Reply to comment

In "see minotaur," Jessy writes, "There aren't any words for what I am, not real words, that just anyone would understand" (2).  This sentence seems to capture the trouble we've been having in trying to define "feminism": We can't say the word in a broad context—a context of "just anyone"—and expect that it carries the same connotations for our listeners as it does for us.   This can be problematic when we care how people are interpreting our words, twisting them to mean something other than what we intended.  Maybe we don't care enough about the opinions of people who think "feminist" = "man hater" to explain our personal philosophies to them, but surely sometimes we want to express our versions of ourselves using conventional language.  

I was struck by Stryker's insistence that "words like 'creature,' 'monster,' and 'unnatural' need to be reclaimed by the transgendered.  By embracing and accepting them, even piling one on top of another, we may dispel their ability to harm us" (246).  I understand the idea of the reclamation of words, but does the intent of the speaker truly not matter once those words have been reclaimed?  Even if you can embrace words that you previously found offensive, can you always avoid taking offense to them when someone inteds to offend?