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

[MrFalconfly]

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.

I understand that these discussions don't occur in a vacuum.

I just assumed that the environment here at the Escapist was one where most of us agree that LGBT people are nice people, who love nothing more than live their lives with who they want.

As for "abnormal" are sexual deviants, psychopaths, child molesters and people who listen to Nickelback.". Well I see the size of the mountain I have to climb, but I still think that normal is fine to use. If anything I'll just clarify that I mean "only about 10% (pulled out of my arse, so we have an example) of the human population falls into LGBT group.

I'd much rather use disclaimers and clarifiers, than restrict my own vocabulary.

 

[Nimcha]

I wonder as to the motive of the question...

Furthermore I haven't been as active as I used to be on this website and in the gaming 'community' in general. I leave it to other people to guess why. It's not that hard.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The most dire insult I've ever been called was 'Duck',

I think that's not against the new CoC...hmmm...

 

[Zhukov]

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

I recently saw a man in his 30s get severely upset over someone calling him a goose.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

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.

Just one more comment, you don't even have to reply. There is a lot I could say about what you wrote, but it doesn't matter. And I'll tell you why.

Do you want to know why trans people normally are not so calm? Because we just had a nice, calm discussion about how you don't care about the fact that we are systematically discriminated against. Or at least not enough to do anything about it. You just tell me to "transcend" and "escape", and then put limits on what I am allowed to do and say in my attempts.

This is what happens when we are calm. Nothing. Nothing changes. Nothing improves. And people try to use it as an excuse to set the terms by which we are allowed to beg for scraps.

I have a daughter and a wife with medical problems that prevent her from working. I seriously have to wonder if I will be allowed to provide for them. And you don't care. Oh, I'm sure that will tug at the old heart strings a bit, but then you will go on your way and do nothing. You might even pat yourself on the back for being tolerant enough to engage with trans people - or the "reasonable" ones, at least.

Listen, you don't seem like a bad person. But you don't seem like a good person either. Frankly, I don't care about people like you. No matter how calm and collected we are you will never care enough. Our reputation with you, and people like you, is worthless.

We get mad and loud and shout because good people hear about pain and suffering and want to stop it. We have to be loud enough that good people can't ignore us. That is all we have. We lack the numbers and political power to do anything else.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

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.

Just one more comment, you don't even have to reply. There is a lot I could say about what you wrote, but it doesn't matter. And I'll tell you why.

Do you want to know why trans people normally are not so calm? Because we just had a nice, calm discussion about how you don't care about the fact that we are systematically discriminated against. Or at least not enough to do anything about it. You just tell me to "transcend" and "escape", and then put limits on what I am allowed to do and say in my attempts.

This is what happens when we are calm. Nothing. Nothing changes. Nothing improves. And people try to use it as an excuse to set the terms by which we are allowed to beg for scraps.

I have a daughter and a wife with medical problems that prevent her from working. I seriously have to wonder if I will be allowed to provide for them. And you don't care. Oh, I'm sure that will tug at the old heart strings a bit, but then you will go on your way and do nothing. You might even pat yourself on the back for being tolerant enough to engage with trans people - or the "reasonable" ones, at least.

Listen, you don't seem like a bad person. But you don't seem like a good person either. Frankly, I don't care about people like you. No matter how calm and collected we are you will never care enough. Our reputation with you, and people like you, is worthless.

We get mad and loud and shout because good people hear about pain and suffering and want to stop it. We have to be loud enough that good people can't ignore us. That is all we have. We lack the numbers and political power to do anything else.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm not saying that you're wrong in your assessment. I will say this however, "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." (Samuel Johnson) Dismissing the need to deal with people, or excusing abusive treatment of people, just because they are unlikely to ever really help you, is practical and reasonable. It does tell me something about you though, and that you are overwhelmingly concerned with yourself and your own circumstances. That's not unreasonable, and most of us are, but most of us aren't trying to make broad egalitarian arguments.

