Poll: How many straight birth-gendered females are on the Escapist?

[Revnak_v1legacy]

It also is correct because it is describing the only possible viable path for reproduction for human beings - the only one that works.

Oh crap, I missed this before.

Seriously, PF, you've said yourself that you are against kids and even a partner having kids is a complete dealbreaker for you.

Does this mean you're abnormal, by your own terms? I'm really curious now, because you've offered a definition of normal that precludes not only me and mine, but you.

Is my sexuality abnormal? No. I'm still a male, who is interested in women. And my parts work just fine.

But yes, my dislike of children is abnormal.

So are all giraffes abnormal?

If you're making an argument about context, then I'll point out that context was implied in Paragon's position as well. I don't think that he was suggesting that sexuality for instance, is a normal thing for a brick to have. The obvious trend of the thread, and the discussion was that we're discussing humans, and therefore appended to all of his posts you can imagine a little, "For humans". To do otherwise would be sophistry, and not a good way to approach the subject of expressing why people trying to claim the title of "Normal" might be offensive to you.

Giraffes reproduce through heterosexual intercourse but primarily engage in homosexual intercourse. The argument is to counter his argument that sex for reproduction is the only normal kind. It's not sophistry.

That sounds suspiciously like a "Heard it somewhere" fact, for which I wouldn't mind some kind of source. Not that it matters, I'm not disputing the existence of homosexual behavior in many animals.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8420/is-94-of-male-giraffe-sexual-behaviour-homosexual

Since the study seems to be behind a pay wall it's probably best to send you a source that analyzes it.

That doesn't seem very promising, or at least, it seems to poke obvious holes in the notion. Exploration of the source, as much as that is possible, seems to indicate that it's not the case.

Spoiler

I looked up the sources mentioned above:

Pratt DM and VH Anderson. 1982. Population, distribution and behavior of giraffe in the Arusha National Park, Tanzania. Journal of Natural History 16 pp481-489

This article is about population data collected over a year of observation. It mentions there have been 22 births in that year, a low birth rate considering the population included 172 females. It says nothing about mating or homosexual behavior.

Pratt DM and VH Anderson. 1985. Giraffe social behavior. Journal of Natural History 19 pp771-781.

This article summarizes the authors' observations and statistics of social interaction in giraffes, collected in three separate national parks in Northen Tanzania, over about 3 years of total (non-consecutive) observations, more precisely 3264 hours of observation. They mention that they integrate findings from the '79 and the '82 articles in this summary article.

They say that sparring bouts, which usually involve "necking", when giraffes swing their necks and hit each other with them, sometimes included one male attempting to mount another. "We saw this eight times in the Arusha Park and eight times at Tarangire. In nine of these 16 events, the animal attempting to mount had his penis unsheathed. [...] In no case did a bull try to mount another male as large as himself. Intent observation and detailed recording of positions and movements failed to show that this act was an expression of dominance (which we initially surmised); we never saw any indications---e.g., behavioural, postural--of submission in bulls mounted."

The article goes on to discuss courtship and mating. It appears that it's very rare for giraffes to actually mate. The female is in heat only one day out of every two weeks. The males test females for readiness by sniffing their urine, but the female can choose who to give this data (by choosing to urinate or not when the male lowers his head to her rump). When a male giraffe senses that a female is in the right condition, they may proceed to courtship, which involved 1-2 days worth of following her closely and occasionally attempting to mount, which the female usually frustrates by just walking forward. When the female chooses to stand still, the mounting will proceed. The researchers note with some exasperation that over their 3 years of observation, they only saw one successful mounting, out of 46 courtship attempts and 304 urine-sniffing attempts. In light of the fact that in one of these years 22 calves were born as discussed in the previous article, they must have missed many - but of course they could also miss many homosexual mounting attempts.

Dagg, AI and Foester JB. 1976. The giraffe, its biology, behavior and ecology. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.

This book briefly mentions that homosexual mounting was frequent (no numbers) in one park where the number of females was unusually low, about 30%; in another park with approximate parity between the sexes, it was much more rare, and they only saw 3 attempts in 400 hours of observation.

"Necking" is not treated as homosexual behavior by any of these sources; they mention that necking is reserved only for males, and seems related to dominance relationships between males.

My conclusion from all this is that although it's arithmetically true that in 3 years of observation, the authors of the '85 source saw 16 homosexual mountings and just one mating, it might be misleading to summarize that as "94% of sexual activity is homosexual". First, the observation apparently missed the vast majority of matings, and probably of homosexual mounting as well. Second, the male giraffes seemed interested in much more coupling, but the menstrual cycle and female refusal combined to give them only incredibly rare opportunities.

Others point out that a 94% rate of homosexual behavior in any species would be unlikely to allow for that species to survive. In the end, I guess that I find myself objecting to your original post on different grounds. When you're trying to make a good egalitarian point, "Don't treat me like a freak, by treating yourself as the paragon of normality," you don't have to use bad statistics or angles.

