Monday, December 29, 2008

Odds and Sods - End of Year edition

From the Orange County Register, Pastor Rick Warren floats angelically... next up, he WALKS on water, too!


Lots of stuff to check out! I hardly know where to begin.

First, on the Pastor Rick Warren follies, as I have come to regard them...Mona Charen, right wing crackpot in good standing, offers the following (quite amazing) observation:
What particularly outraged gay rights activists was a comment Warren made in a TV interview when he compared two homosexuals getting married to a brother marrying a sister or an adult marrying a child. Those were not the most felicitous comparisons and probably unnecessarily hurt the feelings of gays and lesbians.

And yet, the point Warren was making was a valid one. Once you abandon the traditional definition of marriage to suit the feelings on an interest group, by what principle do you stop redefining marriage? Gays and lesbians argue that their same-sex unions are loving, committed relationships. Fine. But there are, or could be, other loving, committed relationships involving more than two people. Supporters of gay marriage say this is a ridiculous slippery slope argument.

But consider the name that many gay activists have adopted. You no longer see gay and lesbian alone. Instead, the new terminology is LGBT — lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. Lesbians and gays say that without gay marriage, they cannot fully express themselves as they really are. But what about bisexuals? I ask this not to poke fun or to hurt anyone’s feelings, but in all seriousness. How does gay marriage help a bisexual? I assume that if you are bisexual, you believe that you need to have sexual relationships with both men and women. If you are a bisexual man married to a woman, don’t you need to break the marriage bond to express your bisexuality? If you choose to express just the homosexual side of your bisexuality, then aren’t you gay? Likewise, if you choose to express only the heterosexual side, how are you a bisexual? Why is bisexuality not a recipe for infidelity? As for transgender people who believe that they are “assigned” to the wrong sex, their sexuality seems a deeply complicated matter. According to Wikipedia, the term “transgender,” which is always evolving, today encompasses “many overlapping categories — these include cross-dresser (CD); transvestite (TV); androgynes; genderqueer; people who live cross-gender; drag kings; and drag queens; and, frequently, transsexual (TS).” We are now in the realm of a multitude of sexual deviances.
Well, as a bisexual, let me say that I don't see why I am thus COMMANDED to infidelity. Huh? (I wrote about some of these issues in my piece on Bisexual Invisibility.)

The common-sense reason bisexuals are in favor of gay marriage is in the event that we fall in love with a same-gendered person (rather than an opposite-gendered person), we would probably like to marry them.

Is that really such a complicated matter?

And Mona has unwittingly let the cat out of the bag, hasn't she? This ultra-scary GENDER CONFUSION (of Mona's) and her pearl-clutching fear that people's sexual identities are just spewing out all over the place--unrestrained, every which-way, chaos reigns!!-- is the real problem. BARBARIANS AT THE GATES, seems to be Mona's almost-hysterical message, and if we grant them the right of gay marriage, everyone will be changing sex all over the place. ((((screams!))))

If all of this bothers Mona, we must be doing something right.


I didn't know that the author of The Bitten Apple had been a student of Hugo Schwyzer, whom she says was always very open to her as a right wing student. This granted her the necessary freedom to listen to his opposing views respectfully; she did not feel she was under siege. Her process is fascinating:
One of the reasons I disliked my creative writing professor last quarter was because he was so blunt in saying how “hateful” and basically stupid conservatives are. Being liberal in your politics does not necessarily mean that you are open-minded. He asked the class one day, “Are there any really religious people in here?” Obviously, I couldn’t raise my hand, because I would be such a killjoy, so I just shut up and let him talk about how there is “no big guy in the sky” and how “a 2,000 year old dead guy is not going to come back from the dead.” I was pissed. My voice was silenced. One of the reasons I like Obama is because he does not automatically deem the other side stupid, ignorant, or hate-filled.

Several months ago, while I was taking that creative writing class, I realized exactly what made me so upset about that professor. It wasn’t entirely his politics, to be sure. I reflected upon my own journey from being a fundamentalist, Mel Gibson type Catholic into a relatively socially liberal feminist, thanks largely to the women’s studies course I took back in spring 2006. Hugo, my professor and mentor, was and still is much more liberal than I am. Regardless, he always accepts me at whatever stage I am at in my spiritual journey. He accepted me when I was a staunch pro-life, anti-gay marriage 19-year-old student. He was empathetic with me when I was contemplating losing my virginity, knowing how much my virginity meant to me. And he accepts me now. Had I had a women’s studies professor who merely wrote off the conservative perspective, I likely would not have been receptive to the class and might not have embraced feminism to the extent that I have today. In order for me to break out of my ultra-conservative worldview, I needed someone to empathize - but not necessarily agree - with my position at the time.
Also check out her post on Jessica Valenti's upcoming book, The Purity Myth.