Except that isn't what I said. I didn't say "I don't care about you, therefore I am going to treat you like crap." I said "You will not contribute to our desperate situation, so I cannot afford to let your feelings dictate the limits by which I can fight for my equality."

The reason why most people are not making broad egalitarian arguments is because they don't have to. UnloadedDevice and similar people can, ultimately, walk away from any conversation involving gender identity. They can walk away from the issue and never bother with it again. I can't. I am going to be fighting for the rest of my life for inches. I don't hold that against them. But I do resent that I am desperately begging for basic rights and people that don't actually care about the issue tell me that they don't like the way I beg, which has been demonstrated to be the most effective method, because it is slightly off putting for them.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." I agree. And you know what? I can do nothing for UnloadedDevice except make them feel slightly less bad, and only at a significant cost to myself. But UnloadedDevice and people like them, in numbers, could do something very important for me, and at a minimal personal cost. They just choose not to.

 

[Something Amyss]

I always find that its the same group that always object to what trans people say, feel and believe. 90% of the time they'll say that "tranny" and "******" aren't slurs.

Oh, they're not slurs. Not like "cis" is. I mean, "tranny" has never been used to insult or harm anyone. Well, not anyone who counts!

Yes, I recall the summer of 2012. It was a hot summer, simmering with anger and hate. I remember that summer quite well, as it was the year that a poor, poor cisgender person was hung from a tree by a radical activist lynch mob because they used a trans person's pronouns wrong by mistake. The local law enforcement turned a blind eye and when the federal authorities had to step in on hate crime charges, when faced by a jury of their peers, the all trans jury acquitted the leaders of the lynch mob. Its truly a dark spot on this nation's history. Even today cisgender people see an abhorrable level of discrimination and hatred from the heavily impoverished and silent .3% of the population. Truly "cis" is on par with the centuries-long instutitonal discrimination and persecution of people who are black or asian.

It was then that the cisgender of America united, declaring "we are the 99.7!" and finally rose up to confront the trans oppressors who had held power over them for so long. Occupy Stonewall was formed, and our oppressive regime was ended.

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

Well, except you've self-referenced your issues with women and your particular proclivities, so that's not really true, is it? In fact, most of your threads seem to be based around your sexuality, which I doubt most people would call normal.

[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.

I understand abstractions and generalisations.

More specifically:

As a white person, I have listened to people of colour speak about whites and issues with them for three decades now. I was perfectly capable of doing this without histrionics by the time I was in grade school. I do not feel persecuted or oppressed because black people or others voice their issues with white people, despite being very much one of them. I am not so insecure about myself that I feel the need to insist "all lives matter" or get so offended that I miss the point.

So yeah, I do practice what I preach. Which is good, because too often, white people try and make it about us. There is a sense of entitlement that seems to come with being white. Straight, cisgender as well. But making it about you simply proves the point. When someone does this, they quite literally make themselves part of the problem.

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.

And the numbers coming out have led to you and yours dismissing us, accusing us of things, etc. It's almost like there was no real benefit, and it really looks like more detriment. And this is exactly what we expect talking to cisgender individuals. Which may be unfair, but not for the reasons you'd say. I can run off a list of people in this thread who don't deserve to be part of the general fear that arises from dealing with cisfolk. They actually do very little to distinguish themselves. They simply conduct themselves in a fashion that isn't hostile, dismissive, or in a fashion that comes off like they're the persecuted and oppressed ones. The threshold is kind of low, and yet in my life and the lives of other trans individuals, it's almost as rare as freaking unicorns. Rare eough to the point that individual people do stand out like that. Trying to defend diction to a minority while telling them how uncomfortable you are with other diction. Remember when you mentioned I might seem hypocritical if I conducted myself in a certain way?

I sure hope so, otherwise you might look like a hypocrite.

And you've spent this entire thread insisting to us that "normal" is an acceptable word while taking umbrage at "cisgender."

Anyway, you know what that sort of thing is? Not helpful. Not even remotely so. But very, very common.

