⚤'The words "cis" and "cisgender" are considered SLURS on this platform!' ⚤

You go Musk! If calling someone a woman or man or guy or girl is offensive, a made up alternate term for man or woman is actually offensive.

Just saying a NORMAL man or woman, is insulting to some people. CIS exists to remove normal to make the ABNORMAL feel good about themselves. Its a slur against NORMAL people. It was specifically created for that purpose.

 

I love it when someone attempts to explain with an analogy and doesn't fully get their own explanation.

So let's help you understand this using your own words and replacing the labels.

For trans person to call a regular person, cis, is definitely a slur. But calling a regular person normal or straight or heterosexual," is not a slur, at all. This is because, even though both cover some of the same information about the indicated person, the cis word adds more, negative connotations, which are not evident in the word normal (regardless if, in your or someone else's mind, the two words are thought of as exact synonyms). In objective reality, they are not interchangable, without varying the meaning.

You provide an example where two different people use the same word and in one case it is a slur and in the other it is not. If a regular person wants to refer to themselves as slur, just like if a black person wants to use the n-word, that's their choice. However if a white person uses the n-word, or if a queer or trans person is using it on others, then it is a slur. They are not interchangeable. That is all Musk noted as well. The reasoning is consistent.

The reality is that all these words attempt to confuse definitions and remove the sense of "other". Also homosexual and heterosexual aka straight were tied to biology. You are attempting something very different from that with the claims of hundreds of genders, a spectrum vs binary and it's all tied to state of mind. That means one group of people get to assign labels to other groups of people not based on innate characteristics but state of mind.

If I called you a brown eyed person and you have brown eyes, not a slur. I could say it proves you're full of ****, that's a slur. However saying well I identify as two spirits and that allows me to use theses labels/slurs on you is not acceptable. You literally can change your mind at any moment and no one else is required to accept your mental state for their labels.

A bit in the weeds here, but the point remains, that there is an agenda with these words. They aren't just synonyms and the people demanding them aren't just saying you now have another option or choice. They are demanding and compelling the use of these words.

I'll see your psychology and raise you biology.

Nancy is offended by you creating a slur out of that name. The creator of the word declared the intent of for the word. That intent is to basically create fuzzy boundaries and that means they are not identical words. If I say this line is California and the other side is Mexico and you decide that creates an "otherness" and propose "Mexifornia" for all the border areas, that is an intentional obscuring of the facts. When people take what is clear and make it fuzzy so they can shift it, people are allowed to push back against that or demand it not be done or used.

Actually Wikipedia makes reference to it but rationalizes the concerns away, not surprising given it is a pretty leftist source.

She didn't intend the word as an insult (but it is an insult). It doesn't cause problems (yes it does) but it reveals them.

You'd see how stupid this rationale is if applied with any other word.

I didn't mean the word ugly to be an insult. I don't believe the word ugly caused problems with regard to your appearance, it only revealed what we all already know about your appearance.

Doesn't quite fly does it. Nor does it with CIS.

The point remains. The vast majority of people are in the normal category and you are seeking words to grow the tiny defective, obscure, and irrelevant points into a larger group. That is the point of the whole adding letters continually to the acronym for the groups being discussed. It isn't straight or normal or regular vs the aberration. The aberrations and tiny group want to be bigger so they just keep shifting definitions to grow the group. The group doesn't have to have any sort of common understanding or common objectives. It just has to be bigger and help shrink the majority. That's what we've seen over and over with intersectionality, critical theory and so on.

 

Learn to live with it snowflake.

 

The difference with your analogy is that no one is asking the molecules their state of mind. The molecules just follow their rules of their classification and work as intended. If the are supposed to bond with another molecule they just do it and there's no questioning why it happens or doesn't.

The "otherness" is almost always going to be felt by non-normal groups due to human nature. I'm left handed. It isn't like I believe that 90+% of the world is going around trying to **** on me and make me feel inferior but the reality is the world is mostly right handed. I shrug and adapt. The otherness of left-handed will always be present and I tried to somehow make handedness a non-binary or create more obscure and fuzzy labels to change that point it might for people in their word usage but it wouldn't change much in day to day life and the state of mind of people.

This otherness you define as insulting and discriminating and it isn't. It's just reality. Many of the arguments again try to alter the numbers, the odds and that reality. For example if someone is gay or lesbian, while the percentages are much smaller, they can likely find a partner. The odds for finding a partner when straight and normal are pretty good. However with trans and then sexual orientation on top of that the odds are miniscule. They are profoundly likely to be alone for life. That is why you have trans advocacy groups shaming lesbians as an example for having a sexual organ preference vs a gender presenting preference. They literally are demanding they accept chicks with dicks. They just want to improve their odds by claiming your own sexual preferences are "problematic".

That's just as bad as someone demanding they "pray the gay away". It's weaponizing empathy for gaslighting purposes.

