transpeople (and transman and tramswoman) is dehumanizing.

“Trans people” and “cis people.” Otherwise it reads like, “blarglepeople” and “actual people.”

The mashing together of the words was the language of the early anti-trans propaganda. It was successful enough that even allies continue to use it, unfortunately. Mostly because they’ve come up with new and worse ways to deny our existence while specifically addressing us.

I would say that it feels like blowing into the wind, but I know things like this can change, especially if 'teh youth" get it.

  • Melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Linguistically they’re prefixes I mean. You’re right, when used on its own it is an abbreviation but within transgender or cisgender they’re prefixes. It’s a relatively new thing to use “trans” or “cis” as an abbreviation instead of a prefix, so it feels natural to turn it back into a prefix by attaching it to the next word, and “transwoman” and “ciswoman” still kind of work as long as you do both because cis- and trans- are modifying the womanness. I agree that even that is uncomfortable and othering though, it’s definitely better to use trans as an adjective on its own and not divide women/men into separate subcategories based on transness. I just am more understanding of that particular faux pas because I get how people come by it.

    “Transpeople” on the other hand doesn’t work the same unless you’re referring to those who are trans-person and don’t identify as people, which I imagine is not who these people are referring to on purpose and rather they are dehumanizing us as a whole. Both are bad, but I don’t think they’re equivalent.