I think it is really, really screwed up that I feel like thanking people for what should be perfunctory behaviour. For the shit that you're supposed to do to other people. But here I am, grateful that a handful of cisfolks will actually say things like "this isn't about me."

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

But you were still defending it as of this post, so that's meaningless. Contrition is pointless without intent.

 

[Something Amyss]

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

There's a correlation. Is there any causal link would be the better question. Though I suspect it's not the "male" element here.

I think it's the "nerd" element. Nerdy things attract social outcasts. LGBT folk may know a little about that. Is that a causal link? I don't know, but I'd be interested in seeing.

"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!

Probably not, if you think wording things in a descriptive fashion is weird and worthy of headdesking.

Why DIDN'T you just word it this way from the get-go? These are words people use and understand within the context of LGBT interactions.

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.

Not only not surprising, but pretty much the opposite extreme. It's exactly what I'd expect.

Women are disappearing much faster than the general population for...some reason.

Also, not-straight is technically serviceable, as it can encompass anyone who isn't heterosexual (bi, gay, pan, whatever). It's just clunky and awkward wording, really. I am absolutely not straight, that much I know. The rest gets confusing. >.<

I wonder as to the motive of the question...

Furthermore I haven't been as active as I used to be on this website and in the gaming 'community' in general. I leave it to other people to guess why. It's not that hard.

Did someone call you a duck?

(sorry, this may become a running thing with me)
(also one of the only reasons I'm still active here is I consider it damage that's already been done)

 

[MrFalconfly]

I always find that its the same group that always object to what trans people say, feel and believe. 90% of the time they'll say that "tranny" and "******" aren't slurs.

Oh, they're not slurs. Not like "cis" is. I mean, "tranny" has never been used to insult or harm anyone. Well, not anyone who counts!

That actually got me thinking.

Because, in the UK, "fag" wouldn't refer to anyone of the homosexual persuasion, but rather a cigarette, and if you ask petrolheads about a "tranny", they'll think you want to know whether a car has a manual or automatic gearbox.

Funny eh

 

[UnloadedDevice]

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.

Just one more comment, you don't even have to reply. There is a lot I could say about what you wrote, but it doesn't matter. And I'll tell you why.

Do you want to know why trans people normally are not so calm? Because we just had a nice, calm discussion about how you don't care about the fact that we are systematically discriminated against. Or at least not enough to do anything about it. You just tell me to "transcend" and "escape", and then put limits on what I am allowed to do and say in my attempts.

This is what happens when we are calm. Nothing. Nothing changes. Nothing improves. And people try to use it as an excuse to set the terms by which we are allowed to beg for scraps.

I have a daughter and a wife with medical problems that prevent her from working. I seriously have to wonder if I will be allowed to provide for them. And you don't care. Oh, I'm sure that will tug at the old heart strings a bit, but then you will go on your way and do nothing. You might even pat yourself on the back for being tolerant enough to engage with trans people - or the "reasonable" ones, at least.

Listen, you don't seem like a bad person. But you don't seem like a good person either. Frankly, I don't care about people like you. No matter how calm and collected we are you will never care enough. Our reputation with you, and people like you, is worthless.

We get mad and loud and shout because good people hear about pain and suffering and want to stop it. We have to be loud enough that good people can't ignore us. That is all we have. We lack the numbers and political power to do anything else.

That's fine, it doesn't make sense to care about people like me, I'm not saying you should at all. I've only weighed in on the labels that apply to me, and I'm not expecting anybody to put aside their own issues and fight for me. That would be ridiculous, you should worry about the matters that are most valuable to you.

But you never know how many people who may actually take an active role might also be off put by certain behaviors so calm and reasonable is the best option for gaining support. Not everybody is going to go out of their way to support you, but people are more likely to care about nice people. For the record, I still think you're doing a good job.

