"I realized I wasn't attracted to him anymore. It wasn't that I couldn't get over him during those two years, SMO, but that my ego wouldn't let me get over being dumped."

I am in LW's same position, and this sentence seems to be ringing true for several commenters. However can someone elaborate on it? I get it, but I kinda don't. And I can really use some advice on this subject!

HOPE-- You say you have no relationship experience, but let's guess you grew up in a family of one sort or another and thus have experience living with parents. You probably had roommates in college. You also probably have had friends, at least friends good enough for you to talk to them about some things, not everything. I'll also guess that you have work relationships, people you get along with well enough to talk about what needs to be done job-wise.

So when you think about it, you've got quite a bit of relationship experience. Build on that. A romantic/sexual relationship starts the same way. You talk about stuff. You take an interest in what the other person is talking about. You share some of your own feelings and opinions. You tell stories that you hope are entertaining. You do things together. And you do this all whether or not you're having sex together.

When you say that you've had brief sexual encounters, did those not work out because you weren't interested enough at that time in your life to call her again, or was it outright rejection in that you'd have continued seeing her, but she said no? It makes a difference. If it's rejection, you have to find out why. There will probably be different reasons for each woman ranging from her not being interested in a relationship from the start to being turned off by something about you. Probably the former.

When you first start dating someone, you can be upfront and vague at the same time. It's natural enough for someone to wonder how it is that you're single. You can answer that you've had a number of brief relationships but nothing panned out. That's good for the first several dates. In time, she'll probably want to know more. At that, the most important information is that you have a history of depression and have the condition well under control now (if that's true). Only after you've been dating for a good long time does it make sense to say anything about never having had what most of us think of as a real relationship, but you won't really have to bring it up. It will be obvious. She'll have probably said something about her ex or exes if she has them. Really, not having that sort of experience shouldn't be that big a deal. A history of mistreating women would be a much bigger one, and you haven't said anything about that.

Ms Cute - I did not and do not endorse the response. As I don't have to write a comprehensive view of the entire situation, the response isn't my point of interest, although perhaps largely because I didn't see it. "Have you heard of this?" I did see, and it struck me as so objectionable as to take up a veto-proof majority of my attention to this letter. Others obviously will focus on different things; I am used to being on my own.

"Member of the oppressor class" was designed to convey the notion of how, to Oppressed Person X, even generally right-thinking MotOCs can suddenly say or do something that, if not making them indistinguishable from (Deliberate?) Oppressors (and, if I had meant Oppressors, I'd have said Oppressors and not MotOC), then at least goes into oppressor-splaining mode. [I suspect we could have a fascinating discussion of the difference between oppressor-splaining and oppressed-splaining, but the rest of the assembled company would probably pelt us with rott*ed* vegetables.] It's not even a question of a majority. Are there any men you know you can trust absolutely never to say anything just completely wrong or offensive about female experience or existence that "no woman would ever say" or some phrase of similar import? I want to make this more of a scale than an either-or; some people feel more equal than others, to be somewhat Orwellian.

I do take your point; it's a variation on why I'm (occasionally deeply) wounded when people assume I'm straight. Now, it could be that there is a great difference between oppression as committed by a minority with power (South Africa?), a relatively equal-in-numbers faction, and majorities of various sizes. Perhaps the occasions when an otherwise-ally does something that makes you see him as being Malely Oppressive occur less often for you/women in general, or are harder to reverse.

This is one area where I can endorse an attitude of Ms Driasis (or perhaps a slight variation thereon) that being a good ally or having views seen as strongly pro-X by X themselves is the baseline for Decent Human Being. She applied it to taking some pro-gay stance (supporting marriage equality, perhaps?). It seems the sort of area where allies can be particularly useful, in saying for X what X would like to say directly but regarding which a filter is useful. What Ms Driasis uses as a floor of decency in one sense I'll use as a ceiling of entitlement in another.

Striking the right balance of how/when to tell a MotOC that something (s)he's said has changed the horizon so that (s)he temporarily resembles an Oppressor and when to take one for the good of overall community probably plagues most of us, and I suspect gets an assortment of differing answers.

A Gay Linguist @101: Exactly.

My question for CIS is: if you actually want to know what your trans friend is on about, why ask Dan, a cis man who doesn’t know either of you? Why not just read your trans friend’s emails? That’s the truly weird part.

My guess is that you don’t actually want to know what your trans friend is on about. You want some sympathy and to be reassured that your friend is crazy and that you don’t have to do difficult things like homework and reading angry emails and engaging participation.

I get it that you don’t have to read angry emails if you don’t want to. That’s your right and that’s fine. But it makes no sense to then write to Dan to ask what was in them.

I feel "unrequited" love for someone I see weekly in a public place and it's one of the dearest pleasures of my life. He knows about it, and he's understanding (or flattered) enough to maintain a platonic friendship with me.

I don't need to be in a sexual nor close relationship with him to be happy, to enjoy his wit and his accomplishments. But knowing he exists and is there somewhere still provides me with endless masturbating scenarii. For which I'm grateful !

It's like if auntie grizelda somehow became friends with Brad Pitt (my apologies if I mistake your crush). Would she revel in that friendship, no arguments made, or keep on trying to bed him, knowing that it wouldn't work, and that it would kill the friendly relationship ?

If LW 1's problem really was the term he used, well .... The time to freak out at someone over terminology is after you have asked him not to use a term, and explained why that term is offensive to you. And, if he's a friend, spotted him one or two slips of the tongue. If he still keeps it up after that, he's no friend of yours and freaking out is a reasonable reaction.

But if the way someone finds out a term is offensive to you is you flipping out, you are not behaving reasonably, and will lose some respect from reasonable people.

I think it is important, too, to remember that other people do understand what this feels like - not everything about being trans, but certainly the "terminology" part. Women, people with disabilities, members of all minorities - huge segments of the population have had to deal with learning to say "Don't call me that, I don't like it, and here's why". It's usually been at a painful time, too, a time when members of the group have finally had enough shit and aren't going to take it anymore.