Do I need to check for the most indisputable source ever first? I was at work, and was just going by what I remembered from a John Green video. The source I grabbed was found in the middle of my hundred and fourty mile drive home. Even if it isn't 94%, the high rate found in this study does point to an extremely high incidence of homosexual behavior in giraffes. I could also point to bonobos or different species of birds, but gay [animal] sex is not something I want plastered all over my search history. My point was that there are numerous species where homosexual behavior is extremely common, and I doubt he would ever hesitate to call them normal despite that fact. To split hairs over something like this is exactly the kind of sophistry you accused me of earlier.

I'm not splitting hairs, I'm calling bullshit. So yes, I guess you're eventually going to have to do more than just pull an unbelievable number out of thin air and then direct me to a discussion about how unbelievable it is.

Where did I make the claim it was 94%? I said majority because that's what I remembered. I couldn't even read the damn article because I was busy driving at 75 miles an hour and just wanted to make the reply and move on. Fine, go look at Hyenas, or anything else I linked in my edit. Are you ok with that, or do I need to find something super particular? You yourself admitted this isn't some rare thing, so I'm not seeing why you feel the need to keep arguing down this line.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

It also is correct because it is describing the only possible viable path for reproduction for human beings - the only one that works.

Oh crap, I missed this before.

Seriously, PF, you've said yourself that you are against kids and even a partner having kids is a complete dealbreaker for you.

Does this mean you're abnormal, by your own terms? I'm really curious now, because you've offered a definition of normal that precludes not only me and mine, but you.

Is my sexuality abnormal? No. I'm still a male, who is interested in women. And my parts work just fine.

But yes, my dislike of children is abnormal.

So are all giraffes abnormal?

If you're making an argument about context, then I'll point out that context was implied in Paragon's position as well. I don't think that he was suggesting that sexuality for instance, is a normal thing for a brick to have. The obvious trend of the thread, and the discussion was that we're discussing humans, and therefore appended to all of his posts you can imagine a little, "For humans". To do otherwise would be sophistry, and not a good way to approach the subject of expressing why people trying to claim the title of "Normal" might be offensive to you.

Giraffes reproduce through heterosexual intercourse but primarily engage in homosexual intercourse. The argument is to counter his argument that sex for reproduction is the only normal kind. It's not sophistry.

That sounds suspiciously like a "Heard it somewhere" fact, for which I wouldn't mind some kind of source. Not that it matters, I'm not disputing the existence of homosexual behavior in many animals.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8420/is-94-of-male-giraffe-sexual-behaviour-homosexual

Since the study seems to be behind a pay wall it's probably best to send you a source that analyzes it.

That doesn't seem very promising, or at least, it seems to poke obvious holes in the notion. Exploration of the source, as much as that is possible, seems to indicate that it's not the case.

Spoiler

I looked up the sources mentioned above:

Pratt DM and VH Anderson. 1982. Population, distribution and behavior of giraffe in the Arusha National Park, Tanzania. Journal of Natural History 16 pp481-489

This article is about population data collected over a year of observation. It mentions there have been 22 births in that year, a low birth rate considering the population included 172 females. It says nothing about mating or homosexual behavior.

Pratt DM and VH Anderson. 1985. Giraffe social behavior. Journal of Natural History 19 pp771-781.

This article summarizes the authors' observations and statistics of social interaction in giraffes, collected in three separate national parks in Northen Tanzania, over about 3 years of total (non-consecutive) observations, more precisely 3264 hours of observation. They mention that they integrate findings from the '79 and the '82 articles in this summary article.

They say that sparring bouts, which usually involve "necking", when giraffes swing their necks and hit each other with them, sometimes included one male attempting to mount another. "We saw this eight times in the Arusha Park and eight times at Tarangire. In nine of these 16 events, the animal attempting to mount had his penis unsheathed. [...] In no case did a bull try to mount another male as large as himself. Intent observation and detailed recording of positions and movements failed to show that this act was an expression of dominance (which we initially surmised); we never saw any indications---e.g., behavioural, postural--of submission in bulls mounted."

The article goes on to discuss courtship and mating. It appears that it's very rare for giraffes to actually mate. The female is in heat only one day out of every two weeks. The males test females for readiness by sniffing their urine, but the female can choose who to give this data (by choosing to urinate or not when the male lowers his head to her rump). When a male giraffe senses that a female is in the right condition, they may proceed to courtship, which involved 1-2 days worth of following her closely and occasionally attempting to mount, which the female usually frustrates by just walking forward. When the female chooses to stand still, the mounting will proceed. The researchers note with some exasperation that over their 3 years of observation, they only saw one successful mounting, out of 46 courtship attempts and 304 urine-sniffing attempts. In light of the fact that in one of these years 22 calves were born as discussed in the previous article, they must have missed many - but of course they could also miss many homosexual mounting attempts.

Dagg, AI and Foester JB. 1976. The giraffe, its biology, behavior and ecology. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.

This book briefly mentions that homosexual mounting was frequent (no numbers) in one park where the number of females was unusually low, about 30%; in another park with approximate parity between the sexes, it was much more rare, and they only saw 3 attempts in 400 hours of observation.

"Necking" is not treated as homosexual behavior by any of these sources; they mention that necking is reserved only for males, and seems related to dominance relationships between males.

