From: EthanGrace
, 77 months, post #21 |
As a Horse, I take offence that you don't recognise the term
cis-Human.
|
From: EthanGrace
, 77 months, post #22 |
But in all seriousness as others have said, yes there is an element
of SJW in trying to enforce these terms -- but in the end why care,
and maybe you need to ask yourself why it bothers you so much.
I personally don't agree with Cis terms but if it helps people who
do use it identify themselves or others easier then I am not
bothered by it.
On the other side, to SJW trying to enforce it - don't be
hypocritical ---using cis terms to identify someone might be
offensive to their own sense of identity as male/female.
Basically, take a chill pill, understand the context, use common
sense and have empathy for your audience :)
|
From: guest
, 77 months, post #23 |
- reads subject line*
- reads OP username*
Yawn.
|
From: guest (unknownorange)
, 77 months, post #24 |
"On the other side, to SJW trying to enforce it - don't be
hypocritical ---using cis terms to identify someone might be
offensive to their own sense of identity as male/female."
this literally shows a misunderstanding of what "cis-" means on the
most basic level. there is literally nothing offensive about it in
the slightest.
|
From: guest (Fed Up)
, 77 months, post #25 |
Many do not want to be labeled as cis, yet you barrel ahead with
your bigotry that they must accept the label you have self imposed
on them.
|
From: guest (Bud)
, 77 months, post #26 |
Why can't people be people? When you call someone a cisgender male,
it has a negative connotation to it. You're basically saying that
since they are in the majority, they are somehow bad and ignorant
and their opinion is less. It's condescending in my opinion. At the
end of the day, you can't change your DNA and chromosomes. You can
take estrogen or testosterone all you want but it doesn't change
your DNA. I'm sure some social justice warriors will want to kill
me for saying that but it's my opinion and it's up to them if they
can handle it or not. Another thing, it's hard to respect people
that preach to me that I am a science denier because I don't think
America should bankrupt itself to fight climate change yet these
people that call me a science denier or skeptic want to convince me
that there are 72 genders.
|
From: guest
, 77 months, post #27 |
"When you call someone a cisgender male, it has a negative
connotation to it. You're basically saying that since they are in
the majority, they are somehow bad and ignorant and their opinion
is less."
Except no, that's not what "cis" means or what it's meant to
connote. "Cis" is a Latin preposition meaning "on the same side,"
as opposed to "trans," which means "on the other side." So someone
who is transgender is someone who has gone from presenting as one
gender to presenting as the opposite gender; someone who is
cisgender is someone who still presents as the same gender they
were born as. That's it. That's all it means, and that's all trans
people mean when they use the term. It's meant to be a neutral,
clinical, taxonomic term.
Anything else you think "cisgender" may mean, it's something you
yourself have read into it.
By insisting that people not use the term "cisgender," you force
people to use language that otherizes transgender people... ie,
"transwomen must take estrogen supplements to achieve the same
estrogen levels as real women" or "normal women"... thus implying
that transgender people are not really women. Those of us who
accept that transwomen are really women would prefer to have a way
of speaking that doesn't inherently delegitimize trans people's
identities. Having "cis" terms allows one to say something like
"transwomen must take estrogen supplements to achieve the same
estrogen levels as ciswomen"; which allows one to discuss a
difference between different types of women without denying that
they are both women.
It would be as though we didn't have the term "straight," and we
had to say something like "Men are attracted to women, but gay men
are attracted to other men," thus implying that gay men are somehow
not really men. Very few people consider "straight" to be an
offensive term; it's just a term meant to distinguish between
people who are gay and people who aren't gay. "Cis" is the
equivalent of "straight" for the transgender community; it's a
neutral term that allows people, when necessary, to distinguish
people people who are trans and people who are not.
|
From: guest
, 77 months, post #28 |
Or, better yet, it's as though we didn't have a term for men, and
we had to say something like, "People have penises, but women have
vaginas," thus implying that women aren't really people, that
they're some bizarre other category of creature.
|
From: EthanGrace
, 77 months, post #29 |
@unknownorange
How?
Some trans folk are offended by the terms trans-men/women. They
want to be identified as just man/woman, despite as you say, trans
just being a Latin prefix. So you call them man/woman, but then
begin referring to others as "cis-".
Why cannot some people be offended by that, as some people are
offended by trans.
