Why ' cis ' ? why even bother with it

Then that is a degree of respect for the individual.

Can you read? I have done so such thing. I actually asked a question to request clarification. This illustrates perfectly how you respond before digesting and firing off an inappropriate reply.

 

And that there is the point really; your lack of empathy with other people.

You are happy to label someone "thin-skinned" without ever knowing their life experiences, rather than simply accept growing common knowledge of why some people are genuinely upset by certain terms.

There was a time when "the N word" was seen as "just a word" and PoC too "easily offended" by it. But of course, we are all better informed now as to why they are and its connotations of slavery.

What terms do you think you might be using today that you will be judge for? How are you to know what they are unless you listen to those who are offended? Or do you naively believe that there are no such terms at all used today that are objectively offensive, still used by you when they have already been reappraised by others?

All generations have those of course that as they age stop taking on board increased knowledge disseminated by society, and instead remain steadfast in their old habits, even at the expense of hurting others. Which are you?

 

Cis simply means “not transgender”. In areas of advocacy, academia, etc., there has to be language to effectively communicate without being burdensome. It’s NOT a slur in any way. It’s usually transphobic people that want to protect their vision of normal vs. freaks that get their panties in a knot over the cis label.

 

However, much of the recent debate was about using it in everyday contexts, not in academia, medical settings etc. Nobody here advocated against using it where it conveys relevant information. What some of us do dislike is seeing it used either to create needless division or even to attack the cis-gendered, e.g. by playing a victim and making unreasonable demands.

Maybe it *used* to be at least in part the way you describe it. But today, too many acivists are so freaky and so influential that I know LGBT+ people who now hate some of their own with a passion, simply because the activist's words and deeds make *all* LGBT+ folks look a bit (or more than a bit) derranged. I know non-LGBT+ people who used to support various LGBT causes, but who now see LGBT+ activists as enemies of both common sense and functional society. And every use of a term like "cis-males" without a good reason runs the risk of increasing tensions even further. Roughly 99% of people aren't trans, and every time somebody needlessly hits them with the cis- label, their impression that the trans folks themselves see them as different deepens. How can you expect cis- folks to treat everyone equally when they keep hearing that you too think they're fundamentally different?

One could even say that, instead of this being simply about transphobes being transphobic, it is often about cis-phobes and cis-haters trying to weaponize language to support their fears and hates. Using a term that accents the differences between cis- and trans-folks in situations where such distinction doesn't help is actually harmful to both cis- and trans- people. Trans folks have to deal with things like more attention being drawn to the fact that they're different. And my experience is that we already got to a point where too many cis- folks feel they're being blamed and attacked and otherized and marginalized for nonexistent sins and they're increasingly turning against LGBT folks. I'm not surprised, because even good people will get angry when they get repeatedly attacked by folks they've tried to help.

On a side note, at least the transphobic *men* tend to not get their panties in a knot, as they tend to not own any

 

Some trans people are bat shit crazy and that lunacy gets broadcast by people with an agenda to paint all trans to be these idiots. Any work can be weaponized and trans people experience that 1,000x more than cis people. In this context, you can see how much more simple it is to use the term cis to denote the vast majority of society.

 

Yes, I do understand it has its uses. And I too have to live with the consequences of me being "different", day after day. But my point here is that the overuse, abuse and weaponization of such terms that we're seeing today is leading to more and more normal folks becoming convinced that too many LGBT+ folks have lost their marbles and *are* batsh*t crazy. Talking like a cis-hater makes one look like he actually is one.

Honestly, the harsh reality is that a <5% minority kinda has to be crazy to alienate and attack the 95%+ majority in such a fashion, especially if the attacker is also morally in the wrong. And as the saying goes, while you can ignore reality, you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

 

Can you give an example of the term "cisgender" being "weaponised"? And are you asserting it should be struck from the dictionary entirely?

It's simple a word with a meaning, a meaning with zero negative connotations. As has been said, words with specific narrow meaning exist to prevent language being burdensome.

 

I'm not even going to try to debate you, because recent debate here is ample proof the two of us see things so differently there's next to no chance we'd come to an agreement about such things. The best we can do is agree to disagree, I'm afraid.

 

So I take from that that you cannot think of a single example of such "weaponisation". And yet you state it as if it were fact. Perhaps The Daily Mail told you it was true? This is usually how this kind of irrational thought spreads, the unthinking adoption of third party opinion.

To echo my own argument, you will see others above post that cis is not a slur in any way. And that it is usually transphobics that object to it. And yet you continue to rally against this, fighting shadows, but never delivering any blow of reason. Tell me, are you transphobic?