My conclusion from all this is that although it's arithmetically true that in 3 years of observation, the authors of the '85 source saw 16 homosexual mountings and just one mating, it might be misleading to summarize that as "94% of sexual activity is homosexual". First, the observation apparently missed the vast majority of matings, and probably of homosexual mounting as well. Second, the male giraffes seemed interested in much more coupling, but the menstrual cycle and female refusal combined to give them only incredibly rare opportunities.

Others point out that a 94% rate of homosexual behavior in any species would be unlikely to allow for that species to survive. In the end, I guess that I find myself objecting to your original post on different grounds. When you're trying to make a good egalitarian point, "Don't treat me like a freak, by treating yourself as the paragon of normality," you don't have to use bad statistics or angles.

Do I need to check for the most indisputable source ever first? I was at work, and was just going by what I remembered from a John Green video. The source I grabbed was found in the middle of my hundred and fourty mile drive home. Even if it isn't 94%, the high rate found in this study does point to an extremely high incidence of homosexual behavior in giraffes. I could also point to bonobos or different species of birds, but gay [animal] sex is not something I want plastered all over my search history. My point was that there are numerous species where homosexual behavior is extremely common, and I doubt he would ever hesitate to call them normal despite that fact. To split hairs over something like this is exactly the kind of sophistry you accused me of earlier.

I'm not splitting hairs, I'm calling bullshit. So yes, I guess you're eventually going to have to do more than just pull an unbelievable number out of thin air and then direct me to a discussion about how unbelievable it is.

Where did I make the claim it was 94%? I said majority because that's what I remembered. I couldn't even read the damn article because I was busy driving at 75 miles an hour and just wanted to make the reply and move on. Fine, go look at Hyenas, or anything else I linked in my edit. Are you ok with that, or do I need to find something super particular? You yourself admitted this isn't some rare thing, so I'm not seeing why you feel the need to keep arguing down this line.

...Seriously? Re-read your last post (before the one I'm currently replying to), it's not going to be a mystery why I didn't just say "Okee dokee!" and walk away.

Fine. I know nothing about gay giraffes. I admit it. I just commented on a thread in the off-topic forum with a post based on my extremely limited knowledge of gay giraffes, repeating a thing I heard somewhere on the internet. I'm am sadly underinformed regarding most gay animals really. I know they exist, I know they aren't rare, but I have a hard time pinning down examples and have better things to do most of the time than search for information on them.

However, given that I now have provided an extensive list of animals which commonly engage in gay sex will you accept my point and stop hounding me about my limited knowledge of gay giraffe sex? Not accuse me of sophistry the moment I mention it?

 

[Wrex Brogan]

I'm going to have to go with what another poster said;

I'm not going to use the word "Cis" to describe myself or other normal people. For two reasons;

1: "Normal" is a factually correct term for people who are born male/female and are interested in the opposite sex. Heterosexual people who are their birth sex are the overwhelming, crushing majority of human beings. It also is correct because it is describing the only possible viable path for reproduction for human beings - the only one that works.

Being trans or homosexual is a perfectly natural thing that can and does occur, but there is no way you can twist the definition or meaning of the word normal to fit trans or homosexual people no matter how hard to try, at least in the context of their sexuality or identity. Normal could be used to describe other things about them IE: their eating habits or intelligence, but not their sexuality.

2: The LGBT community poisoned the well on the word "Cis" from the word go. I'd be willing to bet 95%+ of the people here and in general had their first experience with the word "Cis" not for a scientific use, but to be used as an insult against them or someone else. And not a mild insult either - every time I've personally seen the word or heard of other people being called it, it looks as if its being used on the same level as "******" or "*****" - something that is supposed to be a very vulgar and crude slur against the target.

Its likely to never be an acceptable word to use generally because of the connotations it has already.

...my man, I'm going to be entirely blunt with you. If 'cis' is such an offended word to you, you seriously need to go out and educate yourself on Transgendered people. Seriously, getting all up in a tizzy about the term 'cis' is such an... ignorant stance to take. It's seeing someone mention something barely related to you by only the thinnest threads, and then getting into such a huff about it without actually understanding why the person is talking about it.

To echo all the transgender people in this thread (because hey, Transgender people know an awful lot about shit going down in the Transgender community), the use of Cis in a negative light is almost always (because there's always outliers) in a sense of 'I've had some shitty experience with non-transgendered people today, I need to vent' rather than 'DIE CIS-SCUM! TRANSGENDER EMPIRE FOR ALL ETERNITY!'. Comparing it to '******' and '*****' is such a disengenous thing to do, since the use of 'Cis' has nowhere near the same history, violence and pure, unadulterated hatred behind it to give it that sort of power.

And the normalcy argument is... such a bad, bad argument. People are people, you don't have to catagorize them as 'normal' and 'abnormal'. Just treat people like people (i.e. don't be an asshole), and if someone doesn't fit your pretty little catagories, then your catagories need work.

Besides, I can rightly claim that people who aren't homosexual, panromantics (I always get the pan- and poly- parts mixed up, I swear to god) with multiple partners are the abnormal ones. Normalcy is a very subjective viewpoint, and leveraging it at people never, ever works.

As a straight cis-male, I have a hard time empathising with other cis-men who think it's an insult. I mean, can it be used as in insult? Well, sure, what can't? It's just that I've run into so few trans individuals, especially in meatspace, that it's got no weight behind it, like a long-range nerf dart.

