Gloria,

While I agree, wholeheartedly, with the ideas presented in that men are often abused, I do have to ask a couple pointed questions.

Why "men and trans"? Why the separation?

Why "bio woman"?

I realize these are semantic based questions, but they go to the heart of a deeper matter that, in fact, this article speaks to in some ways, though maybe not intentionally.

I think the message of your post is quite important and it's wonderful that you have taken time to address this issue.

However, like dyssonance, I stumbled a bit on the phrasing "men and trans." This kind of phrasing implies that trans men are somehow different and separate from those who fall under the more general grouping, men. By logical extension, this phrasing implies that trans women are also separate and different from the more general grouping, women.

Also, the modifier bio—as in bio female or bio male—is falling out of favor. For one, many trans people modify their biology via hormones and surgery to fit the sex they identify as. Furthermore, many trans people will point to medical research on brain differences as evidence that their gender identities are biologically based.

As an alternative, you could say "cis men and trans people" rather than "men and trans." You could also say "cis women" rather than "bio women."

In all fairness, as has been discussed elsewhere (a column by Father Tony, notably), you didn't actually do *wrong* in saying men and trans.

Trans is an extremely wide variety, and some of those within the trans grouping do not identify nor can they be accurately described as belonging to the binary.

I asked, first and foremost, in order to avoid what happened in the Father Tony column, where he used "women and trans" to talk about primarily binary identified individuals, and was pleasantly reminded with a thwack to the head of this point.

It was a matter of clarification -- a benefit of the doubt.

This is an example of cisprivilege, of course; this setting of trans as a group as being a third category, when, in fact, it is the same two present categories, plus umpteen additional ones, all in one not-so-neat little package. It is also an aspect of heteronormative privilege, as I demonstrated in that earlier posting.

This makes it very difficult to speak to trans issues as a whole, and requires that one always be more explicit when discussing them. And its kid of a trap -- the easier thing to do is, as Emily suggested, just use male and female or men and women (men and women, preferably).

The problem then is that you ignore the issues of non-binary identified transfolk, rendering them invisible.

So the only way to be safe is to be explicit in our speaking to it. If we mean Men and bigender.cd, tv, gq, drag, effeminate men as well, then we need to talk to it. If we mean masculine spectrum folks, we should speak to that.

It means being more aware and since there is great diversity, it's akin to speaking to issue's of race or religion -- if you mention a few examples, most don't have an issue and you avoid seeming racist or bigoted. People get it.

That means, however you have to educate yourself -- not always the easiest thing. Heck, I'm not even fully aware of all the variety out there!

Oh pooh. :(

I killed another one.

I think the problem is that people assume domestic violence is more wrong than a barroom brawl because it's a boy hitting a girl (in their minds), when, personally, the problem is the abuse of intimacy and trust that usually results in victims covering for their assailants.

I doubt that'll change, though; we're a violent culture and don't seem to show much awareness of the fact that we accept violence against others as the solution to so many problems.