I think the NAACP can call itself whatever it wants, but it’s interesting to note that the original leadership team was mostly white people, so even the organization designed to advance Colored People wasn’t initially run by people of color.
From the About Us section of the website
"The national office was established in New York City in 1910 as well as a board of directors and president, Moorfield Storey, a white constitutional lawyer and former president of the American Bar Association. Other early members included Joel and Arthur Spingarn, Josephine Ruffin, Mary Talbert, Inez Milholland, Jane Addams, Florence Kelley, Sophonisba Breckinridge, John Haynes Holmes, Mary McLeod Bethune, George Henry White, Charles Edward Russell, John Dewey, William Dean Howells, Lillian Wald, Charles Darrow, Lincoln Steffens, Ray Stannard Baker, Fanny Garrison Villard, and Walter Sachs. Despite a foundational commitment to multiracial membership, Du Bois was the only African American among the organization’s original executives. "
I dunno. The reappropriation of slurs is a widely observed and understood phenomenon. Not sure why one would find it odd that groups are not regularly referring to each other with every slur ever used.
Also doubt that the reappropriation of the n word as opposed to colored is in fact arbitrary. I’m certain there is some academic writing on this specifically.
Trans person is generally fine. It’s the verb form, transgendered, instead of the adjective transgender, that is problematic, because the former makes it sound like something that happened to them rather than something they always have been.
It’s akin to why we say a gay person is “out” instead of, like, gayed, or turned gay. There wasn’t an event that made or marked them as trans, it’s always been who they are
This is what I was going to say as well. It’s called “person first language” and definitely makes a difference. It’s big in education, but it should be more widely understood and adopted imo.
Child with autism. Person who is blind. Voter who is republican.
Recognize their humanity first and their differing ability second.
Honestly not sure what is preferred there. When I learned about person first language it was regarding individuals with differing abilities, which being trans obviously doesn’t fall into. “People of color” doesn’t fit that either, but the reasoning for why that is preferred seems to hold true I think. I’ll leave your question for someone with more direct experience to answer, but I too am now curious if the trans community has a preference when it comes to this language. Thanks for asking.
Twitter are ate my brain. I can’t find anything very recent except some random court records stuff I don’t understand. Anyway, his family said he was mentally ill and had tried to have him involuntarily committed. He got into white nationalism in prison. He was on probation at the time of the incident.
It doesnt happen to someone any more than someone being born black. It is who they are, not something that happens to them. Its what makes the -ED suffix so offensive
I have a feeling this will eventually be adopted in the community for the reasons mentioned. For now, the shorthand trans person is easiest and acceptable
I think we can all agree with that. What I’m curious about is why they would want that. There is not really a wrong answer to that question. I’m just curious what it is and if it is anything beyond historical precedent +/- inertia.
It seems reasonable both that the NAACP would not want to look like they are caving to external pressure, and also that Black people in general may put in the collective effort to reclaim some but not all slurs.
