I totally understand your insistence on IN CANON. I did wonder what had happened, and that's - yeah. That's not cool, what with that still being about the menz.
I'm not trying to talk about politically correct language, I'm trying to talk about language that is potentially quite insulting and/or incorrect. I think I HAVE suggested a way of framing the criteria in a way that isn't transphobic - I think that as it stands, the language in the criteria IS unintentionally offensive. I know that, especially if the terms are new to you, they can be confusing, and I appreciate that you are worried about causing offense, and I think that now that I have talked to you I understand what you are going for and that you are just trying to be clear (and in no way are you trying to be insulting/offensive/transphobic) but I am saying that you need to make it clear in the criteria that you don't define trans women as 'men presenting as women.'
Actually, thinking about it, I have a simpler suggestion, that I think remains as clear as you want it to be, and removes what I see as the problematic component:
"canonically female characters (both trans and cis) OR as canonically male characters that, in their canons, overtly and consistently, by their own choice, represent themselves as women."
I think adding "(both trans and cis)" makes it clear that there is no implication that trans women = men who present as women (which is really the thing I think is potentially unintentionally offensive).
I would also suggest that allowing men who are crossdressers in to the criteria is not necessarily the correct way to go, as it only exacerbates the idea that trans women = crossdressing men, whereas the reality is that crossdressing men are still men (and therefore I believe inappropriate in a ficathon about women). But I understand that you are trying to keep up with other communities, so, you know. :o)
no subject
I'm not trying to talk about politically correct language, I'm trying to talk about language that is potentially quite insulting and/or incorrect. I think I HAVE suggested a way of framing the criteria in a way that isn't transphobic - I think that as it stands, the language in the criteria IS unintentionally offensive. I know that, especially if the terms are new to you, they can be confusing, and I appreciate that you are worried about causing offense, and I think that now that I have talked to you I understand what you are going for and that you are just trying to be clear (and in no way are you trying to be insulting/offensive/transphobic) but I am saying that you need to make it clear in the criteria that you don't define trans women as 'men presenting as women.'
Actually, thinking about it, I have a simpler suggestion, that I think remains as clear as you want it to be, and removes what I see as the problematic component:
"canonically female characters (both trans and cis) OR as canonically male characters that, in their canons, overtly and consistently, by their own choice, represent themselves as women."
I think adding "(both trans and cis)" makes it clear that there is no implication that trans women = men who present as women (which is really the thing I think is potentially unintentionally offensive).
I would also suggest that allowing men who are crossdressers in to the criteria is not necessarily the correct way to go, as it only exacerbates the idea that trans women = crossdressing men, whereas the reality is that crossdressing men are still men (and therefore I believe inappropriate in a ficathon about women). But I understand that you are trying to keep up with other communities, so, you know. :o)