@103, I think the point is that eventually you realize that the person isn't really so special, and the reason you're still fixated after you know it won't work out have more to do with your own issues and little to do with the object of your affections. See "limerence" on Wikipedia for more.

@110: has more to do....

@105 vennominion,

While Members Of The Clueless Class may be scions of MOTOCs, I think it fair to make a distinction in that their offensive behavior can be corrected with the proper information. Not an excuse, but rather a solution.

Peace

@110 - Thank you! VERY helpful.

@105 (Mr.Ven): I'm sleepy and cranky this morning, and didn't read your comment too carefully, but I have to say that I'm perhaps not the best person to use when comparing reactions to offenses given and received. Very little offends me or gets under my skin to the point past mild irritation, and when that occurs, my usual response is to try and make the other person understand my position more clearly, because I think that most offenses occur from a lack of understanding.

I have rarely, if ever, thought of men as members of the oppressor class. I just don't see things that way. I've very rarely been upset that a man doesn't respond as a woman would. Even when I'm irritated that a specific man doesn't respond the way I want him to, I don't think of the interaction as being representative of men vs. women. I think of this person vs. me. Yes, I have encountered mansplaining, but I know so many men that have never and would never condescend to me as a woman, that I don't think of mansplaining as a male default mode. That doesn't mean I'm blind to ways in which sexism and the patriarchy affect men's and women's lives in myriad ways, but I don't think in terms of "us" vs. "them," except when it comes to political issues ("us" being liberals, "them" being conservatives) where I admit I'm far less charitable in my opinions.

I am a member of an ethnic/cultural/religious minority who is generally mistaken as belonging to the predominant ethnic/cultural/religious group, and I have to say, I am not hurt by this. I think there's no reason why people should automatically realize I differ from them in some fundamental way, and the numbers of the overwhelming majority are against me. I can choose to blend in and say nothing, nor correct misapprehensions, or, if I think it's important that someone know what my affiliation is (or if it has been insulted by someone who doesn't realize I'm part of the group he is insulting), I can respectfully enlighten.
Everyone seems to me to be too thin-skinned.

In the specific case of CIS, I will concede that s/he should have probably asked her/his friend what term she preferred before writing the article, and done some research beforehand to see if there was a term currently in vogue with the trans community. However, if you're going to have a term de jour and get ultra-strident about its correct usage, I think you're setting yourself up for ridicule.

@103 This happened to me.
In my case my crush went on even after finding and marrying a girl I liked.
Yeaaaaarrrrs after marrying, wifey pointed out that I had been selecting girls based upon height. I like tall girls. I found out that there is a huge problem for most tall girls. They Usually refuse to date shorter men.
In my case my (taller) wife decided I had some redeeming qualities and so allowed me to fall in love with her and she with me.
In my young dating days NOBODY told me about the tall/short thing. AND I had 3 older sisters, none of whom clued me in. It all worked out,..... sorta. Good luck!
sb

Ms Cute - I've no quarrel with anything you say about the response to the article. Having gotten you to dial back from what appeared to be a slightly too robust defense of CIS (which I quite understand to be perhaps the most useful political response), I am content on that front.

I have no desire to attempt to convince you that you are far more oppressed than you say you are, or to hope that your assessment of your acquaintance is incorrect. Perhaps my wild guess that the relative size of oppressing and oppressed groups may come into play, or perhaps one just goes on as one begins. Having been fired specifically for being gay presumably was a start to adult life likely to produce a much more oppositional mind set than yours. Ah, well.

At least I got the concept of the Elton Award out of it.

@108: Your comment ignores centuries of history (like the 1-drop rule) and also misrepresents Dan's history (Terry is his first marriage).

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When you're posting something people will find offensive/controversial, at minimum, you need to get your facts right.

@103 - My own sense on these matters (drawing a lot from personal experience here) is that sometimes our feelings about another person are mostly about how they make us feel about ourselves. For me, the girl I couldn't get over was in many ways out of my league, and being with her made me feel so fucking amazing. She wasn't that great of a person and really nothing super special, but when she wanted to be with me, my ego was being fed in a major way. And that's really what I couldn't get over. Good luck to you.

@SMO...I had an experience with unrequited love and in time, learned that I was yearning for a person, a love, a life that I IMAGINED. Take the gift of time and distance to look inward and examine your beliefs about love with her. Be willing to accept that some of those beliefs are not true.

I was fortunate enough to see him after many years apart. While he was still sexy, attractive, charming, intelligent, motivating...some of the reasons I loved him...I also met a miserable, shallow, punishing bully alcoholic. I came away from the meeting feeling relieved for dodging that bullet and a heart full of sympathy for his ex-wife and children.

She is not for you. Get comfortable with the fact that some things you will never know and never have. That is hard to do but necessary to move forward. When you see her in professional settings, be professional. Don't waste your time fantisizing about woulda/shoulda/coulda been. Getting stuck in that loop of the fantasy is what is hurting you and keeping you from living your full life.

For me, getting stuck in the fantasy was the damaging part, damaging to me. I hope you can get unstuck and find love and happiness in your real life.

SMO-- I recommend viewing your question/problem as 2 separate things:

1. Getting over her
2. Moving on to a new relationship

Forget about getting over her. Only time will do that for you, and even then. Most of us are walking around with broken hearts. (Note: Not a scientific claim.) But most of us manage good relationships with the other people in our lives. Frame your dilemma in terms of how to form a great relationship while still pining for Ms. Crush in your spare time.

Perhaps you can find some wisdom in my story. In my teens I fell in love and was dumped. It hurt. I cried. I told myself I was dusting myself off, but it hurt worse. I gathered together my pride and didn't beg or do anything dramatic, but I did stalk a bit. Back then we didn't have facebook or other advanced stalking techniques, but I did listen when the odd mutual friend would tell me about him.

All the while I was dating and settling for someone I didn't think could ever measure up to His Inattainable Perfection, I'd fixate on his name. Years went by, and I was aware of his happy marriage, his children, then his amicable divorce. I was in an excellent relationship of my own by that time but still pining for the One That Got Away.