Palmetto state native Eartha Kitt (from whom Madonna stole "Santa Baby," right down to the baby-talk phrasing) has passed on. She was a fabulous singer, but baby-boomers undoubtedly remember her best as Julie Newmar's replacement as Catwoman on the old 60s Batman TV show (featuring hizzoner, Adam West).

In addition, Majel Barrett Roddenberry has also died.

Unfortunately, Nurse Chapel never got to bed the enigmatic Mr Spock, but we were all rooting for her!



For Immediate Release: Dated December 27, 2008
Another Transgender Woman Shot in Memphis
On Christmas Eve, a Memphis television station reported the shooting of Leeneshia Edwards in Memphis. She becomes the third transgender woman shot in Memphis in just six months. At last report, Leeneshia is in critical condition. We extend our hopes and prayers to Leenashia for a speedy recovery.

We also ask for anyone with any information about this latest crime to call Memphis Crimes Stoppers at (901)528-CASH.

The shooting of Leeneshia Edwards helps shed light on a disturbing trend in Memphis. Transgender women who work in the sex industry in order to survive are now being targeted by a pervasive culture of violence.

The indifferent attitude of law enforcement towards the February 16, 2006, murder of Tiffany Berry, and the February 12, 2008, beating of Duanna Johnson by Memphis Police Department officers, has sent a message that the lives of transgender people are not important. This has fed the culture of violence that has permeated the second half of 2008, and is exemplified by the July 1 murder of Ebony Whitaker, the July 28 murder of Dre-Ona Blake, a two year old girl who was killed by the man who had previously been charged with the murder of Tiffany Berry, but was allowed to walk free for two and a half years, the November 9 murder of Duanna Johnson, and now the shooting of Leeneshia Edwards.

This open season on transgender people in Memphis and elsewhere, regardless of whether or not they engage in sex work, must come to an end right now.
Read the rest of the press release at Questioning Transphobia. And to donate, go to Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition.


I watched a boat-load of movies over the holidays... most chosen by the intrepid Mr Daisy, who knows I am too exhausted to rub two brain cells together while I am busily toiling in the Christmas retail trenches. He chose some great movies, but my favorite was The Good Shepherd (2006). It brought back that strongly-paranoid Cold War vibe that many of us were raised with. Directed by Robert DeNiro, lots of critics found it long and tedious, but I found it tightly-wound and terribly unnerving, like the old Mission Impossible TV show could be, at its very best.


Hope everyone has great plans for the New Year!


The Bitten Apple said...

Hey Daisy! Thank you so much for the links to my blog and for your kind words. :-)

JoJo said...

Wow! That's a lot of odds n sods. Unfortunately it may have gone in one eye and out the other. lol That sux about the transgendered woman being shot. :(

As to Eartha Kitt, couldn't stand her. Not her singing, not her portrayal of catwoman or batwoman or whoever she played.

ZenDenizen said...

I never realized you were bisexual. I'll have to go back and read the post you referenced. I don't doubt the existence of bisexuality but I'm not exactly sure how it works so any insights would be interesting.

thene said...

If I ever knew you were bi, I'd forgotten. 0__0

The answer, darling Mona, is that gay marriage would benefit this bisexual by encouraging her to think of her straight marriage as something other than a sham. Because it is a sham, to claim that there's some level of relationship I can enjoy with men but not with women.

M St. said...

I'm not supporting the the idiocies of the people you were quoting (whose particular views I'm not interesting in researching and finding out), but I do think there is a valid point to be made around "once we redefine marriage as not just between a man and a woman, but between any loving couple, regardless of gender, why should we stop there?".
Why should we stop there? If we are not limited by mainstream Christian conceptions of marriage, why not keeping expanding the envelope? Why should three people in love not get to marry? What's wrong with polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, etc etc. Why prevent bigamy?
There's valid arguments against some of these - but what is so special about two people, rather than more, that means they can get married, but more cannot?

