I don’t know their labels, but I do know they have expressed a preference to not be called ‘cis’. Respecting people should include respecting their requests not to be labeled with vocabulary they object to.
In case you missed that it’s Peterson or are just not aware of him, he’s a man that based an entire “career” in the spotlight on not respecting people’s requests to be labeled correctly at the cost of his actual career and sanity.
Ok, if this person has trouble respecting others, we don’t demonstrate basic respect for their human rights? Doesn’t that imply the thing we want everyone to do as a basic aspect of their humanity is optional if we can turn it off when inconvenient?
Respect is a two way street. It’s a contract between people. If someone threatens you, as in his tweet, he doesn’t get to have respect. If someone is “just asking questions” like you are… You don’t get to have respect.
Isn’t it strange that your questions seem to only go on one direction?
Why aren’t you asking questions of JP?
Why does he not want to be called cisgendered when that’s what he is?
Is it because removing the prefix “cis” makes it easier to alienate trans people?
Why are you suddenly obsessed with respecting other people’s “chosen” labels?
Do you think “cis” and “trans” are a choice?
Have you supported queer peoples labels in the past?
Why do you only take on the position of “let’s respect other people’s basic humanity” when defending heinous right wing grifters?
When have you defended the basic humanity of minorities in the past?
Why do you demand your one sided leading questions be answered in a meaningful way but there isn’t a chance in hell you’ll answer these ones meaningfully?
Why aren’t you pointing out that a grown ass man, brain damaged or otherwise, threatening strangers on the internet isn’t respectful behaviour?
Why do you think disrespectful behaviour should be met with respect?
Would you respect someone threatening to assault you?
Would you respect someone entering your home?
Why are you such a coward? when someone threatens you shouldn’t you defend yourself?
It’s so easy to look like you aren’t an absolutely garbage human being under the guise of “just asking questions”, but people are waking up to your bullshit right wing technique. In the words of innuendo studio
And because these folks keep showing up in each others’ metadata, regardless of what they say, Google thinks there is definitely a relationship between the guy “just asking questions” and the guy denying the Holocaust
What your saying means these are not basic human rights, if you can abandon them when you get angry. Your letting some online outrage personality bait you down to their level and wrestle in the mud.
I’m not sure what part of respect and tolerance are a social contract is confusing to you. No it’s not a basic human right. If you spout off hateful rhetoric you can’t expect everyone “respect” you after. If you threaten to assault, or assault people, you can’t expect to be treated non-violently after.
When the fuck was it a “basic human right” to be treated with respect even though you’re a raging violent asshole. Last I checked violence is met with the violence required to make you stop, then usually by further punishment.
Not when that person is a bad faith actor. He’s not asking not to be called cisgender because it somehow relates to his identity but because he’s promoting a certain worldview. He is the first to say that words have immutable meaning and is educated enough to know what the cis and trans prefixes mean and how they are not exclusive to gender.
He’s not upset that he’s being labeled as cisgender, he’s upset that the labels cisgender and transgender exist in the first place. He knows what the word means, that it’s not an insult, and that it accurately describes him. He’s acting insulted specifically to spread the idea that the word cisgender is an insult. He’s doing this to push back against our society normalizing the concepts of transgender and cisgender. If he was only upset about himself being called that, I would agree with you that we should just accept his odd preference and move one, but he’s actively working against anyone being called cisgender or transgender. That’s the problem and that’s why people are not being tolerant of his label preferences.
You could have a preference for not being called slurs, as most people do, but “cis” isn’t a slur or a label, it’s a descriptor of if you are or are not transgendered (or agender).
Everything we know about Jordan B. Peterson clearly tells us he is not trans. Thus, he is cis-gendered.
If Jordan expressed a preference to not be called a human being, and then someone came to you and asked “what species is Jordan B. Peterson?” , would you try some euphemism for ‘human’ because “Jordan has expressed a preference to not be labeled human” ?
No, you wouldn’t. You’re just trying to strawman this bullshit so that “since trans people can choose their preferred pronouns, Jordan can choose if he wants to be labeled cis or not”, which is just not how anything works.
It’s like those Americans who get offended that the Spanish word for black is “negra/negro”.
It’s like those Americans who get offended that the Spanish word for black is “negra/negro”.
I don’t think we are going to find mutual understanding. I may disagree with people being sensitive of a word, but I cannot call people things they find triggering/insulting - I need to respect everyone including how they identify themselves. I would not call Black Americans words they don’t like, and try to defend it by saying its normal in Spanish.
