I only speak for myself.  In the end, it’s all I really can do anyway.

I say that because the international trans community is in a state of flux.  As the community defines itself, we’re discovering just how diverse "trans" really is, and just how inadequate any one single definition is when it tries to cover everyone.  One end result of this is that in 2011, within trans and LGBT forums, nearly every conversation on trans issues, trans rights, gender studies and identity disintegrates into a debate about "transgender," its use as an umbrella term, and whether there should even be an umbrella at all.  It’s reached the point that it’s stymied any other discussion at the international level.  And ultimately, I realize that nothing some idiot writer and blogger from Southern Alberta says is going to change that, but I can make my own declaration on the matter.  And in that, I speak for myself.

Because our language for trans issues is changing.

Years ago, as I found community in the developing Internet (it took much longer to find any local community), I watched the language we used to communicate our experience change as we fumbled from flawed term to flawed term trying to figure out which word was a better fit.  From Usenet newsgroups to UBB forums, contact sites to support message boards, the language metamorphosized.  Back then, sometimes the banner was "transvestite" or the abbreviation TV (which I never liked, but it seemed to sometimes be the only option on trans-friendly forums or contact sites), until the medical definition’s emphasis on clothing fetish became the predominant cultural meaning and consequently the word was no longer appropriate.  Other times, the word was "transsexual," but many felt that even though it was technically correct (that is, about physical sex), it too generated a public perception that gender identity was about sex (as an act or orientation) rather than about who we are.  Some female-identified people even used "shemale" for awhile, until it became obvious that the "she’s really male" undertone of that porn-created term was inappropriate.  It was clumsy and it’s more than a little weird to look back on now, with people gathering at places called "Trannyweb" and the like, since those terms were often the only words we had.  Even if you listen to classic trans songs like "Lola" or "Walk On The Wild Side," you’ll find lyrics that were well-intentioned or fun at the time but button-pushing now.  Consequently, many of us gravitated to "transgender."  It seemed to have far less baggage -- although we would later learn the person who coined it, Virginia Prince, originally meaning for it to be exclusionary too, applying only to non-transsexual crossdressers who were attracted to women.

In the past couple years, a "don’t call me transgender" rallying cry has risen up among transsexuals and has drowned out just about everything that anyone has tried to do positive for trans issues. Every conversation gets drowned out in allegations of misrepresentation, annexation and invalidation at the mere suggestion of having anything at all in common with anyone who willingly wears the label "transgender."  The language is changing.

I still (and probably will always) see some of this coming from bias.  There are folks who believe that if transsexuals could divorce themselves from a "transgender" umbrella term and make the public at large see a black and white difference between them and other trans people, then finally we would be able to obtain human rights, respect, dignity, access to medical care and legal name changes, and more.  Homophobia is sometimes in the mix too, with heterosexual-identified trans men and women resentful of being characterized as anything but straight.  These are distinctions that a person certainly has a right to clarify, but when it’s motivated by a desire to disavow and disparage others, it becomes exclusionism, it’s throwing people under the bus, and it’s bigotry.  But it’s not the only reason that the term "transgender" has become no longer viable, and it’s also not the motive of everyone who takes this position.

Some of the division has formed because of fears of being associated with some radical ideas.  Those who embrace a gender binary don’t always understand those who see various shades of gender. A March 2011 move by the Australian Human Rights Commission catalogued over 23 different genders, including "transgender, trans, transsexual, intersex, androgynous, agender, cross dresser, drag king, drag queen, genderfluid, genderqueer, intergender, neutrois, pansexual, pan-gendered, third gender, third sex, sistergirl and brotherboy."  And, well, not everyone is comfortable with what is seen as radicalism.

There is also some change coming from a literalist perspective, in the same way that other terms used to describe trans experience have evolved and changed. "Trans" means across, or indicates a transition of some sort.  Technically, if someone transitions and obtains surgery, it is their sex that changes, and not their gender.  There is also a difference in emphasis that we as individuals put on the terms "sex" and "gender" -- driven by seeing our issue as a question of biology versus social construct, physical versus mental.  But although sex and gender characteristically differ and can be in opposition - as happens with transsexuals - I doubt the two concepts can ever be completely decoupled.  Transsexuals who now disavow "transgender" terminology do so under the reasoning that it is not their gender that changes, only their physical sex.  Which is true... but that incongruent physical sex still did exist, and changing words does not change that history.

Don’t get me wrong: I do believe that a transsexual man or woman who reaches a point of personal completion (often seen as when surgery happens, but not always requiring that) and slips into the gender binary is entitled to call themselves a man or woman, and should no longer be required to identify as trans in any way.  Indeed, my own experience is that trans issues and memories fade as time passes, so it wouldn’t make sense to force anyone to still identify as transsexual.  Personally, I have no issue with those who do wish to leave "trans" anything behind, as long as (again), it’s not done so in a way that disavows or disparages.  Transsexual, transgender, trans... there is a serious problem if we start viewing these as rigid boxes that have no escape clauses -- indeed, the whole concept of trans-anything is rooted in thinking outside the boxes.

