Amy,
I’ve heard complaints about the terms “homophobia” and “transphobia” being ableist. Personally, I’ve tried to switch them out for heterosexist and cissexist (high-falutin’ language) and anti-gay and anti-trans bigotry. Those terms seem to work pretty well for what I want to say, thus far.

I believe also, that somewhere in the comments section of one of her articles someone seriously says that the South Park episode “Mr Garrison’s Fancy New Vagina” is one of the most accurate depictions of transexuals around.

As for Stonewall/NUS not wanting Bindel to speak at their functions; the NUS, simply being a group representing the interests of students has had similar arguments in the past over whether to allow the BNP to stand for election on campus which resulted in them being banned. whether people agreed or not tended to hinge on whether they believed some things were so poisonous and odious that we should not give them the space to be aired or whether we should allow anyone to speak or it would constitute censorship. Stonewall endorsing JB seems a little more like this;

“Hey, Nick Griffin? Rock Against Racism here. You should totally come and speak at our next concert! You’ll be on right after the black and white minstrel show, it’ll be a SCREAM.”

You ask a lot! I’ll see if I can shorthand it.

No, I’m not super happy about the ways the words are structured–homobigot and transbigot are probably better terms, and maybe they should be pushed. (Of course, you still have a few issues of ambiguity–are you bigoted against trans people, or a tras person who’s a bigot? But we have the same issue with the current terms.)

The only reason that I personally use the term transphobia is because homophobia has, for better or worse, become the standard word for bigotry against gay people. And in queer spaces, it makes it just a bit easier to connect with people who haven’t perhaps considered the idea of systemic prejudice against trans folks by offering a quick linguistic parallel that is familiar.

For general audiences, I’ll probably still use the words, although as it turns out, I didn’t use transphobic very often in the piece. (At least not when I turned it in. Please note I neither wrote the headline nor had final edit!) But perhaps in more progressive circles, the time has come to move past both terms–especially since, as you say, it can have triggers for people with real phobias.

But I do think there’s some element of fear in the reactions of, say, Julie Bindel to trans people: maybe not a fear of the trans people themselves, but what they represent. Or to paraphrase a Civil War quote that has always stuck with me, “if trans women are women, then our theory of women is wrong.” And I think that’s not a small part of what’s going on, and I’ll probably develop that as a post, maybe even here, although I’m trying to keep this place from turning into Transgender Beatdown, and hey did I also mention that the thing I did about the Secret Lives of Married Men is in the 13th Carnival of Feminists? Or that an early overindulgence in Faulkner leaves me prone to long, complex, and quite often run-on sentences?

I love this. A lot.

I just wrote a long diatribe about why, as a neuroscientist, I think gender is more than just a social construct. Then I deleted it for being waaay too tl;dr.

I wondered if I could ask your opinion about a thought I’m still formulating. If you have time!

I find the words “transphobia” and “homophobia” to be somewhat limiting. I know these exist. As big problems. Sometimes, though, I think we use these phrases for plain old-fashioned bigotry too. I wish we didn’t. It’s not the same thing.

I actually went to a psychologist to treat my arachnophobia. It was bad. She drew a circle with 8 lines protruding out of it (could have been a sun), and I cried. I got better to the extent that I can see a spider without hyperventilating. I still can’t even look at pictures of a tarantula. That’s a phobia. People with agoraphobia can’t leave the house. That’s a phobia. It’s irrational. So why do we afford these bigots with the moniker of fear?

Once again, I’m not saying I don’t believe in real transphobia. I know it happens. I just don’t think Julie Bindel is afraid, and I don’t like giving her that title. I’d like to be able to distinguish between people who are actually afraid (and treatable) and people who are bigots. Maybe that’s the thing: call them bigots.

I don’t know. So I wondered what your thoughts are on the subject. Am I being too literal? Do you think these words are damaging when applied to people who aren’t phobic? Are you happy with our collective language for addressing this problem?

And hey, Ms. Bindel replied in the comments! And I replied to the reply!

Just one comment I’d like to make about Beatrix Campbell’s: “Again, so what? This solidarity does not extend to women who feel unsettled by the presence of people who used to be men in women-only spaces and services.”

Ummm. No. Of course not, because that “unsettled” feeling? The trans woman is not causing it. Your bigotry is. This entire argument smacks of segregated bathrooms before civil rights. On the one hand you have a group of people who are demonstrating and speaking out against a woman for her (completely changeable) poor opinions and poor decisions in voicing said opinions (loudly and ad nauseum). On the other hand, you and your friend are “offended” by what another group of people are. This is not – what did you call it? “Airing the complications and troubles of transgender politics.” This is you pretending you aren’t as bad as Julie Bindel by speaking language that sounds slightly more respectful. I mean, you didn’t put “woman” in “quotes.” No, you just repeat the phrase “used to be men” over and over and over again. My favorite was, “Transgender people who used to live as men and now live as women.” Why not just say trans women? I mean, that’s kind of the definition (vs trans men). Could it be because you really really really want the words “men” and “women-only” to pop out without taking any responsibility for also looking like a bigot?