I've been reading up on the term "Cis". https://4w.pub/cis-coined-by-pedosexual-researcher/ Also, " Elon Musk Deems ‘Cis’ A Twitter Slur–Here’s Why It’s Is So Polarizing" https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimels...res-why-its-is-so-polarizing/?sh=52595bab4ac6 This article doesn't mention the 1991 coining of the term and its author, instead referencing a 1994 writing. Your own thoughts on this?
It's a made up word like most of their "Alphabet Guide Book". A "woke" military conversation overheard: "Yesser, nosser, I mean Ma'am, no Ma'am, I mean no They, Ma'am, yes, I mean't They ma... Oh forget it. I'll do push up's instead. "You want an exact count?" That is racist, They,"
The liberal intelligentsia are always trying to "normalize" their kinks, to ensure that they become "acceptable" and "legal"... Permissiveness seems to be the governing instinct for predators like this guy.
Can you actually link to the writings in which Volkmar Sigusch defended pedophilia? I have a feeling that, if he even said it in the first place, he wasn't talking about pedophilic ACTIONS. If he was, then **** that monster. But I doubt he was.
This was embedded in the original link. I understand why you missed it since you didn't read the citation provided in the OP. https://archive.is/Mvkk8 Cheers.
Ah, thank you for providing a link that confirms my suspicions. Did you get to the "but no longer have physical contact" part? Of course not. By the way, your link does not contain the quote in the OP.
I see no problem. The utility of a term really has nothing to do with whether the person who came up with it was a "good guy" or not. Cis is simply a useful term in the context of trans existing. I really liked the analogy to chemistry, which uses cis and trans to describe molecular bonds. As to the views of the guy described in the article, this part sounds okay: Somebody is not a bad person because they happen to have desires that are problematic, what makes them a bad person is if they follow through on their impulses without regard to hurting others. This part sounds more concerning: I am not sure if it's taken out of context, but it sounds like a problematic view. Either way, I judge the term on its own merits, not on whether the guy who came up with it had other ideas that were bad.
For me, all this crazy stuff from the LGBT+homo-pedo-community is very offensive. There once was a time when abnormal sexuality took little space in our everyday life. I'm a conservative spirit, willing to tolerate deviations and perversions up to a certain extend. But I can no longer accept the modern development towards a relativization of gender and lust for same sex and minors. I really hope that the general attitude towards these things will change soon. So may God help us.
I dont consider namecalling to be offensive. Offense suggests harm and I dont tend to give anyone the power to harm me with words. But it is a very stupid term, and my opinion of people who use it in serious conversation tends to be reduced.
He's definitely being taken out of context and goes on, in that same article, to condemn pedophilic acts. And here's a more complete quote with better context: "There is nothing wrong with pedophilia in the sense of the word, that is, with liking, even loving children. It only becomes problematic when the power imbalance between the child and the adult is exploited by the adult pedosexual. Thanks to the sexual revolution in the years around 1968, sexual self-determination has a high priority in our country today. However, a prepubescent child does not yet have this reflected self-determination. Since a prepubescent child does not even know what love and sexuality are, what they mean, what they symbolize, how they are seen and lived by other people, there can be no question of sexual self-determination. For this reason alone, the relationship between a paedosexual and a child is built on sand, or more drastically: on the (self-)deception of the adult. An alleged 'consensuality' between the child and the pedosexual is based either on the child's socially precarious situation or on the adult's empathy and seduction skills. Without such special and intriguing circumstances, no child is willing to do such disgusting things with an adult. There is an insurmountable abyss between childhood sexuality and that of an adult, which can only be overcome through the more or less recognizable use of violence and the exercise of power – with the well-known consequences." The author was probably taking for granted that, writing for an academic audience, most of his audience would know a little bit of Greek, and thus know that "philia" has no sexual connotation. In actual greek, a pedophile would be anyone who has nonsexual affection for children. Hence, "There's nothing wrong with pedophilia in the sense of the word, that is, with liking, even loving children." And he's frankly correct on that count.
Not directly but “In 1970 members of the German parliament charged with reforming criminal law even listened to radical education scholar Helmut Kentler, sexologist Volkmar Sigusch, and other sociologists and psychologists, who declared that children would not suffer from sexual relations with adults and that those relations should not be punished, because they are a ‘crime without a victim.’” In 1972, Dutch pro-pedophile activist Dr. Frits Bernard published a paper titled, “Pedophilia - a Disease?” which concluded that “Pedophilic contacts do not damage the psychic development of a child.” According to Dr. Sonja Levsen, in her essay, “Pedophile Apologism in the 1970’s," Volkmar Sigusch was one of the “advisory scientists” on Bernard’s research. "Cis" Coined by "Pedosexual" Physician (4w.pub)
From what I've read so far, Siguch was crtical of actual pedophilic activity, which he called pedosexual to differentiate it from the idea of non-sexual affection for children. I could be wrong, but that is what it is looking like so far.
Yes, "cis" is offensive. I never liked the word since it arrived in the English language a few years ago. Before that, there wasn't a word for it because that status was, you know, normal.
Of course it does not offend me. My gender and gender identity happen to match my assigned sex. Its a fact. For others, its not a fact. No reason the english language should not distinquish between these two populations. Its like being offended by the term 'heterosexual' applied to you, because you are not comfortable that homosexuality exists in other people. And no, I really don't care a fig who coined the term. He's dead so he's not bragging. I really have no idea who first coined the term 'caucasian'. I don't know anything about his character, habits or behavior on this planet. I don't need to learn either. I am caucasian.
I am woman. Cis is a label slapped on me, designed to manipulate society to view men...WHO PRETEND to be women...to be thought AS woman. But they aren't ...but I am. Cis is an offensive term that devalues women .
The word 'woman' or 'man' does not distinguish at all. They are umbrella terms. A woman can be either a cisgender woman or transgender woman. A man can be either cisgender man or transgender man. But the word ''Trans man' is not actually an umbrella term. That would be transgender "A trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth. The label of transgender man is not always interchangeable with that of transsexual man, although the two labels are often used in this way. Transgender is an umbrella term that includes different types of gender variant people (including transsexual people). Trans men have a male gender identity, and many trans men choose to undergo surgical or hormonal transition, or both (see gender-affirming care), to alter their appearance in a way that aligns with their gender identity or alleviates gender dysphoria.[1] Trans man - Wikipedia Trans woman - Wikipedia