As we all got more computer connected and google took over the world, I took to looking him up. I'd feel a thrill when I caught a glimpse of something (ordinary) he'd done or read something he'd posted.

More years. I friended him. I saw his recent picture, realized that he hadn't aged well or that I wasn't attracted to his 50 year old self, but sometimes he'd put up a picture from a few years after we broke up as teens. I felt the same old thrill.

Finally my current relationship and I met him in person. He was ordinary, maybe worse than ordinary. It was abundently obvious that we had nothing in common that could have made a relationship work. I didn't hate him, but I didn't like his manners or his cheapness or the way he talked about his work. (I liked his wife more. She seemed nice.) The brilliance that I'd been so attracted to just seemed naive. That's not to say he was any sort of villain. He still had some good qualities, but I couldn't see myself with him.

So I went back to my good relationship with a good man and went back to checking up on him now and then. And I STILL thrill when I see his name, and I STILL look at the picture of him from when he was 19, and I'm STILL attracted to his 19 year old self.

Bottom line is that love changes. It changes from that fluttery pit of the stomach feeling to something different. If I were preachy, I'd say it gets better, but deep down, I'm not sure I believe that. The love was going to change whether you'd stayed with that woman you're pining over or moved it along with someone else. That's a disappointment no matter what, but we don't have many choices. We get what we get. Good luck.

@120 Crinoline,

Your experience is somewhat akin to my observation that my fantasies are eclipsed by the reality of my best sexual experiences.  What I mean is that reality trumps fantasy, but fantasy is within and therefor always with us.  Ideals are wonderful, but practicality is the foundation of our lives.  Annnnd, I'm totally making a hash of this...

In some ways, my wife is totally NOT the woman of my dreams.  And yet, our life together is better than I could have hoped.  Dismissing that internal discourse, to be experiencing the moment, allows me to understand the value of what I have and to be grateful for it.  

When we are teenagers, we have overriding fantasies of...whatever.  Most of us don't look forward to the satisfaction (and security) of a successful product rollout, or the satisfaction of nursing your puking sick teenager to health.  But the reality of moments like those are cornerstones of our existence, and ignoring them for the hope of fantasy dismisses who we are.  

Peace

@108: President Obama would have been laughed out of the room if he tried to claim he was white. Being "black" has a whole lot to do with how everyone around you identifies you, and anyone who is obviously within a racial subgroup (mid-to-dark-skinned blacks, for example, or pale and freckly redheads) will find their attempts to invoke the one-drop rule and claim a different, more interesting race laughed at and ignored. And in a contest between two first-term senators, the experience was pretty equal. (I am really not going to dignify "she was married to the experience, which is exactly the same as doing it herself" with an answer.)

And as 117 notes, Dan has never been married to a woman. He slept with a couple back in high school, but claiming that that makes him sort of really straight except he just finds being gay exotic: is weird.

Both CIS and his friend are human. And we are dealing here with the eternal problem of humans who may or may not react correctly (according to some code of conduct) under certain circumstances. And all the disagreement above basically centers around the question of whether or not CIS' friend's reaction can be excused given the pressure s/he lives under, or not.

My point is that, in the end, this is difficult to ascertain. I would be loathe to make a decision without hearing CIS' friend first. What caused this reaction? Just that one word? Its adjectival use? (Nouns and adjectives can often shift places in English, by the way; the grammatical explanations are incorrect. And -ed as an adjective can be an attribution marker rather than a process; cf. "the moneyed elite", in which nothing "moneyed" the elite, they just have money... I think these claims are trying to "explain" something which ultimately boils down to how CIS' friend [i]interpreted[i] CIS' choice of words. As always, it's not in the words, it's in the people who use them -- and in the people who interpret their use...)

So, what did CIS think he was saying, and what did CIS' friend think CIS was saying? Clearly they differ. The humane thing to do would be for both of them to seek common understanding of each other's good intentions, and acceptance of their flaws. It is also quite possible that CIS's friend lashed out unjustly (though, I repeat, I would still like to hear his/her take on that). It is also quite possible that CIS wrote something that he shouldn't have -- given the pressures and situations that his friend (not simply "all transgender people, but [i]this particular person[i], who has a personal life experience with specificities not shared by all others) has had to put up with." Regardless of both possibilities, I hope they can grow beyond this incident and resume their friendship.

@Ven, I tend to agree with nocutename that the Oppressed vs. Oppressor dichotomy is an oversimplification that often confuses the issue (by, for instance, obscuring the individual, this-person-vs.-that-person aspect of it, among other things). Oppression (as we now call what used to be termed "prejudice" or "social inequality") is a much more complex phenomenon than that, and one that often results from something akin to Adam Smith's invisible hand rather than from the intentions and desires of various human groups.

Just to mention one example... I know you don't like science fiction, but you may have heard of Samuel Delany, who is a literature specialist in his own right. In one of his stories (in his famous "Tales of Nevèrÿon" series, which I highly recommend to those interested in theoretical questions concerning language, symbols, literature, and gender), he describes how a primitive matriarchal society, where men were "oppressed" (had less prestige and control over their own lives, though they themselves would hardly think of themselves as oppressed) slowly changed into a patriarchal society, where women were "oppressed" (had less prestige and control over their own lives -- and they did feel oppressed, because they were more aware of what had changed) by virtue of a process that had nothing to do with gender, and without anyone ever wanting to change anything: the natives came into contact with money, and gradually switched from an exchange-based economy to a money-based one. The effect this had on gender relation was the result of the novelty -- money -- interacting with certain features of that society that were only indirectly related to gender. After reading the story, one is moved to reflect on who or what exactly is to be "blamed" (if there is any blame?) for the shift that happened in that society.

Because, ultimately, the problems in the oppressor-oppressed nomenclature is how easily it suggests who is to be blamed -- and how misleading this facile interpretation is, both historically and with respect to how to choose the means to change the situation into a less unfair one.

Welcome back, ankylosaur!

Et nunc, utinam patientia sileam, quum aliorum melius sit.