People seem to read a lot more into what I wrote than what I meant. I've been arguing 2 points of semantics in this thread and not a whole lot more, I didn't mean to be insulting, but if I have, I'm sorry. I don't dislike transgender people in general, nor do I find them disgusting or anything. I don't feel any hate. If thinking that the word normal is fine when used properly and not used as an insult makes me a bigot, well I just don't know what to say about that. Maybe I didn't manage to word things very well, writing is not my strong suite. I don't think than not agreeing on all points makes someone an enemy though. I mean, sure, I'm not going to go out looking for trans people to help, but it's not like I'd allow the kind of persecution mentioned to happen right in front of me. I'd do as much for a trans person as I would for anyone else.

 

[WindKnight]

I always find that its the same group that always object to what trans people say, feel and believe. 90% of the time they'll say that "tranny" and "******" aren't slurs.

Oh, they're not slurs. Not like "cis" is. I mean, "tranny" has never been used to insult or harm anyone. Well, not anyone who counts!

That actually got me thinking.

Because, in the UK, "fag" wouldn't refer to anyone of the homosexual persuasion, but rather a cigarette, and if you ask petrolheads about a "tranny", they'll think you want to know whether a car has a manual or automatic gearbox.

Funny eh

And any Briton who, like myself, interacts with Americans a lot know the American meaning of the first word, and take care not to use it among Americans for that exact reason. (apart from recounting the tale of my mothers friend who, not knowing, while on holiday in America went into a shop and asked for 20 you know whats.)

 

[MrFalconfly]

I always find that its the same group that always object to what trans people say, feel and believe. 90% of the time they'll say that "tranny" and "******" aren't slurs.

Oh, they're not slurs. Not like "cis" is. I mean, "tranny" has never been used to insult or harm anyone. Well, not anyone who counts!

That actually got me thinking.

Because, in the UK, "fag" wouldn't refer to anyone of the homosexual persuasion, but rather a cigarette, and if you ask petrolheads about a "tranny", they'll think you want to know whether a car has a manual or automatic gearbox.

Funny eh

And any Briton who, like myself, interacts with Americans a lot know the American meaning of the first word, and take care not to use it among Americans for that exact reason. (apart from recounting the tale of my mothers friend who, not knowing, while on holiday in America went into a shop and asked for 20 you know whats.)

Oh I would love to see that persons face when she did that. Must've been absolutely hilarious.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Cisgendered or straight people insisting on just being called normal sounds a lot to me like brown haired people insisting on being called normal compared to blond haired, or white people insisting on being called normal-skinned. Oh dear god, I really hope that isn't the next popular thing

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

I recently saw a man in his 30s get severely upset over someone calling him a goose.

I'm getting the strangest feeling that both of these happened at the same event. To be fair though, the guy who was called Goose had to do a lot of running

 

[9tailedflame]

[sarcasm] Yea, because venom is always the best response to venom.

Oh boo hoo, I'm really heartbroken over all the cis people who are either too ignorant or too heartless to understand the situation trans folk are put in to understand their frustrations.

Spoiler: This is what we're thinking when we hear this.

Generalizing a group of people and hating all of them for what a handful of people happening to belong in that group did is completely reasonable and logical, and generalized revenge on a group of people for what individuals do is a great policy that never leads to anything bad and will make the world a better place [/sarcasm]

Its a good thing they're only generalizing obstructive cisgender people who make their lives more difficult than it needs to be.

Prejudice is not OK, regardless of who does it, or how disenfranchised someone may be.

This would carry more stock if I ever heard it uttered by somebody who actively stood up for a group of other people that they held no stock in. I only ever hear it in response to people being frustrated with people that they're rightfully frustrated with. Hell, there is a user (who shall go unnamed) in this very thread who have made threads on this subject matter multiple times, usually directly referring to "cisphobia" and "die, cis scum". Funnily enough, when I checked their post history I couldn't find them ever standing up for transgender people. The only time they ever did comment on transgender people was to say that Poison [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/r8xTnv_MqgA/maxresdefault.jpg] couldn't have been transgender because she isn't ugly. The post was rather recent at the time too, and it wasn't the only comment made about her. Yeah, bangup job, being real concerned about prejudice, right?