My friends who are gay and straight are in a minority. They are homosexuals. They have a sexual preference for the same sex organs. The percentage of people who want a partner who present as a different sex than they were born as and then on top of it might still have sexual orientation that doesn't align with that or might be the opposite of that is an extreme form of otherness and no amount of screaming about discrimination and insults will change that point.

If you are a trans woman who prefers dating women think about what the odd are for success. Same for all the variations. When not talking social contagion and living life vs filling out a survey or fitting in, in other words what you do that is actionable because that is what dating and relationships reflect, you are talking a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage. It's a choice that leads to depression and failure. Yelling about everyone else being the problem doesn't change that nor does changing the labels.

 

YOu a Dr.?

 

In what field... doctorate is a type of degree.

 

Are you a biologist or anything in any way related to biology?

 

Major fail of an argument. Please explain how your supposed analogy holds water: how is "calling a regular person, cis,... definitely a slur?" What are the "negative connotations," added by the term " cisgender?"

Do you need me to explain why the n-word is a slur? Because that is the analogy that you are trying to mimic; but it just doesn't work. "Cisgender" and "normal" association of psychological gender with physical gender, mean exactly the same thing. "African American/black" and "n**ger," do not. That is obvious.

 

I'm not going to give you my personal information. I've found that extreme transadvocates have no problem with creating false allegations, doxing and much worse. Address the discussion points or don't.

 

You can explain it but it's going to go back to state of mind. In the end these are combinations of letters and sounds. It's what they communicate. You ask what is the negative connotation. I've stated as have others that I am not to be conflated with transgenderism nor even the concept of gender as a separate state from biology. I do not want my normal condition to be associated in any form or fashion with a mental disorder.

It isn't like the n-word is a slur by itself. It is what it is associated with and the state of mind used when saying it that makes it a slur.

 

I'm not asking for your "personal information". I'm asking if you have any real knowledge related to the subject at hand, since you tried to bring up "biology" in a subject that's really psychology.

Personally I have a BA in biz admin and dual minors in accounting and music.

See? Didn't hurt me a bit.

Now if you're just dodging because you don't wanna admit you've got nothing going for you but a bigoted personal opinion that's cool, but at least own it, don't try to bullshit your way through.

 

I am going to stop your argument there, before it goes any further off the rails:

*1) Note that the terms for handedness, are "right-handed," or "left-handed." This is analogous to "cis-gender," or "trans-gender."

We do not say that a person is either "normal," or "left-handed." That would be the analogy to what you are arguing, about cis-/trans-genders.
(Do you understand how analogies work?)

2) The likelihood of one's "finding a partner," is utterly irrelevant to the terms used, merely to identify two different relationships, between one's physical and psychological gender. So you are here, merely attacking a straw man.

 

If you want to insure that your cisgender status is not "conflated" with transgenderism, what more definitive separation could you ask for, than to be referred to as "non-trans?" As I replied to you earlier, this is an alternative to "cisgender." There would be nothing hostile about your responding, when someone referred to you as cisgender, that you prefer the term, "non-trans." To answer, instead, that you prefer to be called "normal," is clearly expressing an attitude of antagonism toward transsexuals.

We don't have to agree with, or like, or support, everyone else's way of living, to just get along, amicably. Simply do not go out of your way, to be confrontational, in order to unnecessarily denigrate others. If you think of transgenders as mentally ill, what possible, sincere objection could you have, to being called not mentally ill, that is, "non-trans?"

 

It's funny that you cite your education and consider that to be "something" going for you on this argument. That's a big fat nothing with regard to relevance to this discussion and you are indeed ************ your way through it.

I'll share that I have a graduate degree. If that isn't enough for you too bad.

I do and handedness is a binary so the analog would be male and female. However normal would be right handed because that is how everything is set up and it the state of mind perpetuated by it that is claimed to be fought with words like cis-gender.

Scissors are just scissors. You don't call them right handed scissors or left handed (perhaps beyond the first year or two of school) you just call them scissors.

There are hundreds of examples of this. I could go on and on. You don't think about it because you're probably right handed.

https://www.leftyslefthanded.com/

Go have some fun there and maybe you'll realize we don't call spiral notebooks right handed. We just call them notebooks and we don't consider that to be "stigmatizing". Right handed is normal. Left handed is not.

It's not irrelevant because I was showing how they are attempting to grow and shrink respective groups. There is a reason it has gone from LGB to 2SLGBTQIA++

We have seen this in race and ethnicity as well. The word race used around the world often referred to what we call ethnicity here. Italians and Germans did not consider themselves the same race. However now you can say they are the same race but different ethnicities. Why? So you can create new groups called white vs BIPOC as an example.

This is about control, power and dynamics associated with them, not understanding. We have perfectly understandable words before and myself and others still plan to use them.

 

See you are still asking for the exception to define the rule. It doesn't work that way. To suggest even more absurd words and definitions doesn't change anything about that. Your point and the point of trans advocates is to remove the rule and thus there are not rules and no exceptions.

