Triggers vs Reclamation

Trigger Warning: In this post, I discuss a transphobic slur that trigger me, and it is present for educational purposes. Warning is posted in case it might trigger you too.

Kinsey’s commented a while ago about triggers vs silencing. This reminded me that I had meant to write this post, then forgot about the topic completely.

It is generally accepted (in activist communities, at least) that it is a Good Thing (TM) for a marginalized person to take an oppressive slur and turn it around and use it in a positive way as a personal identity label. I approve of the concept; it is a strong way to reclaim power from the kyriarchy and reduce the impact of a slur on a personal, psychological level at the very least.

However, there is a potential collision of interests here. I am going to use a personal example to illustrate it. When I see the word ‘tranny’, I flinch. I really despise it as a word; it triggers anxiety and dissonance in me. I have found that this is true regardless of usage. Whether it is being applied as a slur, used in a discussion about slurs (like it is here, incidentally), or used as reclamation, it still triggers me.

So the problem is that it is helpful/empowering/healing for some people to reclaim slurs, but it is harmful/triggering for other people to hear them, sometimes even in a reclaiming capacity. It doesn’t look like there is a way around this that doesn’t screw someone over. Either we assert the right to reclaim words and risk triggering some people, or we deny the usefulness of reclaiming words and remove a tool of empowerment.

I don’t have a useful answer here. Discussion, as always, is welcome.