PaulH said:
Lightknight said:
Look, I'm going to assume this is a misunderstanding and that you really aren't aware of the entire "Die Cis Scum" meme. So I'll help you out:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/die-cis-scum
It is associated with individuals who enact physical and lethal violence against transpeople.
It is also becoming increasingly more commonly used as a slur against people who are generally anti-trans. Now, while I agree that anti-trans people deserve a slur and anyone committing violence deserves prison time, it doesn't change the fact that it's THIS word being used.
Essentially, the term is becoming synonymous with hate and violence. Like being called a KKK member.
I've heard that phrase
once, online ...
Your anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. I've heard it used offensively multiple times. And my anecdotal evidence is equally irrelevant.
and looking at the poll, that obviously not happening.
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). Do you really think that your 18% "it's a good term" is a win for your side here? People who think it's offensive are within 5 percentage points of that. If nearly as many people think a term is offensive as those who think it's good then there's a problem.
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.
I asked for proof that the word alone is a pejorative. Either put up or stop pretending.
You're demanding a red herring be proven. It doesn't matter if the word itself is a pejorative. All that matters is that the term is deemed as offensive. You keep insisting that it has to be offensive itself but all that matters is that it is used in an offensive manner and now people who are aware of the term see it that way. Cis as a term directed at a person is most commonly done negatively. In an academic setting is' most commonly done neutrally. In most cases, it is used to insult a person's bias and specifically as a term to denote bigotry towards trans people when used as an insult in the context of the conversations it is seen in.
You should explain to me how the terms Negro, Marshmellow, or Banana (Asian person who more closely identifies with white culture) are inherently offensive? Hell, Martin Luther King Jr identified his race as Negro in the I Have a Dream speech.
None of the terms are inherently slurs. They are just descriptive terms. Two of them are even more commonly known for being delicious. Yet they are clearly known as slurs and are offensive to use in reference to people.
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.
A: Dysphoria was chosen because it has a rightful means of being beyond. Gender dysphoria made more sense as it was a dysphoric feeling. It makes sense and it stops pretending trans people are disordered solely for being trans. Adding to general stigmatization and marginalisation.
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.
There were legitimate, medical reasons why dysphoria was chosen. Dysphoria and a dysphoric state better represents the situation. Because it is no longer a disordered state once a person moves beyond it.
? Just like it's no longer a disorder once a person moves past the issue with their gender identity to the point where it no longer controls their life in significant ways? Gender Identity Disorder isn't still listed in the ICD-10 (meaning it's still technically a correct term) because transgendered people automatically have a disorder. They have it when their condition produces so much dysphoria as to qualify as a disorder.
It would make more sense if all transgendered people automatically had dysphoria and were labeled as such. But that just isn't the case.
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.
Until you show me a situation where cis alone is used in a pejorative sense, you'll forgive me if I think ou're reaching. The same cannot be said of 'fag', 'carpet-muncher', etc.
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. Humans have the dumbest track record of using things that people actually do and identify with as though it's an insult.
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.
(Edit) As it stands it merely seems to be a case of trying to silence the dialogue trans people might have. As I said before, never seen it as a pejorative. Trans people here don't see it as a pejorative, so far the only ones that do are people who either don't know trans people or have some form of prejudice serving to purposefully try to other them into obscurity.
Advocating for the use of non-trans instead of cistrans silences dialogue? Do explain why the substitution of a term stops dialogue?
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.
On that basis alone, why should I drop such a functional word? Given its utility every now and again, I don't feel I need to. If you don't want to use the word, don't. But don't pretend to me that the way I use it correlates to some injustice. It doesn't serve to other cis people, it holds no pejorative value.
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.
So .... your point being? Cisgender has been around since 1995, cissexual has been around for longer ... so how does this have something to do with the qualifer of 'cis' and its appropriateness? It's been around for a few decades. If you don't like the term, don't use it ... but you'll forgive me if I use it particularly when there is no pejorative value ttached to it.