Daisy said...

M St, I don't have a problem with polygamy or polyamory. What other people choose to do is not my business. However, it would take a rewrite of existing law to recognize such a union legally. (If we are using the "Mormon model"--the first two married people could be the "primary" couple, and the others might be listed as dependents for the purposes of the IRS.) I believe medical coverage should be for everyone, so I would not limit it to married people.

Why prevent bigamy?

Well, there is bigamy that is deliberately deceptive, and then there is "bigamy" which is in fact polygamy, which would occur with the full consent of all (adult) parties involved. I have no problem with people choosing that. I don't think the government should be in the business of endorsing Biblical marriage, which is in effect favoring one religion over another.

Is that what you are asking?

M St. said...

Kind of, yes. But more complex. If woman A wants to marry man B, who is bisexual and already married to man C, with whom woman A doesn't want to get married, but then later she marries man D, also already married to man C, but she still has no interest in a four way marriage, then why not? If they are all in love, why do they deserve less rights to marry than a mere two people of any gender?

Deceptive bigamy is another thing altogether. Though off the top of my head, it seems the argument could be made, if person A and B are married, but persons B and C are in love and want to marry, but person B still loves person A even though they know that a threeway marriage is definitely off the cards, why should the government invade the privacy of persons B and C by inquiring whether person A has been informed. There is no law against not telling people things, as of yet. It's not the same at all, but for some reason I'll mention, do we want laws that force transpeople to disclose trans-status to people before marrying them? Boy is that not a good comparison.

Meowser said...

Geez. These tighty-righties make it sound like everyone's just panting to have a group marriage, and the only reason they don't is because it's illegal.

As far as I'm concerned, once we have some sort of universal health care figured out, and therefore nobody's workplace is on the hook for an employee's 20 wives and 50 kids, I don't personally have a problem with a group marriage on two conditions: Everyone involved is 21 or older (because in Meowser's world, everyone waits until 21 to get married), and anyone can unilaterally exit the group marriage just by seeing a judge, without the others having to sign off on it. Otherwise, a) who cares, and b) how many people would want to do it anyway?

As far as the "but then people will be able to marry their cats!!!1111!!!!" nonsense is concerned...uh, hello, animals can't sign legally binding contracts. (Neither can children.)

Daisy said...

Yes, what Meowser said. :)

M St. said...

I take it, that wasn't directed at me?

Daisy said...

M St, I really don't understand your questions, sorry. :(

And Zenny, I've never noticed bisexuality "working" any differently than heterosexuality; fidelity and monogamy are certainly possible for bisexuals. (?) Mona seems to think bisexuals must be having sex with both genders all the time. This is as bizarre as believing heterosexuals must be having sex with every opposite-gendered person they meet, and thus are incapable of monogamy. (?) I find the whole way of thinking very strange and don't understand it at all.

I am a very faithful, old-school monogamous person, and would be, no matter the gender of my chosen life partner.

As a woman married woman to a man for 21 years, I have the option of not telling anyone, and for a long time, did not. This is the south, after all. At one point, someone asked me (I must have said something to give myself away), and I told the truth, and that was that. I have told the truth ever since.

I'm continually amazed at the difference it makes to other people, knowing this fact about me.

M St. said...

They weren't questions so much as examples of where I see polyamarous marriage should be legal for the same reason gay marriage should be legal.

One of my good friends is currently in a relationship with another guy, and his girlfriend. He is also involved with that other guy's ex-girlfriend, who has no objection to them, but no interest in her ex-boyfriend and his new girlfriend, either. They're not considering marriage, but I've known people (a rarity, true, but since when does being a minority count against you?) in long term polyamarous relationships.

I often see people say "oh! noes, gay marriage it'll lead to poly marriages, cat marriages and paedo marriages." and other people reply by saying "what a silly slippery slope bunch of nonsense"
Clearly that's nonsense in the case of cats and children. Why should it be the case for polyamarous relationships. It seems to me that the principle "let those in love marry" should extend to them.

bluelyon said...

My daughter is bi and only recently came out. She's been married to man for five years and he says he is okay with her bi-sexuality (though his actions sometimes don't jibe with his words). My concern is for her as I know she wishes to act on her attraction to women, but finds herself constrained by the marriage. Hard enough to find a partner, but when you're married, it just looks like you are a player, and that's really not where she's coming from.

