Lightknight said:
I've heard it used offensively multiple times. And my anecdotal evidence is equally irrelevant.
Once again, show evidence. Show me proof cis on its own is offensive. I can show you why ****** is pejorative. I can't say the same for cis. But hey, that's not my job to do that. That's your job. Get cracking.
Lightknight said:
More than 50% of the respondents believe that the term is offensive, unnecessary or two unknown of a term to have in place (it would explain why the nearly 8% of respondents don't even know what the term means).
Over 50% of the thread think it's unnecessary. That's perfectly fine. Unnecessary doesn't = bad. And I'm willing to bet it's 'unnecessary' because, gee whizz ... they might not be trans. Would I be on the money there, you reckon?
Just because you're in a majority doesn't mean you get to co-opt language and we just have to like it. You see why this is a problem in my eyes, don't you?
You'll also forgive me if I find it occasionally useful. Still do.
Lightknight said:
Regardless, even with the numbers clearly stacked against the term here I don't think the escapist is necessarily a legitimate sample demographic. These kinds of polls are for a local community inquiry and may not even be representative of the community depending on certain factors including sufficient randomization of the sample (people who know and care about the term are more likely to respond which skews the results). Is the escapist representative of the internet community as a whole? Is this poll representative of the Escapist community? Don't know.
And I don't give a fuck in geeral what the internet thinks. The internet is a cesspool, where words last years and without proper situational context. Does the word get used as a pejorative (at all?) offline? No? Then I don't give a fuck.
Lightknight said:
You're demanding a red herring ...
No, I'm asking for proof. Pretty basic. I can prove that ****** is offensive on its own. I can prove how ******, or tranny is offensive on its own. I have yet to find a case where 'cis' is inherently offensive. You say it's offensive, therefore you have the burden of proof to show me how it can be.
Lightknight said:
It doesn't matter if the word itself is a pejorative. All that matters is that the term is deemed as offensive.
Really? by who? Most people don't find it offensive. Poll up there buddy.
Lightknight said:
I need you to prove that a term has to be inherently offensive to be considered offensive. The burden of that proof is on you.
No, you're the one telling me to change a perfectly functional word which people, according to the poll, don't find offensive. This is all on your buddy. You're the one telling me to change a word that's been around before English, and only means on its own people who have not experienced gender dysphoria.
If you find that offenssive, you have to show me proof where it serves as a common insult to other cis people, or shame or ridicule them in some way. You're the one telling me I do this on the rare occasions when I use the word cis with friends.
Lightknight said:
Right, so you took offense at the term and it was changed. You also had your reasons for it but don't give me this "thicker skin" crap when it is clearly apparent that we all have the same thickness of skin and offensive terms hurt us one and all.
Really? Because it seems to me that I'm not the one trying to tell trans people what words they can use.
Lightknight said:
Gender Identity Disorder and Gender Dysphoria are synonyms. The whole intention of dropping the disorder was to help normalize transgenderism. Now, I quite agree with the decision to change the term. But it was absolutely done out of consideration for the offense it caused and the outspokenness of the community regarding it. Something I'm totally in favor of but is the same sort of thing you're now fighting against for unforeseen reasons.
I'm fighting against it now? How? Dysphoria makes sense ... also, the old GID had criterion that made trans people 'clinically' disordered simply for being trans. No longer. That was 'othering' and treating people as disordered for no reason. That's pretty horrific case of othering right there.
Now prove to me how 'cis' is even close to that.
Lightknight said:
How is carpet-muncher and inherently offensive term? Yeah, lesbians perform oral sex. That's a fact of the matter and not inherently offensive. Instead, it is used in an offensive manner.
Proof? FOr every occasion you can find cis used 'badly', I can find you ten times where it is used with no connotation of dislike.
Lightknight said:
Words don't have to be inherently bad. They just have be used offensively and then perceived that way. Hell, they don't even necessarily have to be used offensively. Perception is the only thing that matters. If you think using the pronoun he or she is offensive the its rude to use the term towards you. Simple as that. They do not have to be bad by themselves. If people take of offense to terms like Cishet because they think it sounds like Cis Shit then that's their prerogative.
How? Like, really. How?
Lightknight said:
Advocating for the use of non-trans instead of cistrans silences dialogue? Do explain why the substitution of a term stops dialogue?
A: Because it sounds stupid.
B: It's not nearly as descriptive as you pretend it to be
C: Because it has no pejorative value.
Lightknight said:
Are you saying that you believe the people largely against the term are doing so out of bigotry towards transgendered individuals? While I'm absolutely sure there's some truth to that you've got a steep uphill battle of proving that it's true with the majority of the group. It's pretty presumptive on your part.
So you agree that the majority of the people who find it offensive likely don't see trans people beyond a bigoted lens ... but you pretend the majority of use concerning cis is somehow pejorative? Why?
