Words shape feelings. Words can either alter or harden perceptions depending upon one’s emotional reaction to them. One of the things I think we lose sight of is how our attitudes are shaped by our emotional response to words. If we feel like we have been belittled or attacked, we tend to get defensive and harden our position and look for evidence to support our bias. We surrender to our emotional need to win. On the other hand, if the words make us feel understood and affirmed at least, we are more receptive to considering the objective logic of the point the writer or speaker is trying to make, even if it is different to our own. We feel a desire to connect. Just look at the virulent political discourse going on at the moment. One of the reasons we can’t seem to agree on anything is that everything has become personal. We are constantly angry and on the defensive. So how do we defuse the situation, or at least turn the heat down enough so that we are willing to consider others’ viewpoints?

One way is to avoid words and phrases that are designed less for communication than to trigger the listener. They are words which tend to project the application of a sense of power and righteousness by the speaker over the listener. This basically never works. The normal human response is to feel under attack and fight back in kind. The discussion is over before it even starts. We are all familiar with the derogatory terms surrounding race and sex. We have become sensitized to their power to inflame. Other terms are less obvious. The term “trans widow” is one of these less obvious slights. It is intended by the speaker, either consciously or subconsciously, to blame the transitioning partner for “killing” the husband of the wife in the relationship. It carries the implication that the trans partner has done something morally wrong. This is not only inaccurate, it is hurtful. Language needs to be used which is less severe. To acknowledge that the wife in a trans relationship has been hurt and blindsided is legitimate. It is reasonable for her to reevaluate whether she wants the relationship to continue. It is also reasonable for her to feel like she has been betrayed on some level. But as Leonora has pointed out. No one has died. The former husband has changed in that she has become her more authentic self. She is still alive and available to emotionally connect with her wife. The question is whether the relationship can adapt, or whether things are so different that one or more of the partners feel like the marriage contract has been irrevocably breached. Whatever the outcome, the feelings and needs of both parties should be respected. Language which helps them to understand themselves and find ways to be conciliatory about the situation is much more productive than that which drives emotional wedges between them. Language which is intended to, or has the effect of creating, hurt by one party blaming the other is never appropriate.