I disagree with Trent’s analysis of the term “transgender.” First of all, the prefix “trans” usually does not imply a binary opposition. It frequently means “across” or “beyond,” like it frequently does in astronomy. Only on occasions, and linguistically they are rare, does trans ever imply a binary opposition.

The more drastic point of disagreement, however, is that transgender automatically implies transition. I do prefer the term “transgender” for myself, and have not “transitioned” in any sense of the word. In fact, part of the reason for this preference is that the prefix “trans” can mean a variety of things. I do not disagree with the false assumption that a person’s body determines hir gender. That does not mean that the term “transgender” always gives rise to that assumption.

Moreover, claiming such a word is broadly offensive when there are many people who do prefer to use “transgender” is equally problematic. People need to respect everyone’s preferred identifications, which includes those of us who do or do not prefer “transgender.” Just as Trent does not deserve to be called terms ze does not identify with, nor should ze claim that another’s identifier is inherently flawed. Yes, at the end there is the note about personal identification; however, the very construction of the Wespeak assumes that those of us who do prefer the term “transgender” embody the falsified concept that physical representation is all of gender. Regardless of the intent of the piece, that is the implication. Is language limited? Of course, but don’t assume the limitations you see are the same ones that apply to everyone else.