He doesn’t want to be called “not gay” because he doesn’t want gays to exist. He doesn’t want to normalize gays. It’s not about him, it’s about hating others under a thin veil.
“I don’t think we’re going to find mutual understanding.”
Well clearly, since you’re being unreasonable.
“I cannot call people things they find triggering/insulting.”
Okay, so just to let you know, I find the vowels “e” and “i” to be extremely offensive, so if you could refrain from using them while discussing with me so as not to trigger me, that’d be appreciated.
“Cis” isn’t a “label”. It’s as much a descriptor as “obese”. Some people are calling for that to be slur, but it’s not, it’s a medical term. Imagine you’re an instructor at a bungee-jumping place. You need to know the weight of the people jumping. If someone comes in and tells you they get offended if labeled by numerals, would you want to “respect” that and just avoid the issue of their weight and just pick a rope strength at random?
Especially because Elon definitely does identify as a cis-man. That’s just not up for question. “I would not call Black Americans words they don’t like”. So if someone asks you in spanish, what colour a black object is, you wouldn’t use the Spanish word for black? Then what would you call it?
You can’t defend a slur by pretending “no I wasn’t calling them the n-word, I was just using the spanish word for black” if you actually spoke English, because that’s an excuse, not them using Spanish.
Just like with Elon, he’s trying to utilise the “I can decide what people should call me” (and he can, he can literally do that), but if his gender-identity aligns with the sex he was born with, then he is cis (and he does identify as a man, and he was AMAB, so he is cis-gendered). Just like if a person has sexual attraction to their own sex, they are a homosexual. Ofc you “homo” has been used as an insult as well (although pretty much solely for homosexual men and not women), because gay people have historically been oppressed quite a lot. I’m sure Elon has noticed there’s a negative connotation sometimes with “cis” if it’s in the “cis white male” context where that is being used to generalise “the opposition” as if were (which is itself othering by anyone using that ‘tactic’). The point here being that cis men have not historically been oppressed. Anywhere, really. Ever. Ofc certain cis men have been, due to them being say of an ethnicity that’s been oppressed, but cis men haven’t been oppressed for being cis men, is the point.
And just like “homosexual” isn’t a slur in an of itself, “cis-gendered” isn’t either, and it’s even harder to use “cis” in an offensive context than it is the whole word “homosexual”. “You homo” would probably be used as an insult, but “you’re a homosexual” really doesn’t seem as offensive as it does descriptive.
It’s as much a descriptor as “obese”. Some people are calling for that to be slur, but it’s not, it’s a medical term.
You know what else were medical terms? Dumb. Cretin. Moron. Idiot. Retarded. Not saying “obese” is on that level yet, just that originating as a medical term doesn’t remove usage of that term from any criticism. If it’s consistently used as an insult rather than a neutral descriptor…it becomes an insult.
Yeah, medicine evolves and realises the old shit they were doing was wrong and then it adapts. Like how we know sex is different from gender, and someone for whom those aligns is known as “cis-gendered”.
I have dozens of alternatives which are politically correct and reflect better the conditions which those terms used to be used for.
What alternative would you suggest for “cis-gendered”?
And also, does your answer imply that because some people consider “obese” to be offensive that we should avoid it and use something like “above the thing that’s above ‘normal’ in the BMI-scale”, because that’s a mouthful compared to “obese” and I’d feel silly hearing it out of a doctor’s mouth.
If you “need to respect everyone” then why are you here defending JP who get far more respect than he deserves when you could be respecting and supporting the choices of minorities?
Seems like your vocal, active, respect is EXTREMELY selective! You seem to mostly fight for the respect of people who actively advocate to disrespect the weak and disenfranchised. How strange!
These words aren’t made up on the spot, they are one noun (gender) with a Latin qualifier prefix added that denotes something about the noun (cis).
You can’t “object” to being categorized based on your attributes; Cisgender is the same kind of word as heterosexual, which is just the word sexual with the prefix “hetero-” meaning different.
If you are a straight man, you can’t simply object to being called heterosexual as it is a term that describes you. The alternative is being something besides straight/hetero.
You can’t “object” to being categorized based on your attribute
While I’m with you for the most part, this is not really the case. To take an extreme example, “n****r” is literally just a categorisation based on skin tone, but I’m definitely not about to tell someone they can’t object to being called that because they really do have dark skin. Similarly, it might be accurate to call someone fat or lopsided or gangly, but in most contexts it’s pretty mean to do so and I don’t think they’d be out of place to ask you not to
Ordinary words can become slurs, mild or otherwise. “Cis” could. See the way that misogynists use “female”, a word which is still totally normal and fine to use in many contexts. I think the crucial difference is just that people don’t use “cis” that way.