And I wonder how she can be emotionally attached to one and still be seeking out another. Like Daisy, I'm the monogamous type, so I have difficulty with the concept of more than one love interest at a time. All I see is potential for a lot of hurt.

ArrogantWorm said...

"It's not the same at all, but for some reason I'll mention, do we want laws that force transpeople to disclose trans-status to people before marrying them? Boy is that not a good comparison."

What is your comparison here, and if it's not the same at all, why'd you mention it. Also, a space is needed between 'trans' and 'people'. I am not my qualifier. I'm curious, though, how you're going to draw an analogy between a highly personal medical procedure and lying to partner(s) about who you're fucking.

ArrogantWorm said...

"And I wonder how she can be emotionally attached to one and still be seeking out another. Like Daisy, I'm the monogamous type, so I have difficulty with the concept of more than one love interest at a time. All I see is potential for a lot of hurt."

See, I've always wondered how you can only have one love interest at a time. Contrarywise, while I may think someone on television is attractive, I can't develop an actual crush on 'em, which from what I've gathered happens all the time in the rest of the population, least 'round here.

Being emotionally attached to more than one person doesn't necessarily mean I feel for an individual more or less than another, and there's many, many variations of love/affection. There isn't a finite level of emotional attachment to be doled out for me - I don't have a subconscious meter that pings and says "Alright, you love this one, all resources and attention go directly to ----." Bluntly, instead of focusing on one person, I'd focus on more than one. Bit of a bad description, since that isn't quite how emotions work, but s'close enough. The potential for a lot of hurt, though, depends more on what/how people choose to handle attraction, not that the attraction is there in the first place. Isn't as if attraction to others is switched off once straight people get married, last I knew, so I'm not sure why her being attracted to some woman is more 'dangerous' (I dunno what other word to use here, if you've got a suggestion I'm all ears) than her being attracted to another guy?

- Also, Daisy, your word verification seems to be mocking me. The box is there but most of the time there's no script to speak of.

ArrogantWorm said...

It's just that I don't understand why one form of attraction is so much more ...special? enough to warrant concern than another, I s'pose. Aside from the physical there isn't really a difference in the sexes that I've found, and even the physical if often hazy, so I'm...confused why one casual attraction would elicit worry and not the other. I s'pose if she had someone specific in mind, though, that that would pose a problem in the relationship.

M St. said...

"What is your comparison here, and if it's not the same at all, why'd you mention it"

The comparison was "being forced to disclose stuff before marriage". Which is the same in both cases. I mentioned it because I thought of it.
I mentioned it because, though the situations are different, that factor is the same. Also, because bad comparisons can sometimes be useful.

"Also, a space is needed between 'trans' and 'people'."

Sorry. It's t'internet though. I have to pause a moment and make a bit of an effort to remember not to call you 'the trans' or just transes. I only do you the honour of a close to full name out of politeness for a group I'm not part o. Hets, bis, cis's, and the rest, rarely get the same pleasure.

"I'm curious, though, how you're going to draw an analogy between a highly personal medical procedure and lying to partner(s) about who you're fucking."

Sorry to disappoint. That wasn't the analogy. It was between not disclosing a prior marriage, and not disclosing a prior gender. Fucking doesn't come into it.

ArrogantWorm said...

Apparently you do need to pause and make the effort, because I don't see you running together any other words to refer to a group of people.

Perhaps it's our differences in personality but I don't find myself disappointed to hear that you didn't, in fact, mean to compare trans people to lieing partners. Don't bother with shit like the facile 'sorry to disappoint', my sense of humor is thin this week as it is, s'rather wasted. Clarity doesn't seem to be your strong suit - and since it's often hard-pressed to be mine when writing, that says something. A short but pertinent bit of information - If you're clear about something, I don't ask questions about it. If I meant to mock you, you'd damn well know it; I don't do passive-aggressive such as the 'sorry to disappoint', it wastes too much time.

ArrogantWorm said...

The comparison was "being forced to disclose stuff before marriage". Which is the same in both cases."