Lightknight said:
If the basis you're holding to is that you believe people are only offended at Cis because trans people can have a dialogue using it then I'd understand you holding to the term and would wield it myself too. If that were true then to continue using "Cis" would be to strike back at bigots which I'm sure most of us here would be perfectly fine with. I mean seriously. Bigot's? Fuck em. I'm not being sarcastic here. So much pain and needless anguish visited upon society and culture due to their ineptness at behaving like decent human beings. If I believed this to be true then I wouldn't be here posting.
I don't use it like that ... As I said before ... I'd call them a '****' ... cis is actually useful if you're trans. If only with other trans people. That's the only place you'll confront it offline. And people pretending like it represents hatred or whatever garbage do just seem to be the types telling me what I can say.
Do you understand what that's like?
All the trans people here are telling you that it's not a pejorative. All the times cis is used online? The grand majority wouldn't be 'offensive' ... yet you have a group of people who are telling us what we're allowed to say on frankly BS charges of it being a 'slur'. A term that neither others us, perfectly describes our opposite (without the overlap of 'non-trans', which is nowhere near contained as you
think it is) ... You'll forgive me, but this just seems another exercise by people to other us, or marginalize how we speak and how we are in relation to others.
Seems pretty thinly veiled to me. But hey, we're used to having garbage thrown at us. The difference is that when you start dictating to us how we should speak? Yeah ... not going to put up with it. Frankly, we struggle to get off the lowest rung in society enough ... dictating wht we can say, so that your can manufacture more hatred of us? Yeah, why should we put up with that? Anybody that would pitch this line. Non-trans doesn't work. It also has the problem of making certain cisgender people no longer cisgender.
Which is
bad enough. But the principle that people are allowed to manufacture a narrative if only to police how we express our relations to others? Why exactly should we stand for that?
Lightknight said:
No, cissexual was coined in 1995 by Volkmar Sigusch. Cisgender came later.
Actually, cisgender arose on the internet back in the old altnet chat rooms of '95. So, no... also, how [i[exactly[/i] does this diminish or improve a word? English is great, it invents new words all the time.
Lightknight said:
Interestingly enough, the gay community has had significant issues with the term "Cis" as well. They are perhaps the most offended by it even when care is taken to include the orientation with the term.
You'll forgive me, but the gay community doesn't, in general, act very supportive of trans people, so why exactly would this be surprising for me? The greatest opposition to transgender rights in the West has been from gay and lesbian camps. So, doesn't that just hurt your argument that people aren't merely trying to find reasons to try to other trans people by any means necessary, including manufactured hatred of a 'slur' that isn't a slur?
Lightknight said:
"******" means black person. How is that inherently offensive except due to context?
Really? You're comparing cis to ******? Once again, you have the burden of proof to show how cis is a slur. Not me. Honestly, no ... walk me through the steps why you think the two are comparable? Because at the moment it feels like you're just clutching at straws here. I want you to show me the mechanics of how you arrived to this situation of equating ****** with cis.
Lightknight said:
A lack of language isn't the same as using offensive language. Why do you think the distinction is irrelevant?
Because no one would say that, that's why.
Lightknight said:
What? Have I offended you?
You've 'offended' me now. Bad faith much? Either quote me properly, or we're done. You damn well know that that part of what I wrote correlated to whether or not someone pissed me off. Which is likely why you didn't bother to quote me on the points I made underneath. Either quote my meaning, or we're done. I'm allowed to call you a tool. I'm allowed to call you a shitlord. I'm not going to call you a 'cis fucker' ... that sounds stupid and so divorced from reality.
Lightknight said:
I think you misunderstood what I meant. Let's give an example:
Let's say I know a transgendered female named Natalie. I do, and she's one of the biggest reasons why I care about the topic of transgenderism. Now, obviously her preferred pronoun is "she" or "her".
Now, I understand this but my dilemma is (or was, I've since changed my mind on the matter thanks to my conversations with people here), I knew and became friends with Natalie when she was Jonathan. I wrestled with him (Jonathan) in Highschool and have quite a masculine foundation of him in my mind. So when I'm talking about Natalie I'm potentially prone to slipping and saying "him" or "he". This slipping would not only cause Natalie pain, but would get me called "****" but others like you just pointed out and least of all, would conflict with my internal semantics view on what pronouns mean.
If you slipped up, I wouldn't call you a shithead. But I would call you a shithead if you purposefully misgendered me, or outed me, when you profess to be my friend ... or hell, even a basic acquaintance. Someone I have to work with. WHy should I have to put up with your garbage in my life?
Lightknight said:
Why not use "Cis fucker" or call them ignorant cis scum? "Die" is a bit much.
Because cis isn't an insult? If I want to insult someone, I'll insult someone.
Lightknight said:
Die cis scum wasn't meant as a slur to be used against people so much as a concept that became offensive and spun off into using cis as an insult in other ways. Usually to imply bigotry against trans persons.
WHo gives a shit? One phrase is not enough to tarnish how it is used 99.999999999999999999999% of the time.
In fact, I'm sure any other qualifier or race, identity or sexuality has been dragged through the mud far more than 'cis' EVER will.