Ethics in Journalism

September 1, 2017 5:13 PM

THE RADICAL COPYEDITOR’S STYLE GUIDE FOR WRITING ABOUT TRANSGENDER PEOPLE
posted by Joseph Gurl (19 comments total)

Do not care more about words than you do about people.

Preach.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 5:23 PM on September 1, 2017 [17 favorites]

This doesn't seem that radical to me? More, just, like, respectful. And reflective of reality. I mean, I know that a lot of people don't write this way, but I cringe every time I see it happen. Can we re-title this as "the not stuck-in-the-last-millenium copyeditor's style guide for writing about transgender people?" Because at this point when people write things like "transgenders" instead of "transgender people," or even "both genders" instead of "all genders," I feel the same as I do when I read things written in the 1950s where all the pronouns are "he" and "his" even when they're talking about all people. Get with the times! This is how people are, and there's no excuse for pretending not to know it anymore. Certainly not if you write professionally, that's for sure.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 5:33 PM on September 1, 2017 [5 favorites]

Respectful is radical.*

*Not snarking. Just... this is where we are in the world, when not being horrible to people can feel like a victory. I don't really feel OK about that.
posted by prismatic7 at 6:02 PM on September 1, 2017 [22 favorites]

Anticipation, the name of the blog is "the radical copyeditor," so I think you may be parsing the title incorrectly.

This is an excellent and thorough guide. I don't agree with every word, but I'm not going to pick it apart.
posted by AFABulous at 7:16 PM on September 1, 2017 [4 favorites]

I did have one question. Which is the most correct - Transgender people or transgendered people?
posted by Samizdata at 9:34 PM on September 1, 2017

There's a lot to like and little to object to in this although the first piece of guidance elicited a sardonic laugh:

Do not use this guide to harshly police or shame others’ language choices

The fact that the author feels the need to say this is instructive. Pity that there seems little prospect of this actually happening.

From personal perspective I've always liked the injunction in The Economist's style guide to, within reason, call people what they wish to be called. I confess that I am made uncomfortable however by the injunction to apply the "cisgender" descriptor to those who are not transgender. Labelling people with labels they don't themselves choose rarely end well, in my view. Otherwise, bravo for greater sensitivity in how we approach these issues.
posted by dmt at 9:34 PM on September 1, 2017 [4 favorites]

This doesn't seem especially radical to me, but common-sense (but then I don't live in a conservative bubble). As an editor, however, I find it helpful for providing perfectly reasonable substitutions for egregious epithets.

However, I find "do not care about words more than you do about people" a little troubling and emotionally manipulative, because for human beings, language defines our reality, and for me, to care about words IS to care about people. Those who play fast and loose with language are the sort who make "democracy" and "freedom" mean something diametrically opposed to their original definitions.
posted by tully_monster at 9:57 PM on September 1, 2017 [4 favorites]

I did have one question. Which is the most correct - Transgender people or transgendered people?

The answer is always whatever the person you're talking about prefers. But if you don't have that knowledge, the answer is always transgender. I'm not going to go into the grammatical minutia here, but "transgendered" is said to sound like something that people did or had happen to them, whereas "transgender" is something people are.
posted by one for the books at 10:21 PM on September 1, 2017 [15 favorites]

Cheers. I knew the Blue language wonks would have a clear, concise answer.
posted by Samizdata at 10:23 PM on September 1, 2017 [2 favorites]

While I'm here, here's an analogous book recommendation for people uncomfortable with the term "cisgender": Straight: The Surprisingly Short History of Heterosexuality. Because sometimes, these things that we think of as totally normal, natural, self-evident categories may not actually be very old. And these categories may be things in their own right, not simply absences of other, marked categories.

(Unless the uncomfortableness is with the specific word, not with there being a word at all, in which case I dunno. "Trans" and "cis" are an existing pair of antonyms in our (scientific) language, just like "homo" and "hetero" were, so really it seems to me as value-neutral a label as you could possibly get.)
posted by one for the books at 10:29 PM on September 1, 2017 [7 favorites]

Which is the most correct - Transgender people or transgendered people?

one for the books already answered this, but think of it this way: you wouldn't say "gayed" people, but you would say "flooded houses," because flooding is something that happened to the house. I understand it's a little tricky, because we also say things like "blue-eyed people" even though people are clearly born with blue eyes.