And well, this. It isn't in fact the same, not that I can see. While I'm not married, I have dated, I am polyamorous, n'also trans. What one person considers important information might not even be on their partners' radar to spill the beans on, let alone come to the forefront in conversation. For instance, I don't give a damn if someone was married before and I don't consider it my business to inquire about the possibility, since it's their past. I've found it's generally best to let things take their course instead of requiring a checklist to tick off before wedding bells. That and so few people get to check all the boxes, the list o'wished for requirements are a bit ridiculous. Reminds me of some of the personal ads floating around on craigslist. I'm here for the present and future, not to peer at someone's history after I fall in love for things I may or may not like which is, in the end, their decision to share. Things from their history that'll probably affect the current timeline that'll have to be incorperated should I ever marry (which I strongly doubt for a multitude of reasons) are definitely needed, like chidren from a previous marriage if there's joint custody, or bills (bills are always popular), but the sharing of experiences, I'd rather it not be forced just because something used to exist, especially if the experience brings bad memories. And I still say that a trans person's 'outing before marriage/partnership' isn't the same as telling of a past marriage, there isn't quite the same level of I-demand-to-know! animosity towards the concept. Besides which, ID cards and documents already tend to out a lot of us, among other things, so the 'we can all hide like a past marriage if we want to' doesn't really apply. No one forces anyone to disclose a past marriage, though there's a strong expectation. It's something a lot of people share as it does tend toward the intimate, but generally unlike documents, presentation et cetera, there's a choice involved in the 'when/should I tell about my old marriage.'

M St. said...

"Apparently you do need to pause and make the effort, because I don't see you running together any other words to refer to a group of people."

Whut? Did you see me refer to any other people? I make the effort where I can be bothered, I certainly wouldn't do it to please you.
Polypeople, bipeople, bipedalpeople, cispeople, transpeople. That better?

"Perhaps...etc ... it wastes too much time"

Indeed. So you don't do passive aggressive. But you do do aggressive, and your sense of humor is lacking, atm. Well that's cool, that probably explains why you're seeing passive aggressive in my comment. Aggressive people often see hidden aggression where there is none.

I said "I'm sorry to dissappoint" because you said "I'm curious as to how" and I was not satiating that curiosity. No other reason.

M St. said...

"And well, this. It isn't in fact the same, not that I can see..."

That specific element is the same. In either case if the government forces you to reveal something, the government forces you to reveal something. The similarities fade there. And it's not previous marriages I was talking about, it was current, but undisclosed marriages. Much worse.

ArrogantWorm said...

Good lord. I'm quite sure you've read as you've responded but I'm assuming, quite generously at this point, that you ain't just skimming, so for the ...third time is it - I misremember, gets repetitive, how is -

Put a Fucking Space Between Words That Involve Me

missed? It isn't a request. Requesting, in the long run, doesn't get much of anything in the way of decency. "Please, Sir, can I have some more?" gets you stepped on more often than not. Now, there's two replies to the 'put a space' demand there. The first one,

"No, I don't care enough to give you basic human courtesy-in-writing even as I talk all - about - you and use your group for erroneous examples that make so little bloody sense -anything- could be exchanged in lieu of it for a better fit"

(you said something akin to that yourself, it being a horrid comparison that didn't fit, but it seems you've went back and dug in your heels otherwise since someone agrees) and then there's

"Yes, I'll fix the squashing together of words the next time I bring it up, you're not you're qualifier first and foremost".

Could be a workshop title at this point. Room 101: Using A Space Judiciously. Y'know, like, Where Appropriate.

The point is that no one runs together 'bi people' or 'white people' or 'straight people' and yet, everyone and their cousin runs together trans people and feels justified in doing so even after it's pointed out. Your initial posts read incredibly badly. You made erroneous comparisons. A tiny thread of damn-near infestimental, mostly wrong information is not enough to make an analogy and cling like a burr to it. I learned it, mostly, and so will you. Eventually. I hope. If your analogies and comparisons don't perk the hell up no one is going to agree with you - let alone understand you, which should be everyone's first goal - because your posts have a mixed tone, a for-and-against these people vibe due to comparisons and word choices - it isn't appreciated when reading and, as you can plainly see, brings confused replies by more than I.

But no, I don't see aggression in you or your posts and it wasn't my reason for being blunt. I see deliberate obstinance over what you think you get to refer to me as along with needless disagreement over something you - said you knew - was a rotten comparison. The latter with the crappy analogy I wouldn't mind so much alone, but the the first, foolishness (which everyone falls trap to eventually, generally an embarrassing thing, in this case regarding those poor squashed words) I cannot stand. When combined it makes me pissy at best. And yes, I'm aggressive. My back gave out again three days ago, among other pressing concerns and I'm not in the mood for repetitive illogical comparisons by someone who won't even separate two words while describing a group of people out of common decency, and meanwhile, you expect me to be polite while constantly saying "No, you've got it - wrong -".