So, for me at least, cis is an accurate descriptor that just so happened not to be chosen by me. Then again, I'm a filthy gender traitor who can empathize with the frustration that created #killallmen after Operation Lolipop and thinks that the reactions to Male Tears mugs are both hilarious and justify their existence, so...

I dunno. Maybe straight cis-men should get some thicker skins. This is the Internet after all.
-signed, a straight cis-male confused about why he has a poll option.

The most dire insult I've ever been called was 'Duck', so everything really can be. Man, 5 year olds can be so cruel...

and as much as I wouldn't mind telling everyone offended by 'cis' to 'drink a glass of cement so you can harden the fuck up', I can't help but feel that'd be hypocritical of me, since I'm fairly critical of whenever people tell LGBT+ members to do the same. 'Get educated the fuck up' on the other hand... maybe that could work instead.

 

[UnloadedDevice]

Great logic, except that by it any means of identifying any group of people, since it can be used as a slur, is verboten. Bit of a non starter, don't you think?

Not really actually. It seems that certain words can be more slury than others. ***** is a slur, but Asian is okay. N***er is a slur, negro is pretty darn close (Or is, I can't remember) but African American isn't. Midget is frowned upon, but I've never heard little person used in a derogatory way. I'm certainly not an expert, but it seems that shorter, sharper sounds tend to become slurs more readily and cis is a short sharp sound.

You're missing the point. What a word (prefix in this case) sounds like doesn't mean anything. I'm Welsh, I live in a country called "Wales" which of course sounds exactly the same as "whales". I don't get offended because it sounds like I reside in the bellies of large aquatic mammals.

You're missing the point. I don't like the term, and I'm not going to call myself by a term I don't like. You are free to do the same with terms that apply to you. As long as you can still communicate without using a term, it really shouldn't be an issue.

"Normal" is not synonymous with "average" or "common" though. Naturally-occurring blonde hair outside of Scandinavia is uncommon, but it's completely normal. There are plenty of things that are uncommon that are completely normal.

It actually is a synonym, did you try looking it up in a thesaurus? Synonyms need not match in every definition or every context, only that they match on some definitions.

Why do people care if the term "cis" doesn't sounds as nice and fluffy as they believe is as necessarily accurate to describe them? Nobody else got to choose. What about the term "spinster" to describe unmarried women as opposed to "bachelor" for unmarried men? That is immeasurably worse. Why tie your self-worth to the sound of a word? Considering there are no societal complications for it, it rathers appears as needless nitpicking. In fact, this whole poll comes off as far less honourable than it claims to be.

Because now is the time that "cis" is being defined in a gender context, it has yet to reach mainstream usage, and I'd be surprised if many people who don't frequent forums like this even know the term. Those other terms have already been long defined, but "cis" currently in the process of being established. If a person doesn't care for a word that is being made to apply to them, it is in this stage that it's most beneficial to speak their two cents about it and hope the sentiment is common enough to warrant a different choice.

I think its fair to say the people who object to cis are used to defining terms. They choose what terms are applied to others, how they are treated, and are generally used to media and society telling them that's their right.

Suddenly someone is doing that to them, and they don't like it, one bit, and rush to reassert their imagined right, rather than going 'hey, maybe this is how everyone else feels like when I do it, and maybe that should make me reconsider doing it.'.

Who do you think I am? King of the world? I have never been in a position to define a term, and if anybody tells me they don't like being referred to as a certain term I will use whatever they prefer. People don't like black? I'll use African American. People don't like midget? I'll use little person. It's no skin off my back what a person wants to be called. I'd only appreciate the same courtesy.

But, hey. It's real fun generalizing and dismissing people, isn't it?

Honestly, wouldn't it be awesome if people would stop as think that? "Huh. I don't like it when it happens to me. Maybe I shouldn't do it to other people, since they may not like it."

And do you like being generalized and attributed actions you've never done and words you've never spoken? I sure hope so, otherwise you might look like a hypocrite.

Doesn't matter if it's anonymous. You chose some fairly disingenuous and off-putting language. More to the point, as of the bottom of page 1 you are still defending your use of "normal," even as you try and say that "cisgender" offends your own sensibilities.

Why should I do anything even remotely helpful to you? Not a flame, an attack, or a judgment, this is a serious question. Why shouldn't trans people just look at the thread, say "nope" and back the hell out?

Because there is power in numbers, the larger your group the more people will take notice and respect your wants and stuff like that. It doesn't benefit the trans community to appear smaller than they really are, as a group they obviously can't slip under the radar at this point. Also other trans individuals may take comfort in seeing that there were more trans individuals using the Escapist than they had previously thought.

Sure it's just a forum poll, not the most accurate thing, but still...

Also, despite my own views on the term, I did edit my OP to remove the word normal when it first mentioned.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, not responding to anybody in particular, just a couple things I want to say.

First the issue of "normal"

Normal
1 Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected

This definition of normal fits individuals who have no problems with their birth-gender on the issue of gender. There may be other aspect of those individuals that are not normal, but on the matter of their gender they are normal by definition of the word, this is fact.

To ask that nobody use the word, because it does not apply to you in one regard seems a little childish. it's saying "If I can't call myself normal on this matter, nobody can!"