From the article: "Something as seemingly small as the difference between trans man and transman can have enormous significance to a person."

I've seen trans people use both, but I prefer "trans man," where trans is an adjective or modifier. "Transman" sounds like a noun that is a separate category from men; I'm a man first, and I happen to be trans.

A note on trans, trans*, and trans+: All three of these terms are used as abbreviations of transgender and/or as ways to more explicitly communicate inclusion of the full breadth of people whose gender identities are something other than was expected of them at birth.

I don't like the use of the * or +. You're either trans or you're not. The use of * and + after "trans" prioritizes binary trans people (those who are either men or women) as "normal" trans people. For example, Laverne Cox is a binary trans person, because she is a woman, and Chaz Bono is a binary man. Non-binary people and agender folks are just as trans, and they don't need to be relegated to a symbol outside the word. If you're including cis people who are gender-nonconforming (e.g., Lea Delaria), say that. GNC people have social challenges that may overlap with trans people but it's not the same thing. This is my view, and there's not necessarily a consensus at the moment.
posted by AFABulous at 7:25 AM on September 2, 2017 [3 favorites]

I've always read the * in trans* as a wildcard, or more specifically, shorthand for a trans[a-z\-]* regex. So it encompasses trans, transgender, transmasculine, transfeminine... anything beginning with those five letters. Is that wrong?
posted by one for the books at 9:33 AM on September 2, 2017 [1 favorite]

Respectful is radical.*

sadly, not in my experience. Some of the most self-centered, manipulative, destructive people I've ever crossed paths with have self-identified as radical.
posted by philip-random at 9:50 AM on September 2, 2017 [3 favorites]

I'm a copy editor, and I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. Language is a living thing, and most of us who work with words are deeply interested in the way it evolves. It can be hard to find authoritative guidance for language like this. I have a bunch of sources I use (including Buzzfeed's very useful style guide) but I always need more. Thank you.
posted by BlahLaLa at 9:59 AM on September 2, 2017 [3 favorites]

http://www.thepulpzine.com/the-trans-asterisk-and-why-we-need-to-stop-using-it/
posted by elsietheeel at 11:34 AM on September 2, 2017 [1 favorite]

one for the books, I have never heard of that usage.

elsietheeel's link (now linkified!) is a good explanation.
posted by AFABulous at 1:49 PM on September 2, 2017 [1 favorite]

Another good article for y'all: GLAAD Media Reference Guide - In Focus: Covering the Transgender Community
posted by AFABulous at 1:51 PM on September 2, 2017 [1 favorite]

Trans people must be understood as the authorities on ourselves and the language used to describe us.

That individuals are the ultimate "authorities on themselves" is certainly a radical position. If you agree with it as a basic principle or as a least-worst option, it's good to remember there are brave trans people out there articulating and defending it.
posted by smelendez at 3:35 PM on September 2, 2017

Use: gender dysphoria
Avoid: gender disordered; gender identity disorder (outdated)

I really hate gender dysphoria as a term when it's held up as being synonymous with transgender. Because not all trans people experience dysphoria. In fact, the term only really assumed such centrality because last time the DSM was revised, shifting to a definition of gender incongruence and dropping diagnostic requirements for experiencing distress proved controversial among professionals and it got rolled back to this idea, implying that people can fail to be miserable enough to be transgender and therefore denied the diagnosis which would allow access to transition.

In reality, few practitioners apply the criteria in an exclusionary way and will often be very creative in what they class as dysphoria, but this is a subversion intended to provide access to transition and satisfy insurance requirements. And things are moving forward - the other major diagnostic system, the ICD, is shifting from an extremely outdated 'transsexualism' diagnosis and going with 'gender incongruence' instead, and explicitly removing any requirement for distress or functional impairment.

While 'dysphoria' is certainly something many trans people experience (though less than you'd think, because after years of clinicians subverting the term many trans people identify it with experiences that include no actual dysphoria), it's really frustrating to see it still being applied to people who may not ever have experienced dysphoria without any appreciation for its history as a term intended for gatekeeping and exclusion of those same people.
posted by xchmp at 5:09 AM on September 3, 2017 [4 favorites]