revisiting the asterisk question
it might seem odd to people that i”m revisiting this question at all… but my reasons for it should be clear by the time we get to the end of this.
a while back, i wrote a post discussion why the asterisk is transmisogynist and, yes, i completely stand by what i wrote in that post. more recently, i wrote something about whether or not crossdressors and drag queens belong under the trans umbrella and it made me realize that, as far as the intent and history of the transgender umbrella goes, the asterisk is actually a fairly good representation of this.
and while the person i cited in the latter post is a white trans woman, i noted that the fiction of a trans ~community~ hurts trans women of colour the most.
it is, without a doubt, obvious that the white trans ~community~ (like the white gay and white lesbian community) can only forge a path forward at the expense of decentering and pushing out twoc.
it is erasure by dilution.
as this all occurs to me, i suddenly realize that trans* is actually a faster and easier way to write
yes, i love the derisive and sarcastic tildas, but trans* has only six letters!!!
i find this greatly appealing to my sense of laziness.
and, i mean, i already use trans* as a way to identify members of a fictional community predicated on my exclusion and erasure. (ie, people who use it in all earnestness mark themselves as people i can write off and ignore).
but trans* is also a nice, concise way to refer to that imaginary community
so if you catch me using trans in the foreseeable future, i”m refering to the community that not only came up with a transgender umbrella in the first place, but went on to create the tidy and concise trans as a way to further dilute, reduce, and erase.