If someone declares I am cis-gender. I will reply that they are using a slur and they can refer to me as a man. I've no worried about the mental state of transsexuals or transgendered people feeling "othered" by that or defining my rule or state of being as being antagonism or anything else related to them. They are the exception and they have to deal with the ramifications of that.

You declare my mere existence and opinion to be confrontational. You declare it to denigrate others merely for being thought or spoken. Sorry but rights don't work that way. You define my unwillingness to accept their words, terms, definitions, and more as confrontational. That's simply more mentally ill than anything discussed related to transgenderism.

I do not have to love Big Brother. Your point is that you must. There's a good book about that you might want to look up. You'll probably find it in the Ministry of Truth.

 

And normal is cisgendered. But my point remains, we still refer to right-handedness, to distinguish it from the "abnormal" condition of left-handedness, as being "right-handed," not as being either left handed, or being "normal."

So that is confirmation that you don't understand how to make accurate analogies. In your analogy, "scissors" would be equated to the word "gender." And we do use the word "gender," on its own, when that suffices for the context, which it usually does (the same as normal, right handed scissors, are usually the meaning of the word "scissors"). The same could be said of the stringing of a guitar, being right handed, but being the standard way, so usually not needing to be distinguished. Yet, there are such things as left-handed guitar, and left-handed scissors. Whenever both kinds of either of these are being discussed, one would need distinguish the "right-handed" styles, from the left-handed ones.

Accordingly, we have the general idea of "gender." When we want to refer to someone whose physical & psychological genders do not match, we refer to that as "transgender." And whenever both types of gender-- the matching and the diverging conditions-- are being discussed, we distinguish each by the terms cis-gender (cf. "right-handed") and trans-gender (cf. "left-handed).
So your argument, is faulty & erroneous.

 

Being gay or bi-sexual, does not make one transgendered. By far, the majority of gay & probably bisexual people, are cisgendered. So much for your argument, that "they" are trying to grow the size of the aberrant group-- the term to which you object, does the opposite: it separates most gays from transexuals. That, actually, is one of the objections to it, coming from other quarters.

 

Yeah, they're normal.

 

Oh, the whiny little brats who disrupt conservative speakers on campuses all over the country, are TOTALLY not more butthurt!

 

It separates them by putting them together under the same umbrella term?

I don't mind discussions but they have be in good faith. You either aren't operating in good faith or you've gone below minimum bar for comprehension here.

Here's what you said.

LGB 2S Q T I A

LGB+2STQIA++

equals... those two have separated by adding them together.

You grow the group because you say they are cisgendered but those groups argue that they are just needing to learn about their "problematic" understanding of anatomy.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385

The penis can be a female sex organ because... transwomen are women.

As I've said there's an agenda here.

Transwomen are women. If you're attracted to women then you're attracted to transwomen.

Yes but I'm attracted to vagina, not penis. A woman can have a penis and still be a woman. You're attracted to women which means you are also attracted to penis since women have a penis. If you don't accept that some women have a penis then you're a transphobe.

Even the word cisgender keeps up the point of moving biology from sex to gender.

 

.

 

that was never the argument, it was "normal" vs "cisgender", Dana Defosse the person who coined the term cisgender said he did so because of transgender being marginalized, so the fact that you admit that transgender and cisgender are not set above one another literally proves my point. They had to create a new term because "normal" was seen (rightfully so) as being language that was "superior" or "above" or "correct" so the new term had to be a downgrade from "normal" to be on the same level as transgender, which you admit that cisgender is now on the same level as transgender.

And now we are all on the same page of cisgender being a downgrade term from normal and lots of people find offensive

Thanks for helping clear that up..

 

What about when a lib says "you're just a cis, white man?" Not a slur?

 

First off, I do not know what the "2S," the "I" or the "A," stand for, in your initialisms. Secondly, I do not know what the difference is, in meaning, between the two different ways you present those initials (with or without the plus signs, and either with the "T" preceding or following the "Q;" I have a feeling that one of them is just wrong).

The upshot, is that I don't know what you are trying to say. If you can manage to offer a clear argument, I will reiterate that most gay people, are cisgendered. Being attracted to other members of your own sex, does not make a person "transgendered." One can have a man's body, and identify, psychologically, as a man, who is attracted to other men, for example. It is not clear that you understand this. The sex which attracts you, is irrelevant to the cis- or trans- determination. Hence, most straight and gay people, are in the same "cisgender" group.

Perhaps you are conflating the sexual and the gender groups; they are independent of one another. The initialism of LGBTQ, is a grouping of different sexual/gender groups who experience discrimination. It does not imply that all of those groups are trans-gendered-- only the one represented by the "T." IOW, there is more than one grouping that involves gay people. In the gender-specific context, straight and gay fall into the same category; in the context of prejudice, straight and gay are in different groups.