I see what you’re trying to say, but this is a fundamentally different situation like you said: This particular word is specifically used in situations where its use is important for distinguishing groups. There are no alternatives when distinguishing is necessary because the options aren’t just “transgender” and “not transgender”, there are also agender and nonbinary.
The alternative is to say the full qualifier of “People who are the gender they were assigned at birth” or “People who are neither trans nor agender nor non binary…” - At which point you’re just defining the word cisgender.
With JP it’s honestly more akin to saying “Ok so there are people who live in California, people with homes in multiple states, and people who don’t live in California. Californians, kinda-californians, and non-Californians.”
And then someone who does not live in California pipes up with “don’t call me a non-Californian because California isn’t real”.
To be clear in case I wasn’t before, I agree with you that “cis” is not a bad thing to call someone. I was disagreeing with the logic you supported the point with rather than the actual point itself. Peterson is 100% doing it because he’s a dickhead that wants to weaponise the language against trans people
If somebody lives in Zimbabwe, and they don’t like being referred to in terms of California or not California. While you’re vocabulary is consistent, when you’re speaking to this person from Zimbabwe it would be polite to not label them as a non-californian to their face.
This non-western, non-white, non-Christian, non-Californian theoretical person might get annoyed by being defined by all the things they are not. Even though every term is technically correct.
The analogy, like most, breaks down the moment we come back to the reality of the situation at hand:
1- The lines are incredibly close together. Nobody lives across the world, incredibly removed from gender. The English language itself uses gender heavily.
2- The person from Zimbabwe, in the metaphor, is going to Californian spaces and complaining that he doesn’t want to be called “non-Californian” because states aren’t real.
The context matters, and the contexts in which people use the term cisgender are almost always in direct contrast with one or more alternatives.
That said, I don’t condone harassing people, so I’m definitely against sending him messages unprompted calling him that… But he’s just in general against the concept of cisgender existing because it is predicated on the existence of alternatives, and he doesn’t believe alternatives exist.
In this particular case, it’s because JP is very much vocal about both of those things. He is a cisgender male who is only objecting to the suggestion of the existence of an alternative to being the gender you were assigned at birth.
English is a gendered language, therefore it’s important to gender people for basic communication.
“Cis-male/trans-male” is more inclusive than the cisnormative “male/trans-male”.
So until everyone accepts that “male” includes cis and trans, anyone who intends to respect basic human dignity will use “Cis-male/trans-male” when discussing gender. Simple as.
What is his chosen label beyond “not cis” because he hates trans people?
Making fun of people for them asking to have their labels respected seems inconsistent.
Again, what label?
I don’t know their labels, but I do know they have expressed a preference to not be called ‘cis’. Respecting people should include respecting their requests not to be labeled with vocabulary they object to.
Threatening violence is not the appropriate way to express a “preference.”
100% agreed. The original twitter poster is a outrage merchant.
In case you missed that it’s Peterson or are just not aware of him, he’s a man that based an entire “career” in the spotlight on not respecting people’s requests to be labeled correctly at the cost of his actual career and sanity.
Why are you engaging with this sea lion?
Ok, if this person has trouble respecting others, we don’t demonstrate basic respect for their human rights? Doesn’t that imply the thing we want everyone to do as a basic aspect of their humanity is optional if we can turn it off when inconvenient?
Respect is a two way street. It’s a contract between people. If someone threatens you, as in his tweet, he doesn’t get to have respect. If someone is “just asking questions” like you are… You don’t get to have respect.
It’s so easy to look like you aren’t an absolutely garbage human being under the guise of “just asking questions”, but people are waking up to your bullshit right wing technique. In the words of innuendo studio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g
What your saying means these are not basic human rights, if you can abandon them when you get angry. Your letting some online outrage personality bait you down to their level and wrestle in the mud.
I’m not sure what part of respect and tolerance are a social contract is confusing to you. No it’s not a basic human right. If you spout off hateful rhetoric you can’t expect everyone “respect” you after. If you threaten to assault, or assault people, you can’t expect to be treated non-violently after.
When the fuck was it a “basic human right” to be treated with respect even though you’re a raging violent asshole. Last I checked violence is met with the violence required to make you stop, then usually by further punishment.