As said, the characterizations above aren’t the only reasons that a case is being made that a "transgender" umbrella is no longer viable.  We are remiss if we fail to look at some of them, because there are some reasonable issues to consider.  Ironically, because of the level of anger and volume, the "don’t call me transgender" conflict unintentionally erases some of the very issues it attempts to raise.

One of these is the subject of erasure, and the idea that by including transsexuals under a "transgender" umbrella, transsexual-specific issues such as medical care, identification issues, legal status and surgery disappear into a fog of gender theory.  And depending on where one lives, this may in fact be true.  In my experiences in Alberta, Canada, though, if you say "transgender," the general public thinks first of transsexuals (and usually specifically transsexual women), so from where I stand, it would seem more like we’re in more danger of erasing everyone else.

There are also, at times, some very real conflicts between what transsexuals who are fully-identified as men or as women need and what people who identify as a third gender or third sex need.  We’re seeing this, especially in gendered spaces, where transsexuals simply need to be accommodated as the men and women they are and live as, while third-gender / third sex or genderqueer people might require independent acknowledgment.  In 2010, for example, Australia’s norrie mAy-Welby became the first person (possibly in the world) to be officially designated a "gender not specified" - a designation that was sought at norrie’s initiative, but probably wouldn’t sit well with other trans folk.  In India, this also became clear with the 2011 Census, which was hailed as the first to have an option for trans-identified people:

Sometimes, these crossed purposes extend beyond trans frontiers, too, such as in Unidos da Tujuca, a famous samba school in Brazil which went a step further:

It’s not hard to imagine what that kind of sudden "othering" feels like to people who’d already settled into everyday life without always having to be singled out.

There are also concerns at the medical level that any alliance with non-operative trans people creates the impression that transition is optional, when the reality is that for those who require surgery, it is often an absolute need.  It’s no secret that the cost of surgery and the barriers that we encounter during medical transition are incredible, and obtaining insurance coverage similar to that available for any other medical condition is becoming almost impossible.

In the end, though, I can only provide part of the picture as to why it’s now largely felt that "transgender" is no longer viable.  I don’t represent that position.  I can speak only for myself.

My first published article was about transmisogyny within the community (although we didn’t have an accurate name for it at that time).  Since then, I’ve listened to the reasoning, even if I’m still not inclined toward division.  And while there is emerging science that supports a biological cause of transsexuality, medical verification is neither some magical event that’s going to suddenly legitimize transsexuals in the eyes of transphobic people, nor is it clear whether there might also be a similar biological origin for other trans people.  Nor should the biology-or-choice question even be the basis upon which which we decide who is worthy to be equal, anyway.

Like the language, I guess, my thinking has changed on this somewhat.  I still have no personal dislike for the term "transgender" and have said before that I don’t really care what the term is, just as long as there is some point where varying trans communities can meet on any shared issues, and shared healing during shared tragedies.  And when it comes to human rights, I still strongly believe that if we work for the inclusion of gender identity / transsexuality in legislation and leave behind gender expression / transgender (or whatever term one prefers), then we have only accomplished half of what is needed, and have perpetuated exactly the same kind of desertion that we once experienced.  I don’t believe that binary-identified transsexuals have adequate human rights as men and women, since I’ve seen it happen time and time again where we are redefined according to other peoples’ standards, regardless of how complete our transition and documentation may be, and where any revelation of trans history sparks discrimination.

Is there an umbrella?  Well, if transsexuals are separate from "transgender," then who does the latter term include?  Crossdressers, genderqueer people, non-gender or dual-gender expressions, maybe some drag, although there are several drag performers who wouldn’t characterize themselves as trans... if "transgender" today covers such a widely diverse range of people, then it’s still certainly an umbrella term.

And in the end, if we don’t broach some of those conflicts between what binary-identified people need and what third-sex or third-gender people need as a "community" of trans people of every stripe -- if we can’t figure out some kind of equitable resolution -- then how can we expect cisgender and cissexual legislators to figure it out?  More likely, if we can’t devise something that makes sense within the social order, then we’ll probably have one perspective thrust upon the other.  And at that point, someone has become further disenfranchised, and we have failed them as a community or communities.

The trans community is emerging, self-defining and shaping itself, and making the same mistakes that most disenfranchised groups do, including creating division.  The thing to remember is that what is happening right now in trans culture is really nothing new to any emergent social movement.  The need to self-define as a community causes us to self-define as people, and discover that we’re really not all the same.  While we sometimes have similar needs and aspects, we are not all the same.  Inevitably, some are going to feel threatened by that, or react negatively to those perceived differences as we struggle to emerge from the margins.

And we are emerging from the margins.  It’s just not always easy, not always perfect, and when we look back in hindsight, there will have been errors - and probably some of them will have been hurtful.  It’s not always easy to see them when we’re standing in the middle of change.  We can only try to be diligent to avoid the errors we see.

And the word "transgender" seems to have become the latest casualty in trans self-definition.