If you don't want to be called abnormal, I can respect that and I would refrain from using that word to describe you. However, to demand that the vast majority of people change the way they refer to themselves to better suit you is frankly ridiculous. Rather than trying to skew the definition of the word, you should try and take pride in the fact that you aren't normal! Think about what being not normal can mean: different, unique, special, interesting, noteworthy, these are all things that many normal people aspire to. You should use those definitions to think of yourself when the term normal comes up, rather than expecting the world to change on every minor issue to better suit your whims.

That brings me to the next thing I want to say.

The amount of hostility in these sorts of threads is staggering. Most people seem to be dragging around enough baggage to fill a U-haul. This is not conducive to an enjoyable discussion, nor is it going to win you any favour among those who don't already firmly agree with you. There is so much dismissal, generalization, and contempt in this thread. I have never met a trans person in real life, nor have I taken any action against them or spoken with malice about their decisions. Yet, after reading this thread, I feel like I have been conflated with the absolute worst bigots that walk the Earth. It seems like if a person doesn't absolutely agree with you on every point, and goes even one word off of the approved script, they are the enemy. This does not present an endearing front, and you do more harm for the image of the groups you belong to and the beliefs you value than good. It only makes it such a contentious issue that people start to dread it's appearance. This thread is not really even about trans people, and yet it has somehow consumed the thread. I feel like I should have put it in Religion and Politics because the slightest mention of transgender apparently makes it extremely controversial. I want to stress that I'm not addressing anybody in particular, nor is everything I've said limited to one group or another, just my general feelings.

I probably won't respond to any quotes any more. I've said what I have to say and feel I've explained myself well enough by now. Even though I said I didn't want to get drawn into this matter I kind of let myself, so now it's time to get out. My initial question will still be answered by the poll, so my involvement is not necessary.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Snip

I'm sorry you feel bad, but can you look at it from another perspective?

You don't like cis. In fact, you dislike it so much that you are insisting that people should not use the term. You insist this is a perfectly fine thing for you to insist as long as effective communication remains possible. And the only reason you are insisting this is because you don't like the sound of the word.

We don't like it when people use the word "normal" to describe people who are not us because that, by implication, makes up abnormal. a sentiment that has been used and is continued to be used to deny us basic rights like housing and employment protections and access to public facilities. Right now, across the country, people are trying to pass laws that legalize discrimination against us and the main thrust of their argument basically has to do with us being gross of weird or freaks. With us being not normal. This is not an issue of hurt feelings, it is a matter of eliminating a stereotype that does real damage to us.

The thing about being not normal is that we don't have the numbers to get to decide what it means. Everyone else does. Not being normal in this context means people staring at you, it means being ostracized by your family. It means being called crazy and a freak. It means workplace discrimination. In some cases it means physical violence, as several of the members on this board have experienced.

Why is dislike of a sound is good enough reason to justify what you think, but systematic discrimination is not enough to justify what we think?

 

[Tsun Tzu]

This obsession with the word "normal" seems to be hinting at a personal problem with self-confidence, rather than anything objective or substantive. It's the sort of debate/talking point typically undertaken/focused on by adolescents who've yet to recognize their own relative worth as individuals or by people seeking to ostracize in the laziest way possible.

Everyone is normal in certain respects/contexts. Everyone is abnormal in certain respects/contexts. I'm genuinely hoping you're all aware that this is the case and the discussion surrounding it has just been yet another exercise in pedantry for its own sake.

Further, castigating people for correctly using a commonly accepted and utterly banal word because it potentially hurts feelings makes the people who engage in such practices come across as fundamentally lacking in either maturity or a healthy sense of personal value.

Calling out people who are using the concept of normalcy as a cudgel to deny others rights or to outright harm them (at least in this respect, as there are certainly obvious exceptions), on the other hand, is perfectly all right and the folks doing the aforementioned things are to be fought at every available opportunity, even if only for their perversion/weaponization of a mundane term to rationalize their bigotry.

 

[Vault101]

[i/]ayup I was birthed at the birth'n farm and conformed straight gendered fe-male 'n branded so back in 91[/i]

....in other words

waaaaaat?

I think what your asking is how many women here aren't LGBT of various kinds? well I dunno its true perhaps LGBT ladies come out of the woodwork more often in environments like this...I've seen a few around during my time here (and of coarse there's yours truly)

perhaps then the other question is...is there a correlation between typically male interestes and women being LGBT? I think the answer is not quite as straight forward

I completely understand why the word exists, and have no problem with that. But the word itself is shitty and I will never consent to being labelled that.

that doesn't make any sense, you are by definition cisgendered weather you like it or not...just as I miught be by definition Lesbian even if I didn't care for the word

I honestly think half this kerfuffle over the term "cis-gender" is because people get their jock straps over something that lends legitimacy to Transgender individuals, AND they're not used to thinking of themselves as anything other than a default

its silly, people don't have to refer to themselves a cis-gendered outside of context anymore than straight people have to refer to themselves as "straight" unless its specifically nessecay

 

[Vault101]

"Normal" is a factually correct term for people who are born male/female and are interested in the opposite sex. Heterosexual people who are their birth sex are the overwhelming, crushing majority of human beings.