No-one has the right to be offended but if someone is offended by a
label you are giving them, then why be a jerk to them and stress a
moot argument?
|
From: EthanGrace
, 77 months, post #30 |
|
From: guest (Cathy)
, 77 months, post #31 |
Again, it's all about context... If there is a specific reason to
mention that they are trans, I don't think many are offended by
that. If there's no reason, then just use man/woman. Just as, if
there is a reason for it, no one should be offended by "cis". But
if there is NO reason, then it makes sense to use the word
man/woman (if it is even necessary to identify gender at all).
When people get offended is when someone uses "trans" to POINT it
out for no reason other than to point out that someone is "not
natural" or when someone says "men" or "women" without "cis" but
are CLEARLY talking about "cis" because they have the attitude than
"men" or "women" ONLY refers to "cis" men or women.
IOW, any implication that "trans" people are "not *real*" men or
women -- and especially when done for no other purpose other than
to make the point that they believe that is the case -- is what
most trans people find offensive.
|
From: guest (science stuffer)
, 77 months, post #32 |
"normal women"
let's science it up then, since you started... "normal", as oxford
(https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/normal) says:
Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected. so, when the
majority of something has a definite pattern, that can be called
normal. here is quite simple what is the usual behavior, the
pattern... hence, what is normal, and what is not. what is... shall
say... deviant?
yeah... that goes strongly attached with statistical concepts, as
normal curve and standard deviation.
if you wanna bullshit us with that, well, we can also say that
there is normal women and normal men, and those who are not. those
who fall away from the center of the bell curve.
|
From: guest
, 77 months, post #33 |
"implying that women aren't really people, that they're some
bizarre other category of creature"
they bleed every month, and dont die... I dont think you are far
from teh truth ;)
|
From: guest (Cathy)
, 77 months, post #34 |
Seems like you missed the point of "normal women" being in quotes,
SS. The point was that people who do what I was talking about and
use words like that are often the ones who are trying to put down
or exclude trans-people in some way. And, again, my point is back
to... WHY? For trans people, it is part of their identity and
self-definition to be women/men. WHY is it so important for someone
else, who quite likely, will never be very close or intimate with
one, to EXCLUDE someone from that group? And publicly? Feels a
little like "bashing" or "bullying" to me. What do you care?!?
|
From: guest (Kara)
, 77 months, post #35 |
For many, I think the problem is that the terminology is becoming
TOO clinical and that we're referring to people like
sociologists/biologists instead of just people. Too much
classifying.
For example, rather than say someone is a "straight guy", some
insist on referring to them as a "heteronormative cisgender male".
Both are technically correct but unless I'm in a discussion about
gender identity and orientation, I would much prefer to be called
the latter.
|
From: guest
, 77 months, post #36 |
cause its not a group, in the sense you can join or leave. you are
born this way... male or female, man or woman. the way you act,
dress or even alter your physical self doesnt make you change from
one to the other in the same sense that wearing a horse figure,
putting a fur tail, walking on fours and neighing, doenst make you
an equine instead of an human being. you are what you are... sad, I
really wish we could cross those barriers, but we didn't. and while
we fantasize about it, and not harming anyone, even with words,
some wants to loony cross that barrier, disregard of other beings,
with total selfish force the dark side can offer.
and i didnt miss the point... normal women
means those female humans under the middle of the bell curve. so,
no harm in using this term, right?
|
From: guest (Kara)
, 77 months, post #37 |
Whoops.
I mean the former.
|
From: guest
, 77 months, post #38 |
too much labeling, thats the points miss danvers. we are not jelly
to be in so much need for labels.
humans, enough. if you like to fuck just some kind of humans, so
not every human being are in your fuckable list, ok... no need for
a new word for that. just fuck'em. but, we are born as males or
females, men or women... and that has nothing to do with whom we
choose to kiss, or what kind of clothes one should or shouldnt
wear. humans, learn to differentiate things!
|
From: guest (Susan)
, 77 months, post #39 |
> you are born this way... male or female, man or woman
According to your
definition of "male" or "female" and "man" or "woman". Apparently
the definition is changing. Sorry that you don't like it.
|
From: guest (Kara)
, 77 months, post #40 |
Isn't that the crux of it? Definitions ARE changing but only
because people rejected the older ones in favor of newer ones they
thought were a better fit and then popularized them through
persistent and consistent use.
However, just as some rejected the older definitions, why can't
others do the same with the new ones for similar reasons? It may
not be progressive but that's not a priority for everyone.
|
|