It's from some random blog. I didn't think a link would be necessary. I'd have to wait until tomorrow to link it at this point as I used my 20 daily searches through the COCA database. Although if you're willing to admit that "trans" can be a noun then that's great.

Lol at random blog. Exactly. I never claimed nobody in our history had ever used the expression. I do claim it is exceedingly rare and asked you to find any mainstream source that used it this way. So far we've got a screenshot of a random blog. Yikes.

Except I used it myself in the last thread before this even came up. I'm certainly no random blogger.

I think you might have confused my post when I spoke about mainstream sources. That was for using "trans" as a noun, not "blacks". As I quoted earlier:

I think you've provided the evidence in support of the bolded, but I was noting the non-bolded parts.

I did find one example from something not quite a random blog where the sentence was "the trans role in Stonewall....", and while that's syntactically an adjective-- it's functioning quite like a noun given that the sentence could be rewritten "the role of trans people in Stonewall..."....it still could even be a noun if the intended use was the genitive "trans' " with an apostrophe.

Ultimately Uke, given that "gays" is quite common and with the rise of trans identifying individuals, you are going to increasingly see "trans" used as a noun going forward. Because people don't care about style guides and because it's too easy to make an analogy from "gays/blacks/whites/etc".

it's weird to me that, that people think a simple article as "the" makes such an enormous difference.

I don't think it does. yeah at first I thought it reads and sounds a bit weird and racist when luckbox used "the trans" but the longer it is digesting the article does nothing.


ze Blacks
ze Trans
ze Germans
ze Jews
as Arabs

I know plenty people who would say that who are not stupid and just try to get the message across so speak frankly
think about it, does it really make a/any difference at all?? it's completely unnecessary to use it, but it doesn't make any difference imo. the context matters only.

it's usually stupid people who say that, or people who just speak their minds and not think about it. they don't even have to be stupid. but usually it's people who just started learning the language and don't know how to place articles.

I've seen quite a few movies and so I know prison language, they say the blacks, the whites, the Latinos etc. and they also skip the article, what's the problem? I don't really see it.

"don't mess with the zohan" remember that movie? kids talk like that. do they mean bad?

My apologies. I did misread that post and had not read the earlier one.

I want to further expound on what I felt is lacking in transgender terminology for what one might conceivably try to say in a title like that used in the New York times thread as it was initially posted, which was: Is the "New York Times biased against transgender?" So although I agreed that by adding people to make "Is the New York Times biased against transgender people?" works more in accord with transgender terminology standards, it wasn't really the type of noun that I thought was lacking.

I was thinking a word that could broadly denote transgender related things, such as transgenderism could imply if it was acceptable, or one that denoted the state of being transgender, such as transgenderality, likening that one to heterosexuality for instance, may have been the semantic imperative of the OP in his original version of the title, but seeing that no such words existed that are considered acceptable, it is possible that he just went with transgender. Of course I'm not insisting that he felt constricted in actuality, only that it could have been possible based on my own experiences. If the two words I brought up, one denounced and the other a completely made up term by me, were used in the title, for reference, the title would read as follows: "Is the New York Times biased against transgenderism?" and "Is the New York Times biased against transgenderality?", respectively. Transgenderality admittedly sounds odd, but that is beside the point.

In spite of my dissatisfaction over the expressed limitations in terminology, even for me the stand alone trans to denote trans people is seemingly odd, but I wasn't really looking for a trans people substitute, as my post elucidates.

"transgenderism" was used recently in journals-- WPATH's journal had it in the title until 2019 as the International Journal of Transgenderism. It is now the International Journal of Transgender Health.

From what I recall a little while back, this sort of medicalized use of the word was among the last, and it's being quite out of vogue to say "transgenderism" for a while now. Certainly all the style guides are against it.

I guess that settles it, then.