@125, thanks, but I just happened to be here by accident and couldn't resist posting an opinion. I don't intend to hang around. People here continue to talk about interesting topics, no doubt; and Dan's wit is as sharp as I remember. Take care.

@91: By way of agreeing with you (I think?), my impression is that "cis" is a prefix that is useful precisely in the context of trans-centric considerations, and less so in the context of general purpose usage. Insisting on it becoming part of standard vocabulary strikes me as approximately equivalent to demanding that everyone should converse in ASL all the time because on some occasions there may be a Deaf person in the room.

It is also somewhat ironic to consider in light of the idea that many transgender* individuals would like to simply be considered to be the gender that they present as. It is operating at cross-purposes to on the one hand insist, "I am a woman, just one with a penis," and on the other insist on inserting the cis or trans qualifier into every communication, thereby defining and perpetuating the pronounced distinction between one kind of woman and the other kind of woman.

* (See, I am perfectly happy to use the preferred terminology once it is made clear. Less willing to plead guilty to a ginned-up MotOP offense. But entirely willing to call one what one wants to be called.)

@128,
The men who objected to being described as “cis” claimed that the word should never be used, not that it shouldn’t always be used.

@107 sissoucat: Rest assured that I am fully aware that my sexual fantasy involving Brad Pitt (as J.D. in "Thelma & Louise") is exactly that---a delicious little fantasy. And only that. I have no intentions whatsoever of actually pursuing Mr. Pitt in real life, hot as he is at 50! He's taken with a capital Angelina Jolie and with children, for starters. Plus, although I'm closer age-wise I'm sure he wouldn't be interested in someone like me if he was single. The Jolie-Pitt clan has no idea I even exist, and I'm not about to stalk the guy anytime soon. Come on.
No worries. I am certain I will never even meet William Bradley Pitt in my lifetime, anyway, other than in my sweet little dreams.

Welcome back, ankolsaur!!! We missed you!

As Mr Ank apparently chose just to drop a flyover post and will miss any wishes that his Latvian studies progress well, I shall clarify for those remaining that my application here is fairly specific with clearly drawn distinctions.

My best guess is that "the issue" Mr Ank addresses has almost nothing to do with mine. I was referring specifically to how a member of an underprivileged (or is "disprivileged" better?) group may take or interpret specific remarks. My application plays out more along the lines of privilege, which is exercised by most (almost all?) of us in one way or another with varying degrees of unpacking quite frequently, and which can feel like oppression to a Member of the Oppressed Class. I can refer the assembled company to a Native American woman who finds any USian mention or discussion of voting to be colonizingly oppressive; how many of us give that issue deep thought on a regular basis whenever we discuss elections? I am sure Mr Rhone could point out dozens of whitely oppressive things I've said; how instantly he could do so might depend on his experience and whether I remind him of any actual experiences he's had.

I can give a recent example. Recall the hypnosis-fascinated LW. Mr Savage's response had no clear indicator in the letter for his indirectly calling LW Husband's wife. Mr Savage being a same-sexer as well as being behind the editing of the letter and therefore likely to have knowledge not presented to the readers, this did not bother me. When one of the posters put up a vigourous advocacy (not just a defence, but representing such thinking as THE CORRECT WAY to treat an ambiguous letter) of majoritarian thinking in response to such letters which could have been much the same as Mr Savage's response, that did ding my Straightly Oppressive button. It's an automatic reflex, and it doesn't mean that I consigned the poster in question to the Underworld for all eternity the way I suspect I was so consigned by Ms Minerva for my having appeared to have committed the horrible crime of NOT BELIEVING in feminism (if cross-examined, I must admit to this being a wild guess that could well be entirely untrue, but the dramatics fit nicely into my point and I was impressed by her use of capital letters, which made her accusation very evangelical in appearance). I envy Ms Cute her certainty that so many men she knows will never say anything Malely Oppressive. Why my experience is vastly different would take too long to examine now.

Oh, dear, out of time. I hope I've made enough of my point.

Speak for yourself, Hunter.

You are correct, most educated middle- and upper-class white anglo women in north america will not feel oppressed.

You are also correct that oppression is not the word the kids use these days: they talk about choice instead.

It does not follow that oppression does not exist.

@136/137 I'm finding that many well-employed white men feel oppressed.

avast @128
>> my impression is that "cis" is a prefix that is useful precisely in the context of trans-centric considerations... Many transgender* individuals would like to simply be considered to be the gender that they present as. >>

That's exactly the point Alison & I are making.

Some trans* people prefer to be known as people with a transitioned history, and some take issue with "transgender" in general and consider themselves transsexual but not transgender. Some identify as gender queer or simply trans.

There is a transsexual woman on the NPR comment section who literally calls the word "transgender" a violation of her civil rights.

I imagine that's an uncommonly extreme opinion, but it's one that's out there.

@103 - I think Dan's exactly right that our egos can't get over being dumped, but I can elaborate from personal experience: I think there's also a part of our brain or psyche that tries to busy itself with thoughts in order to hide or forestall the real, deeper feelings underneath. That is to say, you can obsess all day about the person who dumped you, which is actually easier than looking at the cold hard fact that you're lonely and afraid you'll never find anyone else. The obsessive thoughts about the relationship are a kind of relationship proxy. If you can allow yourself to feel scared and alone, really feel it and open up to that vulnerability, I think the obsessive thoughts will dissipate. And – bonus – feeling that vulnerability can open you up to more connection and better relationships.

From what I can tell, CIS wrote an article about his/her experiences with transgender adults. CIS is unaware that there are possibly certain linguistic grenades that would offend some members of the transgender community (for lack of a better term). Out of a lack of knowledge and not bigotry, CIS uses a word that gives one member of that community offense. Or perhaps said friend would rather have not been in the article, even anonymously. Fair enough. When writing about a group of people that has an identity different from that of the writer, said writer will probably make mistakes. I suspect CIS sent a draft to his/her friend to ensure there were no issues with the friend's inclusion or the terminology.

Instead of freaking out and pouring out hundreds of words of outrage, the proper response for the friend would have been to say, "Many people in our community don't like the term 'transgendered'; we prefer [insert preferred term here]." And: "You may want to ask so-and-so before including him/her in the article."