No, cissexual was coined in 1995 by Volkmar Sigusch. Cisgender came later. Supposedly in a 2006 article in the Journal of Lesbian Studies. Anyways, the term Cissexual more correctly categorizes the demographic in relation to transgendered. Unfortunately, it's moreso the use of the term "Cis" that is deemed offensive from what I've read than the full terms it almagamates with, if I may abuse amalgamation that way.
Given how many times 'gay' has been dragged through the mud, I don't see 'cis' so afflicted.
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.
Of which cis isn't a slur ... you actually need to prove that first.
"******" means black person. How is that inherently offensive except due to context? It is used widely in the rest of the world and if you claim it is inherently a slur then is it offensive to be black? Hell, for a time, black was the offensive term and Negro was OK until those two flipped places.
This is idiotic ... why would someone logically say this? Mountains and molehills.
A lack of language isn't the same as using offensive language. Why do you think the distinction is irrelevant?
I think you're a tool. I'm allowed to say as such if you try to hurt me.
What? Have I offended you?
If you accidentally misgender someone then you could be potentially outting them against their will to people who they might not want to do so, or haven't gotten around to yet. Which is why I'd call you a '****' at best (depending whether it was intentional or not). I wouldn't say 'die cis scum' ...
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. My solution to this was not to use pronouns for anyone in the group. Where necessary, I'd use names like "Natalie said" instead of "She said".
This is NOT outing them. This is the opposite, an active attempt to avoid the possibility by not using any pronouns. If I were to use a pronoun then I would hope to correctly say their preferred pronoun.
What changed my mind on the whole thing to reconsider using pronouns again was in a post where I was talking about Natalie and realized I'd used "she" without even thinking about it. So perhaps it's not as big of a risk as I thought. Now the question is if I'm going to start purposefully using pronouns now since I'm now in a habit of not using them for anyone even when no transgendered people are around. What's interesting is that you could see it as me changing my entire speech process to accommodate them rather than only changing specific pronouns I use only when talking about or with them. But I'm guessing you don't see it that way. You probably just think I was hating on them or something. That I must have disapproved of their "lifestyle choices" or some other insanely bigoted premise for not recognizing them as transgender and with a real condition. But I've never had any kind of issues with the topic. I don't know why since my family was real vanilla in this kind of area but when confronted with it I just found it interesting, not offensive, which just made me want to learn more about it and how it impacts these people's lives. How people get offended at seeing anything different is beyond me.
That sounds idiotic to me. It doesn't sound like a slur. It sounds stupid.
Why not use "Cis fucker" or call them ignorant cis scum? "Die" is a bit much. 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.
Only that wasn't the point you brought up .... your point was;
Actually that was the point at the time. That I use their name instead of a pronoun and try to avoid using pronouns for fear of slipping up due to the way I see pronouns (sex-based rather than gender-based). I've since come to the conclusion that my friends are worth me putting the extra effort into using the pronouns properly rather than avoiding them.
I'm telling you that it can be. Once more, why exactly are you talking about that person
? Are we not supposed to talk about transgendered people like we would other people? "Like the other day, Natalie got a fish hook stuck in her thumb." Now, that didn't actually happen but you talk about people when you refer to something they did or said. Since my particular group of friends includes two transgendered individuals (and a third acquaintance that seems to be hanging out more), this sort of thing happens frequently. We're not talking about them because they're transgendered, we're talking about them the same way friends mention something funny the other friend said or whatnot.
However, as stated, I generally avoid pronouns there too. I was only mentioning this as an example.
and why exactly are people not allowed to insult you with the pejorative of 'scumbag' if you're doing something to intentionally harm someone?
If I do something to intentionally harm someone then I certainly deserve to be harmed back. But should a pejorative then be used to apply to anyone with another quality of mine just to get to people like me while offending everyone else regardless of their guilt in the event?
I think not. But hopefully I cleared up the misconception above. You seemed to think I was causing people harm.
