too! :)
But, as you may guess, I have a couple of comments to make! :)
First of all, I want to take issue with your words "a special case for a special class of person". I really think that this is the opposite of what this is... It's trying to make it clear that transsexual people are normal people, not some new class of person.
I agree with Jillian that the of trans in this case is an abbreviation. Trans is an accepted abbreviation of transsexual and considering that transperson, transwoman and transman all originally came from transsexual+noun, not from the adjectival compound which is used in transport, transvestite and transsexual, this usage of separating the trans from the noun makes sense, grammatically too.
If you just look at the basis of the words, transperson makes no sense at all: It doesn't follow the pattern of transport or transvestite. Trans + space + person makes more sense since this does not come from the same use (since the trans in this case is from transsexual, not the latin meaning of trans).
So, you will see me happily talking about transport, transsexual, transphobia, transvestite but firmly sticking to the PfC's use of trans + space + person because I'm afraid to say, I'm a person, I'm a woman and I am not any weird creature that exists outside of the normal structure of this world, however much some people wish I would!!!! :)
Thanks again for the discussion on it... I will write more on this once I've had the chance to think about our exchange and to read the exchanges on this subject here and on Jillian's blog. I look forward to discussing this further! :)
Em
Carolyn, good morning;
I'm glad I read EM's comments before I shot off my mouth, but I just wanted to speak my thoughts.
By your blog you label yourself a crossdresser, that's wonderful for you and your Sisters, however, being a Trans Woman, myself, I am more than just a 'transgender' person; I am more than a 'transsexual', I have crossed the gender demarcation line between 'male' and 'female' and my gender body is neither. By all physical definitions we are Women in the broader spectrum of gender, but I will always be a 'trans' woman because I was born and raised male, and all my life experiences as male will always be stuffed into the 'trans' descriptive part of my label; a lesbian, 'trans' woman.
Respectfully,
Sarah (^o^)
I see the arguments for both sides of this and must agree that Caroline's is the more grammatically correct, while Emily's may give more precision to the term. English speakers, however, do not seem to adhere suggested or dictated amendments.
Even if we formed an international congress of transgendered nomenclature (a concept which chills the very marrow of my bones), we would still be hard put to bring speakers and writers within and without the community into verbal alignment.
Logical or illogical, pleasing or repulsive, the changes in English come organically, through common usage. We can suggest all we want, but what the "proper" usage will ultimately be is determined by a verbal popularity contest.
Thank you for your comments! :-)
Emily, The intention of the group doesn't match the perception - I was quite inarticulate in expressing that. Sorry! Unfortunately, it is the perception that matters. Besides, I don't think the PfC people are making it easier for transgendered women to "blend in a bit better" (I paraphrase, of course!) There are some, such the much despised Julie Bindel, who would argue that the PfC people are providing the transgendered a special status.
Is "trans" an acceptable shorthand for "transgender"? Colloquially, perhaps. For anything else, it contains too much ambiguity. Overall, I'm not sure it is acceptable as an abbreviation. In this case, it's not being used so much as an abbreviation as a replacement - something that demands better precision in both meaning and articulation.
It is important, but which triumphs? The rules of English grammar, or the desires of PfC? If it were an obvious choice, PfC wouldn't have to issue their "suggestion". To me, the rules of grammar trump linguistic acrobatics - especially when they're based on a philosophy that isn't as completely determined as some assume. (I'm not even sure that made sense! But I'll run with it; until I've had a little more coffee, that is...)
I can't help but think that this is a debate that has no end.
Sarah, I make no point re your personal identity; I'm simply pointing out the rules of English grammar! :-)
To me, they assume a greater importance than the contortions the PfC people make in their suggestion.
As Gillian points out, my argument has the conventions of language on its side; Emily's and Jillian's has a little more precision re personal identity. I simply consider the language to be more important for the reasons I have stated in both Emily's comment section, and in the main body of this post. I am not, I must make clear, passing any judgment on gender, trans- or otherwise.
Thanks again! This is fun. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Post a Comment