Not to mention, claiming that one group is always and exclusively the cause of discrimination is not only itself an ironically discriminatory notion, but one that encourages people to not think about, see, or address the reality of the situation, because you've resigned yourself to a narrative, and not the world as it is.

Yeah, transgender people, who are disproportionately poor due to employment discrimination, mental health ailings due to mistreatment and costs of medical care that is rarely covered by insurers and have no chance of being elected to a high public office are causing real, tangible discrimination against cisgender people, including explusion from the family and the home at young ages, experiences of physical violence and sexual harassment including from the police, and can't even legally use proper basic public facilities. Oh how terrible it is to be cisgender under the boot of trans oppression.

There's transgendered people out there who hate other transgendered people because of insecurities,

And I guarantee you its because of the actions or perceived actions of trans people. For example, the transgender community doesn't hate Caitlyn Jenner because she's transgender, the transgender community hates her because she's a sucky, sucky person.

Saying that it's ok to use 'cis' as shorthand for "those cisgendered people who treat transgendered people badly" is more or less the same as saying it's ok to use "blacks" as a shorthand for "those black people who commit violent crime".

Oh, you mean the same way white people complain about black people and then segue into reminiscing into nostalgia about the good ol' days when they could drive any of those damned negroes who got too uppity out of town with a few torches and rifles?

Now i won't blame an entire group of people for that action, but i really think trying to defend this kind of hatred like you are is fundamentally wrong. Even if the frustrations of these people are understandable, you shouldn't just accept that they've become hateful bigots, you should confront them about it, the same way i confront cis people i know when they're shitheads about it. Bigotry won't end bigotry, hatred won't end hatred. This should be obvious.

Oh I'm not defending hatred. These trans people don't hold an irrational hatred of all cis people. They obviously don't. They're frustrated with them because most of them either cause many of the problems in their life or ignore it. They're simply venting, which I approve of because franking I care more about the mental health of a vulnerable trans person than the feelings of a cis person who doesn't give a flying fuck about us.

You know, this sort of stuff you're spouting right now is why trans people say "I hate cis people." People outright advocate genocide of trans people on this very forum and these users won't bat an eye or comment on it but a trans person says "cis" and everybody loses their mind. They say that they care about transgender people but really they just care about their feelings. Thats not being supportive, thats being selfish. You'll notice there's plenty of cisgender people in this thread who aren't upset at this phenomenon of transgender people venting about cisgender people being assholes to them. You want to know why? Because they're not the people that transgender people are venting about. They don't fear being painted in this broad stroke because they know they're not a part of this frustration, this anger, and they know this because they haven't done anything about it. They know that they're not part of the problem so why would they get upset when somebody points out that there is a problem? They don't have a guilty conscience and they don't have any stake in minimizing the progress of transgender acceptance so they don't get upset. Meanwhile, what you're saying is extraordinarily tone-deaf to the point that its off-putting and forces people to assume the worst of you. I try not to but I've seen this line of thought spouted many times, almost always by people who throw us under the bus at any chance they can get, so its hard to have any faith.

If there's anyone really advocating genocide, i haven't seen it. Could just be i wasn't online that day or something, but that's disgusting and they're a horrible piece of shit and i don't know why the mods wouldn't do somethings about that. I do think it's a bit unreasonable to assume that people are venting when one group does something, but people are legitimately hateful when another group does it. If you automatically assume intentions like that, you'll only ever look at someone as their gender identity. And yea, no duh i'm a bit more knee-jerk to stand up against hatred of cis people than trans people, because i'm cis. I don't at all approve of hatred either way, but one potentially poses a threat to me, and one doesn't. That's pretty simple stuff. They're on the same level morally, but in one case i'm in the line of fire, and in one case i'm not. That doesn't mean i'm incapable of being supportive of others.

As for the "they clearly don't hold an irrational hatred of cis people", how do you know? How am i expected to know this from a single forum post or two? Am i just expected to assume the best of trans people and the worst of cis, because that's prejudice. As for the argument that one should just assume you're not what we mean, that's pretty unreasonable, and a lot to ask where there's no prior relationship with that person.