CIS is coming from the position of an ally. It does marginalized groups no good to alienate people who are trying to shatter hurtful stereotypes and help others gain understanding.

I find it a big fat waste of time worrying about words like "transgender" and fifteen other ways to label a range of sexual and gender identities. The terms are going to change tomorrow anyway, and narcissists with hair-trigger tempers are going to invent new ones and throw a tantrum if we are not mind readers and know what they want to be called.

@145 mickey: I agree.

Sigh... Mickey, Avast, Auntie, nocutename: for people who "don't care" about labels and don't have the time to "keep up" with the latest terminology because you're too busy "bein' allies"? Ya'll sure do spend a lot of time online (3 days now!*) telling your "allies" to quit spending so much time caring about what we're called.

"Transgendered" has never been considered to be OK by trans* people, for the reasons Shadi listed in the original article. Sometimes we bite our tongue when you use it but we think you're kinda dense when you say it (or call us "a transgender")

There is no "moving goal-post". There is though, and has been for quite a few years now, the GLAAD Media Reference Guide, the AP Style Guide, and motherfucking** google. There is no excuse for someone writing an article on trans* people who has access to the internet to be uninformed of accepted terminology. To claim to be writing an article with the intent of educating others on trans* issues and not know that "transgendered" is not an acceptable term is either willful ignorance or sheer ineptitude.

But all the same: THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THE HARD WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE TO SUPPORT TRANS* PEOPLE!

We can take it from here, but go on and say whatever you like and complain about "cis" being a thing, it makes you easier to avoid.

*And some serious time on every previously published slog/savage article regarding the use of "tranny". Tell us all more about how you're being oppressed by not being able to say it anymore.

**I know, the swear means I just crossed the line and I'm a "crazy transgendered lady" who can be disregarded now.

Mr Hunter - That's why I've been careful to explain that I describe circumstances when I PERSONALLY as a singular and individual person and not as a representative of every same-sexer on the planet FEEL oppressed, and generally well-meaning people APPEAR to RESEMBLE oppressors. Obviously other people are going to feel differently.

I assume that the assertion that men are in general privileged over women can be taken as a given - my conclusion from that being that the great majority of women (if not all of them) have perfectly good cause to FEEL oppressed if they do. I think Ms Cute and I might have been slightly at cross purposes, as I set the bar at exercise of privilege and hers is apparently rather higher, but I am interested in whether there are any practical conclusions to be drawn from why our experiences differ and not in trying to convince her or anybody else that she is interpreting her own experiences "incorrectly". I thought, given what she recently related of her daughter, that what she would post in this thread might be something other than what she's actually posted, but I shall just make a note or two for my files and move on.

Now, there may even be some useful conclusion to draw from how many people feel a certain way, although I rather imagine that would be despite your point. Trying to shut someone up because "most members of your group X differ from you"? I think even Claude Erskine Brown could cross-examine his way out of this one.

Mr. Ven,
I'm curious: what did I recently post about my daughter that would lead you to expect me to feel oppressed by men? I believe that my recent post about my daughter was that I have heard her indulge in a lot of self-criticism ("I'm so fat and ugly no one will ever want to marry me"), which I lamented. But judging oneself extra-harshly because of culturally distorted ideas of worthiness doesn't translate to me as oppression. I'm quite willing to acknowledge the existence of oppression in the world, whether one feels it or not, but I also think that to a certain extent, one is only oppressed if one feels oneself to be oppressed, and I don't feel myself to be oppressed even when I've been mansplained to (which I have, just not by my friends). I also don't mean to suggest that I expect never to be the recipient of mansplaining. But that, in my opinion, applied to me, doesn't constitute oppression, just annoying behavior.

Completely agree with tacodoomsday. Personally it seems like CIS is leaving out certain details and rather than actually read the friend's email (as he's reiterated he didn't), he's run to Savage for validation knowing he'd get plenty of it in the comments, if nothing else.

And if I'm jumping to conclusions, it's just as much a jump to assume CIS sent their friend a draft that was approved only to have that approval retracted later.

As for all this, "trans people need to stop freaking out and lashing out, we're just trying to help! we're their closest allies!" Who told you that, or are you just satisfied because you "could be worse"? The allies I trust are the ones who, in CIS's situation, would seek clarification from their interviewee BEFORE running to cry here about some bruised feelings.

But go on, keep telling trans people what they really need to do 'if' they want change, as if they're not bringing about that change themselves, without your patronizing help.

Completely agree with tacodoomsday. Personally it seems like CIS is leaving out certain details and rather than actually read the friend's email (as he's reiterated he didn't), he's run to Savage for validation knowing he'd get plenty of it in the comments, if nothing else.

And if I'm jumping to conclusions, it's just as much a jump to assume CIS sent their friend a draft that was approved only to have that approval retracted later.

As for all this, "trans people need to stop freaking out and lashing out, we're just trying to help! we're their closest allies!" Who told you that, or are you just satisfied because you "could be worse"? The allies I trust are the ones who, in CIS's situation, would seek clarification from their interviewee BEFORE running to cry here about some bruised feelings.

But go on, keep telling trans people what they really need to do 'if' they want change, as if they're not bringing about that change themselves, without your patronizing help.

Ms Cute - Well, given that it was reasonable to describe your daughter's plight as being oppressed by, if not men absolutely, at least gender roles, it didn't seem much of a stretch to assume that, even if you didn't absolutely feel tremendously (malely) oppressed, that you would at least be able to get into the frame of mind of someone (CIS' friend in this case) who did. It was not a matter of your striking me as someone who walks about feeling oppressed all day, but rather a guess that the equivalent what you experience would probably make me feel oppressed, so that I could probably make my point through your own experience.

As far as that goes, it doesn't seem far off. And, given how the feelings of A and B about experience X can differ, it isn't surprising that you don't feel oppressed, though it might be if you were to profess yourself unable to imagine how or why another woman on the receiving end of equivalent quantity/quality of male privilege could/would.

