Today I published a piece on the TransAdvocate titled, Faggot Ru Paul: trannys need to “get stronger”. Because I viscerally know the power of those two terms faggot and tranny, I wanted to post a FAQ to be part of the article. In actuality, this will probably be more of a FAC (frequently asserted criticisms) than a FAQ.

Criticism: While I agree with your point, you didn’t need to use faggot.

Answer: I’ve noticed that most articles about the use of tranny are about definitions, freedom of speech issues, historical usages, etc. This is not what my article is about. I state, “My purposeful use of faggot with regard to RuPaul is meant to draw attention to the tension that can exist between in-group and out-group meanings.” The point of this article is the tension between in-group and out-group meanings. To drive my point home, the tension needed to be a palpable specter haunting each sentence.

Criticism: Why not just say what you meant with your use? If you meant it to be the positive rap meaning, then why not just say it?

Answer: As the author of this piece, for me the point of the article is the tension inspired by the casual use of terms people used when I had beer bottles, eggs and rocks (at various times) thrown at me, when I was beaten and when I was bullied as a kid. Deflating that tension by saying that I meant it in a positive way would have missed the point.

Criticism: This is clickbait!

Answer: When folks write a title, “10 kittens playing, but then you won’t believe what happens next!” it is to bait you to their site where you will hopefully experience advertising they make money off of. I’ll point out that TA doesn’t have advertising. The purpose behind inspiring tension before you even read the article is that it brings the point of the article front and center even before the point is contextualized.

In other words, this is the experience many trans people have when cis people take to the media to yet again promote a term cis people use while they bash us.

Criticism: You’re just being childish. This is all about saying, “see how you like it!”

Answer: Again, I’m very clear about what my purpose is. If you notice, the tension is created at the very beginning of the article and is, at that point, entirely left alone. My last article on tranny was an evidence-based review of the term’s history. That article ends with the following:

Answer: I’ve noticed that most articles about the use of tranny are about definitions, freedom of speech issues, historical usages, etc. This is not what my article is about. I state, “My purposeful use of faggot with regard to RuPaul is meant to draw attention to the tension that can exist between in-group and out-group meanings.” The point of this article is the tension between in-group and out-group meanings. To drive my point home, the tension needed to be a palpable specter haunting each sentence.

Criticism: Why not just say what you meant with your use? If you meant it to be the positive rap meaning, then why not just say it?

Answer: As the author of this piece, for me the point of the article is the tension inspired by the casual use of terms people used when I had beer bottles, eggs and rocks (at various times) thrown at me, when I was beaten and when I was bullied as a kid. Deflating that tension by saying that I meant it in a positive way would have missed the point.

Criticism: This is clickbait!

Answer: When folks write a title, “10 kittens playing, but then you won’t believe what happens next!” it is to bait you to their site where you will hopefully experience advertising they make money off of. I’ll point out that TA doesn’t have advertising. The purpose behind inspiring tension before you even read the article is that it brings the point of the article front and center even before the point is contextualized.

In other words, this is the experience many trans people have when cis people take to the media to yet again promote a term cis people use while they bash us.

Criticism: You’re just being childish. This is all about saying, “see how you like it!”

Answer: Again, I’m very clear about what my purpose is. If you notice, the tension is created at the very beginning of the article and is, at that point, entirely left alone. My last article on tranny was an evidence-based review of the term’s history. That article ends with the following:

• What impact does an obviously very popular context of framing the trans experience (tranny) have on social justice movements?
• When the majority clearly associates “tranny” with the sex industry while the gay and drag community associates the term with performance and partying, will this affect the ability of the GLBT community to communicate well?

I am talking about the very tension on display in this article.

If you choose to believe that all I’ve done in this article is to name-call for the purpose of getting away with it in the way that RuPaul does, then at this point there’s probably nothing I can say or do to change your mind.  I will say that the instinct to find insult embedded with the use of terms like faggot/tranny beautifully illustrates the reality of the word’s dominate context, regardless of what context smaller in-groups claim.