There's some really bad shit trans people have to live through, that's clear for anyone to see. Society's overall view of gender, especially in legal terms, is very archaic, and it's largely based off hatred and fear from insecure, old-fashioned people with fucked-up concepts of morality who preach to the redneck masses and seem to run things a lot. It's fucking shitty. We prop up the uselessly hyper-exaggeratedly masculine cis men and biologically feminine cis, seemingly just for that, like football players and models, they make millions of dollars largely just for fitting in with what's expected of their biological sex well enough, and that enough is pretty clear the psychotic level of hate society has overall with trans people, or anyone who doesn't fit the expected social mold, and it's disgusting. That's certainly true, and i can even understand a certain level of skepticism at cynical feel-good "support" when there's so much shit in the media putting a big ceremony about being supportive, but not really adding up to anything substantial. And hell, isn't expressing frustrations more clearly a good thing? If it isn't just "cis people", wouldn't expressing that more nuanced and accurate frustration of the people who hate, and the people who sit by and let the hate happen by more constructive both in terms of communication and in terms of venting frustration?

As for the under the heel of whatever stuff, women were oppressed for centuries while being equal in population to men. In Africa, the majority were disenfranchised and discriminated against during European expansion, numbers aren't a direct reflection of how you're treated in society, there's a lot more too it than that. And how about nobody be under anybody's boot? I never claimed that anyone was under trans boot, but you can't just avoid any and all responsibility for anything just because you're from a smaller group than someone else. I personally am of a tiny tiny population of people with the username 9tailedflame, we make up a smaller percentage of the population than your group, That doesn't give me a free pass to act however i want. Yes, hatred/frustration from a smaller group can't really add up as much as it can from a larger group and affect society overall, but that doesn't make an individual any better. No worse either, but no better. Do you think that cis people are incapable of being frustrated? Frustration is universal, everyone can say stupid shit because they're frustrated, regardless of your gender,sex,race, or anything else, yes, even cis people.

 

[Silvanus]

As for the "they clearly don't hold an irrational hatred of cis people", how do you know? How am i expected to know this from a single forum post or two?

I think it's a pretty fair assumption. Not based on forum posts, but based on context and history. Nobody holds a genuine hatred of people whose physical sex matches their identity, and if someone did, they would definitely not represent any meaningful trend.

Judging on experience, it is infinitely more likely that the few instances of "cis" used in a pejorative sense represent only a semi-ironic expression of the exasperation at how ubiquitous casual transphobia is.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Cisgendered or straight people insisting on just being called normal sounds a lot to me like brown haired people insisting on being called normal compared to blond haired, or white people insisting on being called normal-skinned. Oh dear god, I really hope that isn't the next popular thing

...

Not really. Black hair is the majority worldwide, with some countries where it is almost universal for all but foreigners, and even in countries where brown is the majority it isn't nearly by the same degree that cis people are. Likewise, white isn't a world wide majority either.
The comparison doesn't really work because it's not like there are countries where cis people aren't the majority, nor is the majority status ever as variable as with hair/skin color. Although, depending on what definition of normal you're using by pretty much any normal, it's not like you'd be wrong to say black hair is the normal hair color in China, or most of Asia for that matter; likewise with race in particularly racially homogeneous areas.

 

[Something Amyss]

And any Briton who, like myself, interacts with Americans a lot know the American meaning of the first word, and take care not to use it among Americans for that exact reason. (apart from recounting the tale of my mothers friend who, not knowing, while on holiday in America went into a shop and asked for 20 you know whats.)

Funny thing. A lot of Americans of my grandmother's generation in the Northeast US would say "fag" and mean cigarette. I don't know how far south that extended, but if you were bumping against Canadia, it meant it. So my grandmother would talk about holding a fag in her hand and the adults would get it and the kids would be confused. Or snicker.

My parents also say some British slang from time to time, and I have to remind myself it's not British in this case. It's New Enlgandah.

