The quality of 'transgenderism' as a word

+ innit 11:16:06
Yesterday, there was a chat about the word 'transgenderism'.
One claim was that it was a word of bias or bashing.
In support of this position two links were provided:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=transgenderism
A quote from this link was: "Transgenderism is a somewhat dated word meaning "being transgender," which has been misappropriated by transphobic pundits and spoken about as though it were an ideology. This latter use is a shibboleth for members of the far right and trans-exclusionary radical feminists (if there is still any difference between the two)."
This is evidence for that thesis.
That is the 4th definition on Urban Dictionary for that concept.
Here is the 1st definition: "A concise word for referring to anything and everything within and behind the state, experience, theory, ideology, perspective, premise, perspective, belief, philosophy, etc, of that which is, was, or can be "transgender"."
So, by that citation, there is more evidence that it is not a discriminatory word, though it shows there is some evidence for it being discriminatory.
→ Fen has joined
+ innit 11:19:37
In general, I would say that Urban Dictionary is a very low quality source, but it does tap a little bit into the direct social experience, as opposed to a scientific/intellectual analysis of that experience.
I second source was provided: https://docs.asee.org/public/LGBTQ/Transgender_Vocab_Handout.pdf
In this source it is stated: "Gender dysphoria – (noun) a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch conflict between their gender identity and their current gender expression, hormonal levels, and/or body. It is sometimes referred to as gender identity disorder (GID), gender incongruence, or transgenderism; all three of these terms are outdated and should not be used."
To be clear, I am not using transgenderism as a synonym for gender dysphoria.
I would probably use the term gender dysphoria.
I think the most clear interpretation of this quote is that transgenderism shouldn't be used for gender dsyphoria, not transgenderism should never be used, as it occurs in the section on "gender dysphoria".
Furthermore, it just asserts that it is outdated, which is insufficient for me (in the case of transgenderism never being usable).
The top of this citation includes this: Sources: The Guardian, Gender Dictionary, the Safezone Project (2015),2016 LGBTQ Equality VCP
I searched for both of those source but have not yet found a supporting quote -- anybody interested in this claim could do that and it would be helpful.
Now, two sources from me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Journal_of_Transgenderism
The International Journal of Transgenderism is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal covering research on gender dysphoria, the medical and psychological treatment of transgender individuals, social and legal acceptance of sex reassignment, and professional and public education on transgenderism. It also publishes theoretical essays, policy statements, commentaries, letters to the editor, and review articles. The journal aims to inform a broad audience including policy makers, practitioners, and the general public.[1]
11:24:00
* Fen rolls his eyes at the pseudo-intellectual Tourettes.
+ innit 11:24:32
So, unless we think this journal is participating in a public bashing of transgender individuals, the usage of "transgenderism" in a journal name would be strong evidence the term is not discriminatory in at least some contexts.
* 11:24:40
Ignoring Fen
+ innit 11:25:44
My final citation will be from the roots of English to speak about burdens of proof: -ism: "forming nouns denoting an action or its result."
+ innit 11:27:04
So, according to this pattern of English, if somebody said, I am transgender, they are indicating their state is at least partially defined by being transgendered.
If I wanted to speak to this person directly I might ask, What's it like being transgender(ed)?
If I wanted to speak about a group of such people I might say, "Oh, I have greeted all the trasgendered people, or all the people with transgenderism"
Now, I accept language is a complex, nuanced, vague, overloaded process, and the same word can and does have different meanings across time, across cultures, across emotional states, etc.
But, given this pattern of forming a noun with the -ism suffix is a pattern in English, the burden of proof is on those who claim that general pattern in this narrow case is discriminatory based off common usage.
And two citations were given, which, to my assessment, provided some support for *one of the views* that 'transgenderism' is a discriminatory word.
But I showed with the journal name and the same Urban Dictionary citation that these are probably not the majority views.
One last thought about language: Even if we had showed that, it would only show that transgenderism as it's commonly used is discriminatory -- it doesn't mean every usage is discriminatory.
Not all the meaning found in speech acts is found in the words themselves: some of the meaning is in the hidden intentionality in the speakers mind, and the surrounding cultural context in which the speaker learned the word.
So, we can agree a word like 'nig*er' is discriminatory, but there are contexts in which it is not, e.g. a child who has no understanding of the history of that word who comes across it in an open passage of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
The child is not using that word with all of the historical force it's typically used by.
Now, obviously the standard for a child and an adult will vary a lot, but I think a similar principle applies.
Even if the word was discriminatory, transgenderism, that is not how I used it. I used it as part of the general English practice of using the -ism suffix. My intent was benign.
If that word was very discriminatory, then I should be educated to this larger cultural context and then I acquire a burden now that I know it's discriminatory and can be more harshly judged.
Starting off by assuming bias and discrimination is not a good place to start from.
Finally, *even in the case* the word is usually discriminatory, *and I know that*, it doesn't mean I am being discriminatory.
Language is used in many different ways, and I may reject that historical and cultural context and wish to reform the word for a new meaning. This may not be effective, but it would mean the word as I am using it is different than it is commonly used.
This will no doubt lead to a fair bit of confusion, but it would, I argue, be sufficient to be non-discriminatory.
African-Americans do this with 'nig*er' or 'nig*a', I do it it with 'race' and 'gods'. Language is a socially created phenomenon and we can dare to redefine words as our experiences and knowledge as humans change over time.