Being trans or homosexual is a perfectly natural thing that can and does occur, but there is no way you can twist the definition or meaning of the word normal to fit trans or homosexual people no matter how hard to try, at least in the context of their sexuality or identity. Normal could be used to describe other things about them IE: their eating habits or intelligence, but not their sexuality.

I'd argue "normal" while a generally acceptable word...is not always [i/]the right word to use[/i] and more importantly [i/]it does NOT have just one application/meaning[/i]

eg: here in cyberspace my interesting in games/my knoweldge of internet culture is "normal"...IRL that might be considered somewhat abnormal

normal is a broad term and it has social baggage,for example you're not gonna say "how many kids in our highscool are normal and how many are gay?" cause right there the language implies something defective about the gay kids, youre going to say "how many identify as straight and how many identify as LGBT/ect" because in that context straight is a more specific and useful term to use than "normal"

[quote/]It also is correct because it is describing the only possible viable path for reproduction for human beings - the only one that works.[/quote]
I don't know why people keep bringing up pro-creation in regards to LGBT its really not relevant to anyone's legitimacy


[quote/]2: The LGBT community poisoned the well on the word "Cis" from the word go.[/quote]
oh lordy, according to you I suppose?

[quote/]I'd be willing to bet 95%+ of the people here and in general had their first experience with the word "Cis" not for a scientific use, but to be used as an insult against them or someone else. And not a mild insult either - every time I've personally seen the word or heard of other people being called it, it looks as if its being used on the same level as "******" or "*****" - something that is supposed to be a very vulgar and crude slur against the target.
.[/quote]

I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole argument as to weather or not "privilege" is a real thing, but being refered to as cis is not a slur, making fun of someone because of their jerkish behavior (and attributing that behavior to being cis gendered and therefore clueless) is not on the same level of the N word or the C word

 

[MrFalconfly]

-snip-

So you're uncomfortable with the words "cis" and "cisgender"... I am so out of sympathy for that absolute bullshit. Normal is actively used to hurt people, it doesn't mean special, unique, or any other flowery nice word... It means "WRONG" and wrong means conform or die... You've seen the experience of trans folk on this very forum and yet you insist on disregarding our very real and constant struggles. So no you get no sympathy, if you don't like the fair label and extreme patience we show... Then it's on you, because you're part of the problem with an attitude like that, you add to the baggage, you and the privilege you hold over those of us who aren't your definition of "normal". So I hope you're happy because your attitude is the one that causes LGBTQ+ people to suicide, it causes to be hunted like animals, to be exposed and teased like freaks... I have no sympathy left, because I have seen no actual sympathy offered here, just bloody weak excuses for bigoted behavior.

I don't like words being marked as "dirty", and never to be used.

Whether the word is normal (which is perfectly acceptable to use, if one remembers to explain in what sense one uses the word), or it's a prefix like cis.

I mean, honestly, cis- as a prefix, linguistically makes sense. If something is "trans", then logically something must be "cis" (like with cis-trans isomerism).

Just like in asteroid studies, there are achondrite asteroids. And if there are achondrites, there must also be chondrites.

Can we please stop labelling perfectly good words as "dirty", just because arseholes use them?

 

[UnloadedDevice]

Snip

I'm sorry you feel bad, but can you look at it from another perspective?

You don't like cis. In fact, you dislike it so much that you are insisting that people should not use the term. You insist this is a perfectly fine thing for you to insist as long as effective communication remains possible. And the only reason you are insisting this is because you don't like the sound of the word.

We don't like it when people use the word "normal" to describe people who are not us because that, by implication, makes up abnormal. a sentiment that has been used and is continued to be used to deny us basic rights like housing and employment protections and access to public facilities. Right now, across the country, people are trying to pass laws that legalize discrimination against us and the main thrust of their argument basically has to do with us being gross of weird or freaks. With us being not normal. This is not an issue of hurt feelings, it is a matter of eliminating a stereotype that does real damage to us.

The thing about being not normal is that we don't have the numbers to get to decide what it means. Everyone else does. Not being normal in this context means people staring at you, it means being ostracized by your family. It means being called crazy and a freak. It means workplace discrimination. In some cases it means physical violence, as several of the members on this board have experienced.

Why is dislike of a sound is good enough reason to justify what you think, but systematic discrimination is not enough to justify what we think?

Okay, one more post, but just because you've been one of the most reasonable posters in the thread.

It's my opinion that people should concern themselves with their own affairs. Basically, membership in one group gives you the right to give your opinion on the terms used to describe that group but not any others that you are not a member of. Once groups start naming unrelated groups you start getting slurs if members of that group do not approve. Basically, people should have the right to label themselves, but not label others. I don't think that's unreasonable.
And one more thing about cisgendered, I'm pretty sure I said this before, but it's not just that I don't like the sound of the word. It's the lack of commonly used descriptive capabilities. Before someone can understand cisgendered they need to have cisgendered explained to them. This increases the sluryness of the word compared to "birth-gendered" (which I'm not exactly in love with either) It's just not a good word. (Edit: Thought of a better term "static-gendered" what with trans meaning change and movement.)