Cisgendered or straight people insisting on just being called normal sounds a lot to me like brown haired people insisting on being called normal compared to blond haired, or white people insisting on being called normal-skinned. Oh dear god, I really hope that isn't the next popular thing

Nah. It's more likely to shift the other way. Gays are already gaining a sense of normalisation in our culture, albeit not having gained it, it's still an issue. Transfolk will gain this eventually. We've had terms for blacks and whites for centuries, as well as hair colour and the like. When people make arguments like that, they're generally reaching to justify why trans people aren't normal.

Which is actually kinda the problem.

Though if cis people get to be normal, I want to be paranormal. And given more people think they've seen a ghost than a trans person in America, I might as well be!

I do think it's a bit unreasonable to assume that people are venting when one group does something, but people are legitimately hateful when another group does it. If you automatically assume intentions like that, you'll only ever look at someone as their gender identity.

Well, no. You can look at the context of the two bodies of people without only seeing them as their gender identity. For example, do you know of any instance where someone has been attacked by trans individuals for being cis? Or where they have been harmed or denied work because someone don't like their kind round these parts?

I'm betting most people who complain haven't even come across the dreaded "die cis scum," because it always seems to come from a friend of a friend of a friend. But one body has a history of doing this shit, and it isn't us.

Mars is right, BTW. We have had people on here advocate the elimination of trans people, whether one chooses to call it genocide. Now, I'm, not here to argue moderation, but the fact remains that people didn't bat an eyelash, which is probably why you missed it. And will keep missing it in the future. This is a forum where people argued that "tranny" wasn't a bad word, but are now comparing "cis" to "******" and "*****."

Contextually, statistically, historically, you have very little to fear from us. In part because if we get too uppity, people will try and freaking kill us. When you ignore that, sure, it looks like two parties with equal potential. But that's a lot to ignore.

Judging on experience, it is infinitely more likely that the few instances of "cis" used in a pejorative sense represent only a semi-ironic expression of the exasperation at how ubiquitous casual transphobia is.

Next thing you'll tell me is that we don't really drink male tears. >.>

 

[9tailedflame]

And any Briton who, like myself, interacts with Americans a lot know the American meaning of the first word, and take care not to use it among Americans for that exact reason. (apart from recounting the tale of my mothers friend who, not knowing, while on holiday in America went into a shop and asked for 20 you know whats.)

Funny thing. A lot of Americans of my grandmother's generation in the Northeast US would say "fag" and mean cigarette. I don't know how far south that extended, but if you were bumping against Canadia, it meant it. So my grandmother would talk about holding a fag in her hand and the adults would get it and the kids would be confused. Or snicker.

My parents also say some British slang from time to time, and I have to remind myself it's not British in this case. It's New Enlgandah.

Cisgendered or straight people insisting on just being called normal sounds a lot to me like brown haired people insisting on being called normal compared to blond haired, or white people insisting on being called normal-skinned. Oh dear god, I really hope that isn't the next popular thing

Nah. It's more likely to shift the other way. Gays are already gaining a sense of normalisation in our culture, albeit not having gained it, it's still an issue. Transfolk will gain this eventually. We've had terms for blacks and whites for centuries, as well as hair colour and the like. When people make arguments like that, they're generally reaching to justify why trans people aren't normal.

Which is actually kinda the problem.

Though if cis people get to be normal, I want to be paranormal. And given more people think they've seen a ghost than a trans person in America, I might as well be!

I do think it's a bit unreasonable to assume that people are venting when one group does something, but people are legitimately hateful when another group does it. If you automatically assume intentions like that, you'll only ever look at someone as their gender identity.

Well, no. You can look at the context of the two bodies of people without only seeing them as their gender identity. For example, do you know of any instance where someone has been attacked by trans individuals for being cis? Or where they have been harmed or denied work because someone don't like their kind round these parts?

I'm betting most people who complain haven't even come across the dreaded "die cis scum," because it always seems to come from a friend of a friend of a friend. But one body has a history of doing this shit, and it isn't us.

