You're viewing a single thread.
I find it weird that people like him are fine with using the term straight, but cis is for some reason seen as insulting
It's because "straight" is a term idiots like themselves invented at a time where straight meant "good" and "not broken".
Im contrast, "cis" was coined by smart people to accurately describe them with no inherent bias or value judgment. They hate that sort of thing.
Cos wasn't coined for anything even remotely related to sex or gender. It's just the Latin opposite of trans. Which honestly just makes whinging about the term from reactionaries like Musty all the more ridiculous.
No it's not, it's the ratio of an angle's adjacent side to the hypotenuse in a right angled triangle.
Damn autocorrect. Imma leave that up, it's too funny.
The "x just means y" argument has its merits, but there are many words that "just mean" something, but after being used in a bad way now are considered offensive. "Retarded" just means "slowed down", and "negro" just means "black". So then the question becomes, who gets to decide if a word is offensive? People with dictionaries, or people who feel offended? Either way, I think society should be consistent.
The thing that's most alarming to me every time I hear someone say "cis isn't offensive" is the complete lack of self-awareness, from groups that should really know better. But humans are humans so it just is what it is.
That's really funny actually. All it means is unchanged
Damn. I’d forgotten “straight” or “bent” were once the only options (looking at you, 1980’s) . Language moves quickly to adapt.
My issue is only ever hearing it intended as an insult. I don't really qualify as cis anymore (pansexual now) but when I did I disliked it because I only heard it with that negative connotation.
Technically, you're still cis regardless of being pan now as cis describes the gender part of your sexuality rather than the attraction part.
As for only hearing it as an insult, maybe you've been around people who confused cisgender and heterosexual like you seemed to do?
Or maybe you've seen a lot of trans and nonbinary people who have had bad experiences with cis people and thus only mentioned the term either while defending themselves against bigotry or recounting bigotry?
My point with all of this is that, though your experiences may vary, that doesn't necessarily change the wider use and meaning of a word.
In the specific case of "cis", the ones advocating for it to be classified as a slur might not ALL be bigots acting in bad faith to remove a shorthand for them as a group that doesn't inherently imply that they're the only "normal" ones (see othering, Why Bullies Win, and "Victimized Bully Syndrome"), but that's almost always the case.
Anyways, I hope this helps give a clearer picture of why calling cis as a slur is (usually) an act of bigotry rather than a defense against bigotry.
I don't have anything to say that the previous comment or stated. Thanks for the valid point but please don't tell me "oh no you weren't insulted". I was and stating or implying I wasn't is exactly as fucked up as someone doing it to a trans person.
please don't tell me "oh no you weren't insulted". I was and stating or implying I wasn't is exactly as fucked up as someone doing it to a trans person.
I didn't, nor did I intend to. Sorry for apparently being unclear, though.
Apology accepted, it's difficult to tell tonal context on the Internet.
While I agree with the greater point you're making, in context, you're responding to someone who said "I've been referred to as cis as an insult" by saying "no you haven't." It shouldn't take too long of a step back to realize that's not a great thing to do.
you're responding to someone who said "I've been referred to as cis as an insult" by saying "no you haven't."
No I'm not. I'm specifically acknowledging their experience and then pointing out that it's not universal nor even the norm.
It "shouldn't take too long of a step back" to realize that replying with a strawman is not a great thing to do.
You acknowledged them which was great, and then immediately turned around and started re-educating them. It was a valuable message to get out into the world, but a victim recounting their experiences is NOT the audience you should be trying to educate.
Just say "I'm sorry that happened to you, some people are scumbags, being cis is totally fine" and redouble your zeal to spread that message in a more appropriate setting.
Edit: To clarify, I'm not saying I doubt your intentions. What I am saying is that it wasn't very tactful or self-aware.
Also:
pointing out that it's not universal or even the norm
That's called "denying someone else's experience." Again, it's about the worst way you can possibly comfort someone who is talking about when they were hurt. It doesn't matter if you think it's common: it happened to them. Even if they were the only person in the world that had happened to, knowing that wouldn't make them feel better.
You acknowledged them which was great, and then immediately turned around and started re-educating them
No, I provided the wider context. Please stop with the ridiculous strawmen.
Also:
pointing out that it's not universal or even the norm
That's called "denying someone else's experience."
No it isn't. That's like saying that it's denying the existence of octopi to say that there are other animal life in the oceans.
The original topic was whether or not the word "cis" is inherently a slur or an insult. I acknowledged their experience and then brought the discussion back on topic.
Again, it's about the worst way you can possibly comfort someone who is talking about when they were hurt.
They said themselves that they weren't overly bothered by it in the first place. Stop pretending that I'm callously retraumatising them by acknowledging their experience and then getting back on topic.
It doesn't matter if you think it's common: it happened to them
I fucking KNOW and I acknowledged it ffs!
The reason I brought it back on topic was that the anecdotal experience of one person, no matter how real and traumatic, doesn't override the fact that most resistance to the word is a bad faith effort meant to re-other trans people in order to more easily abuse and dismiss them with no negative repercussions for the abusers.
THAT'S what it's about and frankly, your continued insistence on missing the point is starting to smell suspicious..
Latin is a gay language for academics and naval gazers
- Borderline illiterate bigots
testing things, ignore me.
-test no space:-test no space
- test with space:- test with space
– test en:– test en
— test em:— test em
• test dot:• test dot
* test asterisk:- test asterisk
+ test plus:- test plus
You, a fool: "testing things, ignore me."
Me, an intellectual: scrutinizing your comment with unacceptable intensity
Who are you talking to? There's nothing there.
I will not ignore you mohahahah
\- test backslash dash:- test backslash dash
Because "cis white male" is used pajoratively by certain extreme left groups like it's a problem or something.
The phrase is fine, but saying it like it's a problem is what makes it offensive. Just like any personal characteristic (age, sex, orientation, race, etc), it's not offensive inherently, it's when other groups discriminate based on it that it's a problem. Just because weird bigot people like Elon are saying it like that doesn't mean he started it
Lmao I like that
Yes, that does happen, and why? Because lots of cishet white males suck.
-Source: cishet white male.