I recently came across a rather convoluted article on the blog site Pam's House Blend by self-described new media journalist Autumn Sandeen, who I have written about before. The article is apparently an attempt by Sandeen to lay down the law about how people should be referred to in articles on that site, and perhaps elsewhere.
Apparently the whole thing actually started over the use of the term "tranny," which some in the so-called LGBT media have adopted. Then Sandeen wrote an article on what the styleguides have to say about the use of terms like trangender and transsexual, and how people should be referred to.
But of even more interest is the assertion that "...there are some folk who could fall under the term transgender when it's used as an umbrella term, or could be identified simply as transsexuals, but they don't identify as transgender or transsexual."
Sandeen goes on to assert that "Some of the self-identification terms many of these folk use are classic (or classical) transsexuals, women-born-transsexual (sometimes written as womyn-born-transsexual or womyn-born-transexual), women of transsexual history, and as people with Harry Benjamin Syndrome."
Sandeen promises to explain in a later article how "I'll explain how I'm going to use the alternative self-identification terms listed above for folks who could fall under the transgender umbrella, but choose not too."
Now, the bold face and italics are exactly as they are in Sandeen's article, which should give some indication of how he views those who "choose" to not identify as transgender.
Now, I suppose some might see this as a small victory for those who do not wish to be referred to as transgender, or who prefer more accurate terms to describe themselves. But after giving this some thought, I realized that it is both a bit of a back-handed slap by Sandeen, as well as something of wash overall. Simply put, it changes little, and ultimately means nothing.
Like most who are among the gender fascists, Sandeen tends to see the world as this giant muddled gray blur. It is all relative, and it is all subjective. For Sandeen to refer to someone as a "woman born transsexual," or a "person with Harry Benjamin Syndrome" is meaningless. Sandeen is still going to assert that such a person could, and perhaps should, be simply identified as "transgender." Sandeen is simply saying that he will accomodate that person's "preferences." This is not really unlike someone saying, "Well, even though this person is obviously a male, I will be 'polite' and use female pronouns."
I mean, it is not as though Sandeen were actually conceeding the validity of the terms, or actually acknowledging that some a person actually has an absolute right to not identify as transgender. And worse, I would be very surprised if it does not lead to an attempt by Sandeen and other gender facists to quietly assimilate terms like Harry Benjamin Syndrome" under the "transgender" umbrella.
What is lost on people like Sandeen is that "transgender" is a totally subjective term that refers only to an identity. It has no objective meaning, and should never be applied to anyone, except where it is a part of their self-identity. It refers to something that has become far more akin to a poltical and social movement than to anything that resembles an "umbrella term." Of course, the fact that it is a social and political movement creates a need to force people under the umbrella in order to build numbers and present what appears to be a solid front.
No, Sandeen can call me whatever he wishes. I consider his opinion of little actual value, and his writings to only be excellent examples of more of what is wrong with the entire transgender paradigm.