Yeah and the underlying problem with this is the reactionaries who use it with an insult, "cis scum" aren't always trans. Sort of the case when I see supposed trans allies who are cisgender using it to insult another cisgender person. As long as the loudest voices are the ones using the word out of context as an insult we're gonna have a problem with perception around the word. Hell I've seen transgender used as a slur, does that mean we need to change that word too?Areloch said:
I wouldn't know, I'm not on any social networking sites. I have my phone and google hangouts. I can only speak to where I have the most exposure to it, and that's with my friends. Also 'fester' ... for every example of cis being attached to a pejorative, I'm sure I could find ten times the amount in anti-trans rhetoric. The internet. Never has there been a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. But there is nothing wrong with the word, and me pointing out its usefulness in being descriptive still doesn't change.Areloch said:
Then I find it a moot point, you'll forgive me. Because I have never come across it as a pejorative out in the real world. Even online, most times I run across cis tend to be benign.Areloch said:
That's not really the point I was making, but rather how it's incorrectly used given the number of people who promote it here as a 'substitute'. Also, the word cis on its own has no pejorative value. The word abnormal does. If I wrote a message 'die heterosexual scum' ... the word 'heterosexual' will not be any less viable a word to use in any sort of discourse, or 'tainted' by its association with a pejorative. Similar with cis. That's the point I was getting at.Areloch said:
In and of itself? No word is itself inherently bad. It'll always come down to perception of society.DizzyChuggernaut said:
I'll certainly concede that point. But it is largely perceived as an insult and non-transgendered conveys the same point inoffensively.Silvanus said:
I...haven't said the word needs to change? Merely pointing out - in context to the topic at hand of people's perception of the usage of cis - that it could gain a negative association via the more surly groups of people that may use it, exactly as you said.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
The problem is that non-transgendered and non-transgender and any permutations there of are kind of othering terms and can be seen as insulting by either side. By that I mean non-transgender can be exclusionary language. Besides that cisgender is easier to say, and type. Plus cisgender is actually better in a comparative context when brought up than any similar terms and words once people know what it means.Lightknight said:
Actually that was exactly the point I was trying to make too, but you made the point better than I did. Basically I want it's vernacular use to be more in line with the actual definition, too bad wanting is rarely having.Areloch said:
Trans is a common term used for a variety of every day things like transit. Cis is not. It's an old latin term that only chemistry majors would have used until 2010 when it was applied to cisgender.Aelinsaar said:
Ok? In acknowledging that we don't need a distinct counter term for every condition you are acknowledging that this term is not strictly necessary. That's my entire point. It is viewed as an insult and isn't strictly necessary. The logic in maintaining it is the same logic used in maintaining other slurs that were also medical terms.
Repeat: So I should ask, if people do dislike the term and find it offensive, why do you feel the need to defend the term? Would you defend the term transgender if transgendered individuals found it specifically offensive?
The same can be said for the word "white" though? SJW types often use "white" as a catch-all term for everything bad about people (I once saw a Tumblr post that blamed homophobia on white people). People regard "white, cisgender, heterosexual, male" as oppressive groups that they can fling their anger towards. Just because they're idiots doesn't mean that the terms "white", "cisgender", "heterosexual" and "male" become invalid.Lightknight said:
If you are cisgender then it's because you're not transgender. All labels are axiomatically exclusionary. You are being labeled as "this" because you're not "that". That people are insulted by labels isn't surprising, but they're there for classification. So they need to exist but they don't have to be offensive.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
"Fag" is easier to say than homosexual and "retard" is easier to say than mentally disabled. So what's your point?
And yet white isn't perceived as an insult, but cis is.DizzyChuggernaut said:
You do make some good points, but I still don't buy that cisgender is a slur, not yet at least. Remember that as an insulting term cis and cisgender are never used by themselves, they're used in terms with a word designed to cause insult and offense. Like say "scum" "asshole" and such. Also ******, fag, and retard were never not offensive slurs to start with. Cisgender on the other hand is being branded as a slur because of improper usage, there's a difference there. Non-trans works in a general sense but as a categorical cisgender can often work better.Lightknight said:
Er..."retard" is actually derived from retardation, a term used to describe things that were delayed in development, slowed or impeded. "Excess amounts of caffeine can retard physical growth". "That material is fire retardant, it will slow the spread of the fire". "A few problems have retarded the progress of this program" This usage dates back to the 17th century, and its psychological use directly derives from that in the sense of a person's mental capacities having been retarded. The full expression is in fact "mental retardation" (the usage of which dates back to the 19th century), an impairment in the subject's mental functions. Retard as a pejorative is the weaponization of the term to imply cognitive impairment in an otherwise high functioning individual and subsequently became near synonymous with 'stupid'. It's a benign term that became a slur through improper use.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Fair point actually, it's like how gay has become a bad word for basically anything and everything anymore. Which is weird because before gay meant homosexual it actually meant happy. More I guess of the quest of; "good lord what is wrong with people?"Asita said:
It boils down to "language evolves", whether we like it or not. And similarly to "retard", ****** and fag also were not initially slurs, but transformed into it over time. Besides, literally any word in the language can be weaponized as an insult in some capacity. How widespread it's usage or perception of usage is dictates if it's meaning changes.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