And yes, we've already established that any attempt at reasoned debate is a futile activity with anyone who tries desperate methods such as to redefine dictionary terms to prop up their argument. So on the pointlessness of debate with you, we can concur.

 

Hey, we're not in any disagreement here. I've called you out for the type of insensitive person that you are and you're happy to admit it. Enough said.

Ah, another lame strawman. No-one ever said only PoC were slaves. However, they overwhelmingly were in the minority, especially in recent times. And many still suffer the after affects of it (i.e. racism). And besides which, why did you introduce the topic of slavery into the debate, because I never did. Another digression to avoid addressing the points I did make.

And its kind of ironic (and highly undermining of your own argument) that you are happy to decide for yourself what terms to use for PoC, while at the same time throw your toys out of the pram at others using completely non-derogatory terms to describe you. Oh, the irony. It also reveals massively the inconsistency in your so-called reasoning ability, Dear oh dear, lol.

You don't care. Again, indicative of the type o person you are. But as we're already agreed, you're happy to be that type of person, And as for "the undeserving", how do you determine whether someone you've just met is undeserving (well, other than skin colour as your already indicated, which does make you come across as somewhat racist, as well as for other reasons already established).

I don't call myself anything. But if someone else used a term and it was accurate, I'm not going to throw my toys out of the pram, unlike you.

It's far from dead in that many of our our English words are rooted in the language. Yes, "cis" (as in cisgender) or "trans" (as in transgender)., or ("ante" as in "antenatal"), or "anthro" (as in anthropomorphic), etc. Our language is littered with them. (By all means I'll give more examples if you want).

So, WHAT is your point? (Not that you'll be able to answer that pertinent question).

Is you point that we systematically go through the entire dictionary and strike out every word with an origin of Latin? What about Greek? Are you ok with Greek words of origin? Or other origins? Or is it just Latin?

You are aware of just how ridiculous you sound, right?

As I've said, there is nothing wrong with the word "normal" other than it being used in contexts to suggest that someone is abnormal. Whereas you object to the term "cisgender" (which has no negative connotations), the word "abnormal" is often used to belittle or imply that someone is a lesser human being, something it seems you are happy to do (and indeed admit to it). Look, there's no argument here. I know the type of person that you are and you're happy to admit to it. So what's your issue?

Grrr, growl, growl. Box those shadows. Lol. How is The Daily Mail these days? (Or can't you answer that without them publishing their opinion of themselves first, lol).

 

Well, we can ignore your rant on you being insensitive, as we both agree that you are. (So why the hell did you just type so much about it, as it adds nothing?)

Oh dear. It would appear you yourself have just revealed your lack of knowledge of terms of debate. Let's start by introducing you to the dictionary definition, shall we?

straw man. 1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

And now let's show the quote of yours to which it applies.

The part easily confuted is that of course not only African people were slaves (you need a capital letter for African by the way). That is your strawman, because (I'll spell it out) people other than Africans have been slaves, obviously.

But beyond your poor grasp of logical fallacy, I did not mention Africans at all. Not at any point. So it seems that your attention span and/or memory and/or ability to comprehend are in question too. (Clue: "PoC" and "African" are not synonymous).

But, let's move beyond your poor grasp of the English language...

I can only go on what you yourself say. And clearly you do show a lack of respect for PoC. The proof being this.

It's about what PoC like, not you. Tell me, would you use the N word? No? So why do you not respect hte term that is deemed acceptable to the people to whom it refers.

Yes, I know it may be hard for people like you to keep up, but it really doesn't take that much effort to be unhurtful (then again, we've already agreed that you are insensitive).

But there comes a point where some insensitivities are in fact racist. And that's not for *you* to decide, but for those to whom it affects to decide. But hey, I'm sure you'll try scribbling a paragraph or two which will ultimately do nothing more than show how you feel you rights to say what you want take precedence over any concern for PoC. Thus further exposing your racist credential. Hey, go for it...

Lol, says the person who incorrectly corrects me for my correct use of the term "strawman". You couldn't make this stuff up.

Questioning someone's reasoning is the heart of debate. And speaking of which...you still haven't answered my question about why the hell you brought up the adoption of Latin within the English language. i mean *you* were the one that implies we should not use the term "cis" because it is Latin. What was your reasoning here? The point of my question is to help you clarify your point, which was not at all clear. I mean you *seemed* to be trying to strike the word cisgender from the English language and attacked the many occurrences of Latin within English to do so. Quite bizarre really. More than a little over-reactionary, lol. If you'd had a reasoned point to make, you'd have answered my question, using it positively to help make better a point that you made badly. If, in fact, you had a reasoned point to make in the first place, which seems doubtful given that you objected to the question.

Whether you wish to block me or not is up to you, I guess if you cannot debate or reason with any expertise, it's always a last resort .