Mars is right, BTW. We have had people on here advocate the elimination of trans people, whether one chooses to call it genocide. Now, I'm, not here to argue moderation, but the fact remains that people didn't bat an eyelash, which is probably why you missed it. And will keep missing it in the future. This is a forum where people argued that "tranny" wasn't a bad word, but are now comparing "cis" to "******" and "*****."

Contextually, statistically, historically, you have very little to fear from us. In part because if we get too uppity, people will try and freaking kill us. When you ignore that, sure, it looks like two parties with equal potential. But that's a lot to ignore.

Judging on experience, it is infinitely more likely that the few instances of "cis" used in a pejorative sense represent only a semi-ironic expression of the exasperation at how ubiquitous casual transphobia is.

Next thing you'll tell me is that we don't really drink male tears. >.>

It's a lot to ignore, sure, but let me ask you this. What happens if/when transgendered people get more accepted into society? If more closeted transgendered people feel comfortable enough to reject conformity and be who they are? Will you still so adamantly defend anti-cis philosophies? Once upon a time, no african americans ever dared speak out of turn to a white man, but now, it would not be unwise for a white person to choose their words carefully in an environment where they were the only white person. This is a good thing, the point i'm trying to make is things change with time, and eventually we'll be in the future, and if things do get better for trans people, then one of two things happen. Either you reject this hate-accepting philosophy, and you hold everyone to an equal standard, or you hold on to your philosophy that hostility towards cis people is perfectly fine. If it's the latter, To what extent will you extend this philosophy? Verbal harassment? Hazing? Threats? Violence? And if the latter is the case, why should cis people support you when you demonstrate apathy towards threats towards them? That is my question to you.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

...

Mars is right, BTW. We have had people on here advocate the elimination of trans people, whether one chooses to call it genocide. Now, I'm, not here to argue moderation, but the fact remains that <color=red>people didn't bat an eyelash, which is probably why you missed it. And will keep missing it in the future.

Do you have a source for this? A link to the thread, or something of that nature?
I'm rather suspicious of your use of the vague, nebulous and interchangeable group known as "people". How many people is "people"? If you you were around to witness this thread then it seems clear that there were those who didn't approve of it, and considering the last thread were someone advocated eugenics was met with shock, scorn, mockery, and even a ban for the person in question, I have to say I'm rather skeptical that any large percentage of people on these forums were okay with genocide. I don't doubt there would be anyone who would, since there is always someone who'll hold pretty much any belief, no matter how vile, but I still have to question how many is "people", and also how long ago this was, since I'm not really sure how attitudes on these forums have changed over time.

This is a forum where people argued that "tranny" wasn't a bad word, but are now comparing "cis" to "******" and "*****."

...

And? This is also a forum where people have argued that global warming is a myth, and that it's real. This is a forum where people have argued that guns should be legal, and that they shouldn't. This is a forum where people have argued that PC is the superior gaming platform, and that it isn't. What's more, this is a forum where the complete reverse is now being argued, in this very thread, in your own post.
I'm pretty sure I've had this argument multiple times with others already, but I'm rather sick of seeing "people argued X, now they're arguing Y", because without any clear and proven connection between individuals who've argued a conflicting opinion in the past, and still hold said opinion, no hypocrisy can really be established. And if the point isn't to imply hypocrisy, then why should it matter that someone somewhere has argued something different to what is now being said?
By all means, call specific individuals out who have argued "tranny" isn't a bad word, but "cis" is, but it has no bearing on the argument as a whole.

 

[Something Amyss]

By all means, call specific individuals out who have argued "tranny" isn't a bad word, but "cis" is, but it has no bearing on the argument as a whole.

Or rather, you don't want it to. You've given me very little reason to believe that you would be anything other than dismissive, especially given your rather selective reading of the "race" thread.

If you're sincere about evidence, try acting like it next time.

-SNIP-

I have to run in a moment (gaming night with friends), but I didn't want you to think I skipped or ignored you. I'll probably get to you later tonight.