Not when that person is a bad faith actor. He’s not asking not to be called cisgender because it somehow relates to his identity but because he’s promoting a certain worldview. He is the first to say that words have immutable meaning and is educated enough to know what the cis and trans prefixes mean and how they are not exclusive to gender.
If we wont respect people’s labels / triggers then we can’t expect others to respect ours.
He’s not upset that he’s being labeled as cisgender, he’s upset that the labels cisgender and transgender exist in the first place. He knows what the word means, that it’s not an insult, and that it accurately describes him. He’s acting insulted specifically to spread the idea that the word cisgender is an insult. He’s doing this to push back against our society normalizing the concepts of transgender and cisgender. If he was only upset about himself being called that, I would agree with you that we should just accept his odd preference and move one, but he’s actively working against anyone being called cisgender or transgender. That’s the problem and that’s why people are not being tolerant of his label preferences.
You’re still not getting it.
You could have a preference for not being called slurs, as most people do, but “cis” isn’t a slur or a label, it’s a descriptor of if you are or are not transgendered (or agender).
Everything we know about Jordan B. Peterson clearly tells us he is not trans. Thus, he is cis-gendered.
If Jordan expressed a preference to not be called a human being, and then someone came to you and asked “what species is Jordan B. Peterson?” , would you try some euphemism for ‘human’ because “Jordan has expressed a preference to not be labeled human” ?
No, you wouldn’t. You’re just trying to strawman this bullshit so that “since trans people can choose their preferred pronouns, Jordan can choose if he wants to be labeled cis or not”, which is just not how anything works.
It’s like those Americans who get offended that the Spanish word for black is “negra/negro”.
I don’t think we are going to find mutual understanding. I may disagree with people being sensitive of a word, but I cannot call people things they find triggering/insulting - I need to respect everyone including how they identify themselves. I would not call Black Americans words they don’t like, and try to defend it by saying its normal in Spanish.
He doesn’t want to be called “not gay” because he doesn’t want gays to exist. He doesn’t want to normalize gays. It’s not about him, it’s about hating others under a thin veil.
“I don’t think we’re going to find mutual understanding.”
Well clearly, since you’re being unreasonable.
“I cannot call people things they find triggering/insulting.”
Okay, so just to let you know, I find the vowels “e” and “i” to be extremely offensive, so if you could refrain from using them while discussing with me so as not to trigger me, that’d be appreciated.
“Cis” isn’t a “label”. It’s as much a descriptor as “obese”. Some people are calling for that to be slur, but it’s not, it’s a medical term. Imagine you’re an instructor at a bungee-jumping place. You need to know the weight of the people jumping. If someone comes in and tells you they get offended if labeled by numerals, would you want to “respect” that and just avoid the issue of their weight and just pick a rope strength at random?
Especially because Elon definitely does identify as a cis-man. That’s just not up for question. “I would not call Black Americans words they don’t like”. So if someone asks you in spanish, what colour a black object is, you wouldn’t use the Spanish word for black? Then what would you call it?
You can’t defend a slur by pretending “no I wasn’t calling them the n-word, I was just using the spanish word for black” if you actually spoke English, because that’s an excuse, not them using Spanish.
Just like with Elon, he’s trying to utilise the “I can decide what people should call me” (and he can, he can literally do that), but if his gender-identity aligns with the sex he was born with, then he is cis (and he does identify as a man, and he was AMAB, so he is cis-gendered). Just like if a person has sexual attraction to their own sex, they are a homosexual. Ofc you “homo” has been used as an insult as well (although pretty much solely for homosexual men and not women), because gay people have historically been oppressed quite a lot. I’m sure Elon has noticed there’s a negative connotation sometimes with “cis” if it’s in the “cis white male” context where that is being used to generalise “the opposition” as if were (which is itself othering by anyone using that ‘tactic’). The point here being that cis men have not historically been oppressed. Anywhere, really. Ever. Ofc certain cis men have been, due to them being say of an ethnicity that’s been oppressed, but cis men haven’t been oppressed for being cis men, is the point.
And just like “homosexual” isn’t a slur in an of itself, “cis-gendered” isn’t either, and it’s even harder to use “cis” in an offensive context than it is the whole word “homosexual”. “You homo” would probably be used as an insult, but “you’re a homosexual” really doesn’t seem as offensive as it does descriptive.
You know what else were medical terms? Dumb. Cretin. Moron. Idiot. Retarded. Not saying “obese” is on that level yet, just that originating as a medical term doesn’t remove usage of that term from any criticism. If it’s consistently used as an insult rather than a neutral descriptor…it becomes an insult.
Just how does one use it as an insult?