Anyway, cramming words together and insisting it makes no difference is not conductive behavior for discussion. It spoils the start of whatever you're attempting to say for the people you managed to irritate with it.

Again, becuase it's really, really important - the whole point in putting a space between a qualifer and a noun is to acknowledge that a group's status - isn't all they are -, cuz that's generally all they're seen as by assholes - don't need that vibe leaking into casual conversation.

As for this,

"Whut? Did you see me refer to any other people?"

Refer to people. Why Yes. Yes I did. What did you - think - your multiple posts were doing? Your posts, along with everyone else's posts, refer to people. You aren't running anyone else's descriptions together. I don't see 'marriedpeople' floating around as a joint word anywhere, it's rightly separated. In fact, you've taken great pains (by your own admission earlier) to describe everyone in other groups as individuals, using 'people' by itself, but 'transpeople' is apparently a lump sum, so still runs t'gether. It's all a description - 'trans' doesn't get special decompensation.

The point was you didn't do that to anyone else, and yet, when I point out that a space is needed and really, sure would be mighty white of you as, (here, I'll enlarge the font so hopefully it won't be missed) I'M NOT MY QUALIFIER, NO RLLY you throw a mini fit about your Write-On-The-Internetz-Individuality-Twice (or something, as I said, some of it's pretty muddy).

But it certainly seems you think you can refer to me however you damn well please and expect me to 'be nice' to you after several attempts at explaining what you're fucking up, doesn't it?

As for your example;

The government doesn't demand you tell a partner about a current marriage since you can't, as of yet, be married twice with no loopholes involved. You can't make a comparison when there's no situation to compare it - to -. No demanding involved, marriage itself is currently a static situation - two are served under specific guidelines, no others need apply. There is no Government Demanded Telling because there Is No Legal Marriage-via-Polygamy Situation yet. Documents (the whole point of which is Show & Tell) and presentation (which is - also - all Show & Tell), on the other hand, are not static and are available for damn near everyone to get their grubby little paws on. If you insist on an analogy, choose one that makes more sense.

ArrogantWorm said...

I'm also bowing out, seeing as I've repeated m'self quite enough and that by now, you should've gotten the concept that a person is not their qualifier. It doesn't matter if you feel lazy or 'individual expression!' or whatever your reasoning processes are and don't give a damn - the people who you're talking about - do -. Certainly more than enough examples listed and why it's objectionable to keep it up. I'm going to go find some caffiene, it probably isn't worth the effort when people argue without thought to others.

- Blowing a raspberry in your general direction,


M St. said...

"Blowing a raspberry in your general direction"

Lol. I forgive your general orneriness, back pain's a right pain.

You do go on a bit though. I get your point. My point, is it's the internet. Who gives a toss? Clearly you, but in all your repetition you don't give me a reason I should be even more careful what I call trans-people, given I'm already going one better than I do for any other group except black people. i.e. including the word people.
And hell, when I'm where no one cares, I call them blacks too. Susumi. Next you'll be demanding I spell everything right and use perfect grammar for all my casual comments on t'internet. Or is it just the trans who need to be referred to correctly?

p.s. you'll notice I'm politely referring to you as you prefer, since we're having a conversation. That's just how nice I am. T'aint going to last tho, Regardless of the offense people take, I've yet to see a good argument as to why other people should dictate how much care I put into the grammar in my posts.

ArrogantWorm said...

Nah, I don't generally give a damn about spelling/grammar unless it looks like another word and I get confused. When descriptions are used as nouns or run into nouns and tacked on as if they - are - the noun, are the person instead of describing the person it's insulting, almost slur-ish because it implies that the person is so very different from you that you need the collective word in the English language for every human on earth -modified- or dropped altogether because whatever group that differs from the norm you're referring to isn't good enough to deserve the label 'people/person'. That using 'people' with trans separate as a description just isn't enough to show a variation, the word needs to be irrevocably changed. I'm not 'a trans'. I'm 'a person'. Language - written, signed and oral, affect how and not merely what concept is conveyed, contributes to the thought processes on a subject. It's as important as what's actually meant.