Criticism: How about a trigger warning?!?

Answer: I struggled with this. As someone who’s had these terms used against me while experiencing violence, they have a very tangible flavor and immediately bring up memories that aren’t happy. At the same time, I couldn’t think of a way to bias the reader before they even read the piece without employing this rhetoric. For the tension I am bringing front and center to only then contextualize, I felt that this was the only way to go about it. Without following the same narrative trajectory the media uses with reporting on tranny, I would not have been able to recreate the experience many trans people face each and every time tranny is used in the media.

When tranny is front and center before we even get into the story, video, movie, interview, etc, that trigger has already been pulled. Trans people are then expected to deal with it and contextualize the use in a way that is removed from hate. Recreating this experience for the cis – and especially for the cis gay community – was central to driving my point home.

I don’t believe this could have been accomplished without copying the way much of the cis media handles tranny.

Criticism: You’re just modeling the same behavior RuPaul is! You’re both gross!

Answer: Again, I totally understand the instinct for outrage. However, this is equivocation. RuPaul frequently privileges the use of tranny over the pain caused from his callous use as a point of personal privilege. I, on the other had, can’t recall the last time I’ve used faggot outside this very specific story for a very exacting purpose: illustrating the tension inspired by the casual use of terms people use while they murder us.

NEW! Criticism: You need to check your white privilege. This is a PoC term. Who are you to tell me that I can’t use this term

Answer: I’ve not once asserted that people should not use this term; what I have done is both document and point to the tension these terms inspire when in-groups assume that their meanings will translate to the wider community. The reality is that whatever meaning your in-group gives to these terms, when you speak to the wider community, you might not want to make the mistake of assuming that the rest of the world knows, accepts or understands the explicitly niche definition your in-group has assigned to that term.

NEW! Criticism: If you really wanted people to understand why you used that term you wouldn’t have hidden half the article in a fold-down box!

Answer: When cis media presents tranny in the title of their media trans people are expected to make an effort and to go the extra mile to be accommodating. If the trans person wishes to be deemed reasonable, they must try to see the term in a different light (usually the cis person’s light).  Valid criticism must be predicated upon an acknowledgement of a cis narrative; a trans person can’t simply assert that the presentation of tranny in the title of a story is problematic without being challenged. For example, even before the movie came out, trans people were told that they were wrong for not being happy with the movie, Ticked off Trannies with Knives. Trans people were told that because they’d not even seen the movie, they could not hold and informed opinion about Trannies.

By constructing the article in this way, it forces the observer to go the extra mile to be accommodating. Even though it’s just a simple click, should the observer wishes to be deemed reasonable, they must click a button to read the rest of the article. Many would probably agree that a valid criticism can’t be predicated on having read only half of this article. Constructing the article like this was the only way I could think of to, in some way, represent the system of privilege encountered by trans people in most cis media.

To be clear, this expectation of accommodation of cis people by trans people is part of the tension this article examines.

To be clear, this expectation of accommodation of cis people by trans people is part of the tension this article examines.

NEW! Criticism:I don’t care why you used it! I think there is never any circumstance wherein the F-bomb should ever be used by anyone! Ever!

Answer:I totally get that. I also know that for the piece to have relevancy as an exposé of the tension created between in-group and out-group casual uses, I needed to recreate the conditions many trans people face each time they are confronted with yet another article, show, interview, movie, etc with tranny in the title. For that tension to be felt – to be a tangible real thing and not some abstract trans complaint – this was the only way I knew of to accomplish it.

So, these are the criticisms I expect to be made about my TA piece. I anticipate that I’ll probably need to add to this list in the coming days.

NOTE: The above is supposed to be read as part of the RuPaul article. However, it was apparent that a number of people did not choose to read the FAQ, which is the second half of the article:

Therefore the FAQs are also presented here as a standalone post.