I could give a long example of something that sometimes triggers me and sometimes doesn't, but it would be really depressing and I haven't really the time for it this late in the evening. Maybe tomorrow if I'm feeling robust.

@53, you are assuming that he's not asking for a second date instead of the more likely scenario that he is asking for a second date and getting turned down. Just because a woman sleeps with a guy doesn't necessarily mean she wants to date him, especially when it's a bar pick up. After all, women have one night stands for the same reason most men do - because they don't want a relationship at that particular time. A woman who wants a second date would avoid one night stands and instead find an actual date.

For every trans-person that complains about a terminology, there are a thousand that don't. I am distressed by the number of letters that condemn all trans-people by the behaviour, however loud and aggressive, of some.

Ok, so, at the risk of totally projecting all over the SMO issue, I want to point out that there are a lot of assumptions being made.

There is nothing I respect less than unrequited love, and I say that as someone who has been there myself. Unrequited love is for chumps, to quote the awesome writers of A Softer World. I have been both the recipient and the purveyor of unrequited love, and in all cases, it was stupid.

In one case, I had my ideas of the person as completely confused as described by Dan and others in the comments. I have also been on the receiving end of that particular clustercuss. But unrequited love can take other shapes. I have suffered from it by not having the courage to say to the object of my affection exactly what it was that I so wanted to share with them. I've also been in situations in which I could tell the guy was never going to get around to telling me he liked me. I've even been in the position of having a guy tell me, upon seeing each other for the first time in years, that I had caused him long-term psychological problems in college because I had so spurned him. I had had no idea he even liked me that way; in fact, we haf never dated, and that particular young man made a point of leaving whenever I would happen to show up at social function that he was also attending.

So before anyone can say what the deal is here with Unrequited Lover SMO, I think first it is important to know the shape of that love. Did his confess clearly his feelings to this woman?

Because the worst unrequited love is that one bred from the idea that you could have done something more to win your happiness. That's Tue worst, not rejection; unrequited love is not so much about ego than it is about regret.

Hi, I'm HOPE. I'm so used to avoiding comments sections that it was several days before it occurred to me that there might be some good comments here. And there were! Many, in fact. Thanks to you all.

Just to clarify my story for those who seemed curious, a big part of the reason I didn't date until 25 was anxiety. I had to get pretty drunk to talk to girls, and when I sobered up the next day I'd be too embarrassed to call them.

What helped me to finally start dating/screwing at 25 was a discovery that since I'm sort of well-endowed I could meet girls online by showing them my penis. Or maybe that just gave me the confidence to talk to them. Or maybe it was because I had a job as a lawyer and was in really good shape and that gave me the confidence. And many of those girls did want to pursue a relationship but I turned them down. I regret those in retrospect, especially a couple who probably would have made excellent girlfriends or even more.

When I was in my early thirties and wanted to start looking for a relationship, the anxiety had by that time cost me my job. And obviously the dick pics were out. But I still managed to meet many great women through online dating. And I always thought the dates went well. It's just that none of them were ever interested in a second.

In retrospect, it's pretty clear that my depression had already begun to take hold at that point. It ended up getting much worse, and I ended up hitting rock bottom with a suicide attempt a couple of years ago. But I am recovered from that now, the anxiety is under control with medication, and I am getting back into shape after letting myself go for years. But I started worrying that it might be too late to start looking for relationships. It's the same worry I have as I begin to contemplate re-entering the job market -- I know that employers see a lack of job history at my age as a big red flag.

Some people mentioned that I have had other relationships, and that's true! I currently live with my sister, with whom I get along great, and have a great relationship with my parents. I only have one friend, but we are extremely close. Unfortunately she doesn't live nearby but we talk every day. That one actually almost feels like a romantic relationship. But she loves me, just not in that way. Still, my concern was that I've never been part of a couple, and I haven't done couple things and it's that lack of experience that concerned me.

Someone else mentioned that I don't have any of the bad habits people can form. I like that! I would also add that having read/listened to hundreds of Savage Love(casts) I do have a lot of relationship book smarts.

And I will definitely check out Back Story and Don Jon. Thanks again!

@160: Is this real or are you a troll? For one thing, if a woman tried this bullshit, turning down a bunch of great guys and then turning 30 and not finding a date, then getting depressed, people would tell her that she aged out of the dating game and that she's to blame for failing to manage her own mental illness. But since you're a man, you get coddled and told you deserve whatever the fuck you want. Fuck you, fuck your sexism, and fuck this misogynistic society.

Gender is a noun, and gendered is an adjective. Why is it then that transgender is considered the appropriate adjective instead of transgendered???

WHAT IS IT WITH THE GERIATRIC SEATTLE KIBITZER SET??!!!

NOBODY GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR COMMENTS!! GET A LIFE! PEOPLE WRITING TO DAN FOR PROGESSIONAL ADVICE, NOT SOME WHITE TRASH, DILETTANTE GOSSIP SUPPORT GROUP!!!

@161 Minerva,

Wrong thread I think you wanted this one.

Peace

Talk about perpetuating stereotypes. The usual response when someone misuses a part of speech is to point out the error gently. I'd suggest your action was the correct one - someone who goes nuts on you because of what is essentially a grammar error is not a stable person and not good friend material. Follow Dan's advice on word usage and be glad you dodged this particular bullet.

@149: Thank you.
@150 tacodoomsday and others with the same issue: See @149's comment and take note.
I have no problem with what individuals of any kind prefer to be called, if that's what makes them happy. However, it's one thing to be respectful of others, and quite another to be forever slammed on someone else's shit list regardless of what you do to be supportive, just because the politically correct 'term"-of-the-week wasn't properly used. End of story.

Dear Hope. I'd suggest you start by making friends with some women you like. Not women you're attracted to, but just ones you like as people. Join a gym and go to yoga and talk to the 50 year old lady next to you wearing a wedding ring in a friendly way with no agenda. Ask a female co-worker to a professional lunch and talk about work. Join a group related to something you're interested in and be friendly with some of the female members. Once you get used to treating women like people rather than potential dates/sex partners/girlfriends, then try doing that with a girl you're attracted to. Focus on connecting with her on a human level instead of a sexual one at first and see what develops.