Yeah, medicine evolves and realises the old shit they were doing was wrong and then it adapts. Like how we know sex is different from gender, and someone for whom those aligns is known as “cis-gendered”.
I have dozens of alternatives which are politically correct and reflect better the conditions which those terms used to be used for.
What alternative would you suggest for “cis-gendered”?
And also, does your answer imply that because some people consider “obese” to be offensive that we should avoid it and use something like “above the thing that’s above ‘normal’ in the BMI-scale”, because that’s a mouthful compared to “obese” and I’d feel silly hearing it out of a doctor’s mouth.
If you “need to respect everyone” then why are you here defending JP who get far more respect than he deserves when you could be respecting and supporting the choices of minorities?
Seems like your vocal, active, respect is EXTREMELY selective! You seem to mostly fight for the respect of people who actively advocate to disrespect the weak and disenfranchised. How strange!
These words aren’t made up on the spot, they are one noun (gender) with a Latin qualifier prefix added that denotes something about the noun (cis).
You can’t “object” to being categorized based on your attributes; Cisgender is the same kind of word as heterosexual, which is just the word sexual with the prefix “hetero-” meaning different.
If you are a straight man, you can’t simply object to being called heterosexual as it is a term that describes you. The alternative is being something besides straight/hetero.
While I’m with you for the most part, this is not really the case. To take an extreme example, “n****r” is literally just a categorisation based on skin tone, but I’m definitely not about to tell someone they can’t object to being called that because they really do have dark skin. Similarly, it might be accurate to call someone fat or lopsided or gangly, but in most contexts it’s pretty mean to do so and I don’t think they’d be out of place to ask you not to
Ordinary words can become slurs, mild or otherwise. “Cis” could. See the way that misogynists use “female”, a word which is still totally normal and fine to use in many contexts. I think the crucial difference is just that people don’t use “cis” that way.
I see what you’re trying to say, but this is a fundamentally different situation like you said: This particular word is specifically used in situations where its use is important for distinguishing groups. There are no alternatives when distinguishing is necessary because the options aren’t just “transgender” and “not transgender”, there are also agender and nonbinary.
The alternative is to say the full qualifier of “People who are the gender they were assigned at birth” or “People who are neither trans nor agender nor non binary…” - At which point you’re just defining the word cisgender.
With JP it’s honestly more akin to saying “Ok so there are people who live in California, people with homes in multiple states, and people who don’t live in California. Californians, kinda-californians, and non-Californians.”
And then someone who does not live in California pipes up with “don’t call me a non-Californian because California isn’t real”.
To be clear in case I wasn’t before, I agree with you that “cis” is not a bad thing to call someone. I was disagreeing with the logic you supported the point with rather than the actual point itself. Peterson is 100% doing it because he’s a dickhead that wants to weaponise the language against trans people
If somebody lives in Zimbabwe, and they don’t like being referred to in terms of California or not California. While you’re vocabulary is consistent, when you’re speaking to this person from Zimbabwe it would be polite to not label them as a non-californian to their face.
This non-western, non-white, non-Christian, non-Californian theoretical person might get annoyed by being defined by all the things they are not. Even though every term is technically correct.
The analogy, like most, breaks down the moment we come back to the reality of the situation at hand:
1- The lines are incredibly close together. Nobody lives across the world, incredibly removed from gender. The English language itself uses gender heavily. 2- The person from Zimbabwe, in the metaphor, is going to Californian spaces and complaining that he doesn’t want to be called “non-Californian” because states aren’t real.
The context matters, and the contexts in which people use the term cisgender are almost always in direct contrast with one or more alternatives.
That said, I don’t condone harassing people, so I’m definitely against sending him messages unprompted calling him that… But he’s just in general against the concept of cisgender existing because it is predicated on the existence of alternatives, and he doesn’t believe alternatives exist.
Why is it my business what is in their pants, and how they gender themselves?
In this particular case, it’s because JP is very much vocal about both of those things. He is a cisgender male who is only objecting to the suggestion of the existence of an alternative to being the gender you were assigned at birth.
It’s clear from this conversation, and tweet above, the only reason to label this person as cis is to trigger them.
That is no way to treat another human being.
lol
Absolute brain-dead take.
English is a gendered language, therefore it’s important to gender people for basic communication.
“Cis-male/trans-male” is more inclusive than the cisnormative “male/trans-male”.
So until everyone accepts that “male” includes cis and trans, anyone who intends to respect basic human dignity will use “Cis-male/trans-male” when discussing gender. Simple as.