Was thinking about this earlier. There is no actual transitive properties to being transsexual or transgender. By all scientific standards a “trans” person is accurately described as pseudosexual, or an imitation of another sex. It is abundantly clear that “trans” has no complete transition, it is an imitation, and in most cases a mockery. A transient state requires a completed transition, this is of course impossible for “trans” people because they can’t remake their dna or grow ovaries/ testes. Pseudo is the only apt description for someone who believes they are a different biological makeup and attempts an imitation of that makeup.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (62)
sorted by:
No I think that's a reverse rationalization and they started calling themselves transgendered (don't forget transsexual) because they didn't like transvestites. Then they created an etymological foundation for their new terminology. You're right about the sex/gender delineation. I hadn't noticed it but you hardly hear the "SEX AND GENDER ARE DIFFERENT!" propaganda any more.
Transvestite is the oldest term; first coined over a century ago and, given the massive overlap in communities, likely the cause of the inception of the other trans- terms. Transient clothing wearer would mean they're "occasional dressers", not "cross dressers".
It just doesn't make sense for the cis-/trans- roots to be a post-hoc rationalization when the original transvestite term doesn't make sense the other way. It just got bastardized into transgender and trans-man/woman as part of their weird semantic degeneration games.
Ok I think we're saying the same thing. I don't supporting the "transient" interpretation either.