@166: I'm standing pat on my feelings expressed in @74 & @75, too.

@157 Rachael Hk: You have a good point that not everyone behaves the same way, but I wasn't condemning anybody.

Okay. Ol' Griz is calling this a night.

@171 I wasn't asking why I haven't had a relationship yet -- I already know the answer to that. But I still appreciate the speculation!

@166 Cool beans, but the "end of (the) story" is that while "transgendered" is not even close to the worst thing anyone has ever been called, "transgender" is not a "term of the week" but an old and easily figure-out-able preferred usage that someone writing an article on trans people can and should be able to figure out.

@175: See #s 173, 174.

Oh, please. With all due respect to Ms Petosky, that pseudo-presciptivist grammatical nonsense is simply wrong. I'm gendered. So is she. So are you. I'm also right-handed, brown-haired, and hazel-eyed. There is exactly one reason that "transgender" is preferable to "transgendered", and that's the same reason that "color" is preferable to "colour": local contemporary convention. That's the only reason.

Hey, how 'bout "trans"? Did you notice how easily it slipped in to the text of your article? Just please, don't call me a transwoman or, god forbid, a trans* woman. Ugh. I find both those constructions obnoxious.

But guess what? I'll get over it if they become the accepted norm, just like I got over "email" as an unhyphenated noun, and even (though I shudder to admit it) the word "blog".

Here's the thing about PC terminology:

It's legitimately offensive when someone uses a term that has developed (or always had) an offensive context. For the sake of simplicity, I'll leave out the dynamic wherein slurs are re-appropriated by the group they're used against.

There are many words that have pretty much always been favored in a hateful context (eg, "faggot"). There are others that used to be the "official" term, but over time have shifted towards being preferred primarily by bigots (eg, "negro" and "Chinaman"). There are words that have been labeled politically incorrect due to iffy implications, and which mostly ignorant people use whether they mean well or not (eg, "Oriental," which was mostly abandoned due to its implication that Europe was the center of the world).

The reason these words are reasonable to take offense at is because, in their current context, they clearly reflect either hostility or unreasonable ignorance on behalf of the person using it.

This is not true for words that are merely freshly out of date for obscure academic reasons, or whose appropriateness is still in debate. It is not clear or obvious to most that "transgendered" communicates otherness or inferiority while "transgender" does not.

If a word requires an argument unpacked by a clever linguist or expert academic to explain why one is more appropriate than the other, that's a sign that it isn't reasonable to assign bigotry to everyone who uses that word (and it sounds like even academic circles haven't made up their minds on whether or not "transgendered" may actually be the better term).

There are reasonable and unreasonable levels of ignorance on all subjects, including PC terminology. A word that became obsolete three decades ago is "outdated." A word that was declared obsolete at last night's TED talk is not. Someone who doesn't know that "tranny" is offensive because bigots have been favoring it lately is unreasonably ignorant. Someone who didn't read a 6-month-old book/essay that dissected the vague etymological implications of "transgendered" and argued how it could theoretically be less accurate or affirming than "transgender" is reasonably ignorant.

This isn't to say that people shouldn't switch to "transgender." If someone has a reason to believe that this is the better term, it's perfectly appropriate to correct those using "transgendered" and to argue your case. That hypothetical vague essay I made up earlier could be perfectly on the money. You can even boast about how much more clever and up-to-date you are compared to this other person.

But it's disingenuous to behave as though this is exactly the same as their having called you a "he-she." Unless and until "transgendered" becomes favored significantly more by bigots or unreasonably ignorant people and "transgender" by the rest, it's inaccurate to universally interpret bigotry in its use.

All that said, trans people go through some shit, so I can only blame them so much for being a little too high on alert for bigotry.

TL;DR: Reasonably ignorant people should be corrected, yes; but it's only unreasonably ignorant bigots that should be fought.

Oh, please. With all due respect to Ms Petosky, that pseudo-presciptivist grammatical nonsense is simply wrong. I'm gendered. So is she. So are you. I'm also right-handed, brown-haired, and hazel-eyed. There is exactly one reason that "transgender" is preferable to "transgendered", and that's the same reason that "color" is preferable to "colour": local contemporary convention. That's the only reason.

Hey, how 'bout "trans"? Did you notice how easily it slipped in to the text of your article? Just please, don't call me a transwoman or, god forbid, a trans* woman. Ugh. I find both those constructions obnoxious.

But guess what? I'll get over it if they become the accepted norm, just like I got over "email" as an unhyphenated noun, and even (though I shudder to admit it) the word "blog".

Thank you Bonefish!

@178: I thank you, too, Bonefish!

@175: See @74 and @75 too, while you're at it.

Huh.

I'm the writer of the first letter. In discussing its publication with a couple friends, I went back to my original email. The question Shadi Petoskey answers here is not quite what I meant.

The original text of my letter was edited, I presume mostly for space. Here was the original phrasing: "...is there a term that is preferred to 'transgender' or 'transgendered'? I recently wrote an article that described a MTF person I know as transgender.... The article was generally positive about transgendered persons I have known (she is one of many)."

I checked the article draft, too. I used the -ed ending on some occasions, but not all. This needed cleaning up, clearly; then again, it was just a draft. (Using the AP style guide can come after structure and message are nailed down.)

My initial question wasn't really about the -ed ending at all. It was about whether there was a *completely different* term that is coming into use (in the manner of changing "Orientals" to "Asians," as Bonefish usefully mentions above). I read the ultra-lengthy accusatory emails from my "friend" to the point where I could take it no more, but found no clear answer.

Through the column and comments, I've discovered that transgender is still the most common word (despite many other options), and that spelling is more important to some folks than I realized. Thanks, everyone!

To Hi_It's_CIS @183,

I repeat my question @106:

My question for CIS is: if you actually want to know what your trans friend is on about, why ask Dan, a cis man who doesn’t know either of you? Why not just read your trans friend’s emails? That’s the truly weird part.