Normal, on the other hand isn't even a label, it's a basic word in the English language. It's been around for over five hundred years. There isn't a chance in the world that it's going anywhere. It's definition fits the situation I described above. You can't change this, like, it's not even possible. And even if you could it wouldn't do anything, the underlying problems would still be there and I seriously doubt it's going to help to go around saying to people "Hey, don't call yourself normal anymore!" There have got to be better ways to gain transgender support than going around lecturing people not to use certain basic words that don't further your political agenda. And it is just seems like such a big difference between "hey, don't call me that!" and "hey, don't call yourself that!" And heck, as far as pejoratives go not normal is pretty darn weak. Compare "You crazy disgusting freak!" to "You not normal person!" or even "You abnormal person!" It just seems like at best attacking the word won't help any, and at worst it's going to just tick people off.

But, hey! I never said you have to call anybody normal anyway. Don't ever use the word if you want, it's not like I'm even in love with "normal-gendered" or anything, I only used it because I couldn't think of an alternative I liked better when I made the thread.

I don't know, maybe we just see the word differently, you see it as something mockingly held away from you, I see it as a thing to escape and transcend.

In the end though what I've said doesn't really matter to anyone. My opinions don't really amount to much on the matter in any case. This all really has very little relevance to me at this point, since I've never actually met any transgender IRL, and probably won't given the fact that I'm an asocial loner who's barely left the house in the last 5 years. Nobody should kill themselves over what I've said (Sheesh!)

I didn't even want to get into this, because I knew it would be a disaster and I would have to write a couple of essays just to attempt to avoid being lynched. I've been at this for like 4 hours, including my last post, and it just feels like I'm just rambling now and with every word I'm just digging myself deeper even though I don't care at all what anybody does with their body. ugh...

Anyway, I want to say again that you've handled yourself really well in this thread! If everyone in the transgender community was as calm and reasonable as you I think the community would have a better image, at least on sites like this.

I think what your asking is how many women here aren't LGBT of various kinds?

WHAAAAAAT? Frick! That's what I should have said!!!!!! *Headdesk* *Headdesk* *Headdesk*
"How many non-LGBT females are on the Escapist?"
Ugh, why did I need to word it so weird?? Probably would have avoided all this mess!

 

[CrystalShadow]

Hmm...

The proportion of women on the site (of any kind) seems to have gone down quite a bit since the last time I saw a poll like this...
That's a little disconcerting in some ways, but not overly surprising, honestly, given what I've seen happening in the last 2-3 years.

non-straight is also amusingly ambiguous for the bisexual, but whatever. XD
(Straight implies one thing, gay implies the opposite, bisexual is both, so can't cleanly be lumped in with either group.)

 

[WindKnight]

Who do you think I am? King of the world? I have never been in a position to define a term, and if anybody tells me they don't like being referred to as a certain term I will use whatever they prefer. People don't like black? I'll use African American. People don't like midget? I'll use little person. It's no skin off my back what a person wants to be called. I'd only appreciate the same courtesy.

But, hey. It's real fun generalizing and dismissing people, isn't it?

A lot of your through-line in your comments has been 'This term that you have been telling me causes a lot of harm to trans people is ok to me, so I'll keep using it and ignoring your feelings, but this word that makes me uncomfortable is wrong and stop using it right now and protect my feelings.'

Your defining how you want words to be used and not used, and ignoring the same request from others, when they're suffering actual harm and your getting hurt feelings. Your fitting the idea I defined pretty well.

 

[UnloadedDevice]

Who do you think I am? King of the world? I have never been in a position to define a term, and if anybody tells me they don't like being referred to as a certain term I will use whatever they prefer. People don't like black? I'll use African American. People don't like midget? I'll use little person. It's no skin off my back what a person wants to be called. I'd only appreciate the same courtesy.

But, hey. It's real fun generalizing and dismissing people, isn't it?

A lot of your through-line in your comments has been 'This term that you have been telling me causes a lot of harm to trans people is ok to me, so I'll keep using it and ignoring your feelings, but this word that makes me uncomfortable is wrong and stop using it right now and protect my feelings.'

Your defining how you want words to be used and not used, and ignoring the same request from others, when they're suffering actual harm and your getting hurt feelings. Your fitting the idea I defined pretty well.

Hey, do you see the OP? Tell me which word is not in it?
Edit: just so we're clear, it's normal. I took it out on a request, after the very first person complained about it. You can see that on the first page.

 

[Dizchu]

You're missing the point. I don't like the term, and I'm not going to call myself by a term I don't like. You are free to do the same with terms that apply to you. As long as you can still communicate without using a term, it really shouldn't be an issue.

Can't you see how petty that is though? As I said before, it's like objecting to the term "homo sapiens" because it has "homo" in it. There's plenty of terms that apply to me that I don't 100% like the sound of, but that's how the English language works.

It actually is a synonym, did you try looking it up in a thesaurus? Synonyms need not match in every definition or every context, only that they match on some definitions.

The impression I was getting from what you were saying was that you felt that "average" meant the same thing as "normal", that the two words were interchangeable. Of course "normal" is related to the word "average" but only moderately. Even the link you posted indicates that words such as "natural" and "orderly" are more synonymous than words like "average" and "commonplace".