My guess is that you don’t actually want to know what your trans friend is on about. You want some sympathy and to be reassured that your friend is crazy and that you don’t have to do difficult things like homework and reading angry emails and engaging participation.

I get it that you don’t have to read angry emails if you don’t want to. That’s your right and that’s fine. But it makes no sense to then write to Dan to ask what was in them.

*** *** ***

Have you had a chance to let your friend cool down and ask her this precise question, by any chance?

1) If you knew what word she preferred, you could google it.

2) If the word she prefers is something like “woman,” then it’s not about trendy terminology.

3) If you aren’t current on preferred terminologies (by hanging out on blogs, for instance); if the only person you know to ask is Dan ... you are possibly not well-placed to be writing an article about transfolk in the first place.

4) If you can’t be bothered to read her letters for content because they are abusive, I can’t see that you even care about the question. You don’t respect her opinion.

5) You aren’t willing to invest more than minimal effort to find the answer, which doesn’t sound like someone who cares about the question either.

This is why I have trouble reading your question as anything but a call for validation.

@185, if this person has unusual opinions, why did her reaction lead you to kill the article?

Meh. You don't know me, lady.

Thanks for the help, everyone. Have a good one.

@188 When pressed on an issue, you resort to dismissiveness with a hint of misogyny ... I'm getting a vision of your future ... what's that I see? Why, it's more angry emails!

Misogyny, @191? ...I'm also a lady. You wanna stop telling me what to call my own gender? Thx.

Anyway, still meh. I can't please everyone, and I'm feeding the trolls quite enough just replying to you. I feel @193's pain.

Thanks to all. Take care.

Ok,just to summarize what I think is going on here (and I could of course be wrong):

(1) people get to choose what they call themselves, and this is really important to them for lots of reasons.

(2) people might belong to the same community but still have very unique, specific, detailed, and most of all strong preferences about what they get called.

(3) both people-who-name-people AND people-who-get-named-by-themselves-and/or-other-people take themselves VERY SERIOUSLY (and you should too! or else!)

(4) about 800,000 children die annually from infectious diarrhea worldwide. DIE. ANNUALLY. that's like 1.5 kids per minute, no big deal. if we spent as much time championing clean water and basic medicine, as we do deciding what to call each other and whether or not to be outraged, imagine what we could accomplish. don't even get me started on other and more complex diseases.

(5) if you are still struggling for a reason to chill out, begin by meditating on your home's on-demand hot & cold running water.

(6) go do something nice for each other! seriously. go be allies (and remember, allies is not a unidirectional word; it implies that both parties are strengthened by the alliance). somebody owes somebody else here cupcakes. cupcakes for everybody.

(7) stepping off soap-box now. apologies, and I probably deserve whatever criticism is about to get heaped my way.

PS: In a major update to that column several months ago (wherein I last over-exercised my fascination with medical science): Swedish doctors are now performing uterus transplants, with the goal of complete pregnancy.

Thanks, guy. I appreciate your perspective.

I live in a developing country. That is the country where my article was intended to run. It's a majority-Muslim nation, and the people who are transgender here face very serious risks and often cannot reasonably be expected to speak up on their own behalf. I'm a rare lucky person who would speak under my own name about my extensive exposure to them in my home country in a positive light. Toxic remarks from so many relatively privileged people in the first world make it hard to stand up for these virtually-invisible people elsewhere. Big, big sigh.

I moved here to do global health work, and yes, there are many preventable child deaths here. Oh, and my home does not have hot running water on demand! That's not standard everywhere, y'all. If all you have to worry about is whether a lady called you "lady," then, wow, lucky you.

I'm not a guy. But you can call me that, if you send cupcakes.

Cupcakes for you, lady or whomever.

HOPE- Since you have no trouble attracting partners but cannot keep a relationship going I sugest you take a page from an old dating show. Have a friend set you up on a blind date that they record. Afterwards have the person give their overall impression of you and say if they would or would not date you again and why. Then watch the tape to see what habits and ticks you might have that could scare off a potential mate. You might find that what you think is cool and sexy is coming off as rude and serial killerish.
After you get the information make a seriou effort to curb your more offensive habits and go on a second blind date and do the same thing. I hope this helps!

@194 Ha! I've never heard anyone but old white guys address people as "lady". You sure you're not my Uncle Tony? Keep up the good work over there, doll face. The world needs more broads like you.

@196 (5):

How I wish more people would appreciate the value of our most important commodity: clean, potable, water. Do yourself a favor, try to figure out how you would obtain drinking water w/o a ready supply of bottles from "somewhere else" if your local water source becomes unavailable. That is what people in WV and fracking zones are living with. This is happening because we, as a Society, are letting it happen. And, if you did that little exercise I suggested, correcting the problems after they occur are very, very difficult.

Peace

At CIS. When anyone comes out and makes public a portion of their vulnerable inner self (as gay, as a vegan in a hunt-and-BBQ family, as a different gender, as a thoughtful guy who secretly enjoys The Bachelor), it's a bit like adolescence. They hear questions as judgement, jokes as threats, friendliness as sarcasm. And they may lash out in very unpleasant ways. Don't take it personally, just be kind.

Neither past trauma nor coming out are get out of being an asshole free cards.

Mmm hmm. Cis is doing damage to the English language.

To HOPE,

I'm one of the people Dan mentioned when he wrote, "There are tons of women your age who have similar dating histories..."

I didn't get into my first relationship until about 8 months ago. Not only that, I was a virgin when I began that relationship. Oh, and I'm 41. Yes, I literally was the 40yo virgin.

I'm not gonna lie to you, while much of the relationship has been freaking fantastic, a lot of it was really hard too. My girlfriend is also 41 and she's been in quite a few relationships throughout her life. I had to learn many things that a lot of other guys with more experience know intuitively.

The best thing I can tell you is to educate yourself. There are tons of great books out there on relationships. One that I would recommend is No More Mr. Nice Guy by Robert Glover (awful title but as a feminist ally, I can say that it's not as bad as its title makes it out to be).

Hang in there buddy. Educate yourself. Put yourself out there. Be honest. Take risks because that's the only way anybody ever learns.