Now we are mixing statistically normal (which most definitely IS synonymous with average), with biologically normal (which could be interpreted as "nothing harmful").

Statistical normality is a completely different thing that is used in mathematics, not informal conversation. The word "average" means roughly the same thing in statistics as it does in everyday speech. If you're using the word "normal" in a statistical sense in an informal setting don't get frustrated when people interpret it in the colloquial way.

I mean if what you really mean is "average", use the word "average". What is the point using a word that has different connotations? There's only two reasons why someone would use the word "normal" in this context, either out of ignorance or as a faux pas or to deliberately alienate a certain group of people.

If we have to use the word "normal" in conjunction with trans people, and people who aren't straight, and we've already agreed that there isn't any biological harm done to the species, so any biological norm is besides the point, we're left with the statistical normal.

Considering the amount of hysteria there is about LGBT people I don't think we can just safely assume that nobody believes those people are "abnormal".

 

[Thaluikhain]

Can we please stop labelling perfectly good words as "dirty", just because arseholes use them?

What is or is not a perfectly good word changes over time, though. If enough arseholes use it for a specific purpose, it stops being a good word.

 

[Phasmal]

Hmm...

The proportion of women on the site (of any kind) seems to have gone down quite a bit since the last time I saw a poll like this...
That's a little disconcerting in some ways, but not overly surprising, honestly, given what I've seen happening in the last 2-3 years.

Yeah, I was gonna say something similar to this. Is it a big surprise to anyone that there's fewer ladies than there used to be?

Spoiler

Also, geez this topic went places fast. I don't get cis people being put off by the word cis. It's just a word, and it only means 'not-trans', basically. That's not offensive. Wtf.

 

[Dizchu]

So to recap, "cisgender" is an offensive thing to be called, yet being called "abnormal" is fine and anyone who has a problem is just an oversensitive crybaby.

"Cisgender" has connotations that are as comparatively severe as "******".

The word "normal" which has a variety of different connotations is somehow more suitable to describe a group of people than a word that has one specific definition and no such connotations.

If a transgender person treads on enough eggshells when discussing these things with cisgender people, they're considered "one of the sensible ones", "I wish more transgender people were as calm as you". If a cisgender person clumsily and tactlessly says a whole bunch of inaccurate things and gets called out on it, transgender people are "just being too oversensitive".

I'll no doubt get accused of being an SJW or something because of this but it has to be said. I frequently get praised for being "reasonable" compared to "all those crazy, angry transgender people" because yes, I do tread on eggshells and even now I'm trying to simplify my language as best as I can. But it's not a compliment, it's an insult. Sorry.

 

[MrFalconfly]

If we have to use the word "normal" in conjunction with trans people, and people who aren't straight, and we've already agreed that there isn't any biological harm done to the species, so any biological norm is besides the point, we're left with the statistical normal.

Considering the amount of hysteria there is about LGBT people I don't think we can just safely assume that nobody believes those people are "abnormal".

I agree with the rest, this is just what jumped out at me.

When I said "we've already agreed that there isn't...", I meant you and me.

You know there isn't any biological harm done, and therefore any hysteria would be "dumb", and I know that there isn't any biological harm done, and therefore any hysteria would be "dumb".

Can we please stop labelling perfectly good words as "dirty", just because arseholes use them?

What is or is not a perfectly good word changes over time, though. If enough arseholes use it for a specific purpose, it stops being a good word.

Which is why I'm fighting against it. Arseholes shouldn't have a monopoly on what words get muddied. I see my insistance on using correct words, correctly, as a protest against the arseholes sullying words, by filling them with negative connotations.

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

If it's any consolation, I wont label you an SJW.

But that's mainly because, in my experience, people who label themselves SJW's are just bullies (the #ShirtStorm taught me that).

EDIT:
I admit that by my definition, any kind of self-righteous bully can be an SJW (including evangelical Christians), but I find that it's the self-righteousness, rather than any kind of politics that mark the "SJW" aside from any other person you may disagree with.

EDIT:EDIT:
Basically, the difference is whether the person thinks "I'm 95% certain, I'm right", and "I can't be wrong. It's all other people who are wrong".

 

[Dizchu]

When I said "we've already agreed that there isn't...", I meant you and me.

Well sure, but discussions like these don't happen in a vacuum. There's plenty of jokes I tell amongst close friends (ie. people who understand that I hold no prejudices) that can be interpreted as homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, etc. that I would never tell on messageboards or in public because without context they'd be regarded as bigotry. Similarly there's enough shared assumptions between myself and my transgender friends that I don't need to clarify certain terms when talking to them in private.

Many of the people here don't personally know any transgender people, they're this "other" group that they've heard about but haven't interacted with. If what you're referring to are mathematical norms and what others think of is "normal behaviour", the impression they'd get is that transgender people are "abnormal" and the kinds of people we generally consider "abnormal" are sexual deviants, psychopaths, child molesters and people who listen to Nickelback.[footnote]Sorry, that joke was entirely for my own pleasure[/footnote]

I don't think you're a bad person or anything and in general I'm kinda opposed to excessive language/tone policing. But I would personally advise against using language that implies that transgender people are an abnormality (not statistically, but behaviorally). Because there's already a ton of stigma against them and adding to that isn't really helpful for anyone.