You must log in or register to comment.
It’s so funny when right wing talking heads decide to go for the tough guy routine.
It makes me want to call him cis to his face on camera, and then let him do whatever he wants.
At best he humiliates himself by proving that he can’t do shit about what you say to him. At worst he assaults you and you get to ride the “I got assaulted by Jordan Peterson” train for a while.
I kinda hope he tries so I have an excuse to fight back. So many of these pundit fucks need a solid punch to the jaw
I’m of two minds:
- I find the ‘cis’ label offensive. That’s my right.
- I find this guy offensive. That’s also my right.
It literally means “not trans” my dude. Do you get offended when people call you human?
Call me human to my face. See what happens.
Hugs you stupid homo(sapien).
… … Human
How dare you?!? Vergognga! Verfuckingognga!!
:3
I think it’s disingenuous to argue that is the only usage of it. Plenty of words have colloquial meanings. There’s plenty of assholes out there who use it venemously. Like a racist saying “He’s black” when they mean the n word. “Fuck off and die, cishet!”
There has been a lot of shit on Twitter and Tumblr outright calling for genocide of cis people. Forced sterilization. Saying that if you are a cis white male you inherently are a bad person. A rapist. Etc. Etc.
It’s bullshit lashing out, and doesn’t truly amount to anything. That said, it can wear on you to be vilified for what you were born as, for things you can’t control.
Huh, imagine that.
It strikes me as particularly ridiculous when this is brought up, there usually are a lot of responses along the lines of “Well now you know what we’ve dealt with!” “Poor majority person is suddenly hurt when they’re treated the same way they’ve been treating the rest of us” etc.
I don’t think many people miss that point. But it’s still a shitty thing to do, and it can feel like gaslighting attempts when reasonable people make responses like yours.
“Negro literally means black, do you get offended when people call you the color of your skin?” … let’s start the countdown to people falling over themselves to say it’s not the same. It isn’t the same, but the parallels should give you pause. Hopefully cause some thought.
Does that mean that if enough of a minority of people use a neutral word with ill intent, other people should be careful of using that word? For instance, if a bunch of racists started using the word “black” venomously day and night for months, should everyone else start considering the word “black” to be a slur? What if it’s a term that’s otherwise used by scholars with ample consensus? And if there’s no other other to refer to it, and by avoiding it, you cannot refer to the concept at all?
Welcome to the minefields of communication and the euphemism treadmill.
I’m not saying we let the assholes win. Keep using it as the original meaning, offset those who would use the term otherwise.
I just wanted to add some important perspective as to how and why some people could view it as being used as a slur. Less “don’t use this term”, more “If someone gets offended when you use this term, don’t be condescending to them about the literal definition, bear in mind the term is also used in very negative ways”
That sounds like you’ve described the euphemism treadmill, like how moron was a medical term before it was an insult.
I might take a while to respond to this since I’m at work and theres a lot to respond to, but unlike the other commenter who just lashed out, I actually intend on responding to this, it just will take a while
Those people are going to do the same thing regardless of what the word is. What you’re asking for is just to put it on the euphemism treadmill
“There has been a lot of shit on Twitter and Tumblr outright calling for genocide of cis people. Forced sterilization. Saying that if you are a cis white male you inherently are a bad person. A rapist. Etc. Etc”
Believe me I know how crazy people on twitter can get, and I’ve definitely seen those crazies in action. But they are going to act crazy towards their chosen scapegoat for their problems regardless of the word we’ve chosen to describe those people.
“It’s bullshit lashing out, and doesn’t truly amount to anything. That said, it can wear on you to be vilified for what you were born as, for things you can’t control.”
I 100% understand and empathize with this and will not argue or counter it in any way. I mean no gaslighting and I apologize if it feels like what I said was heading in that direction.
On your last point: for a while Negro WAS the appropriate word to use, and now it’s Black (or if you’re American “African American”) and while it isnt appropriate anymore, we have a word that is that fills its usecase. People dont Identify as Cis (and on that point most dont identify as trans), they identify as Male/Female/etc, and cis and trans are categories based on whether your identity matches your sex or not. As of right now, cis is the word we have for when it matches, we dont really have any other words in common parlance that describe that in 1 word, and further the extreme end of Tumblr and Twitter doesnt care which word we use when they dehumanize the percieved majority, they are going to continue being assholes to those they dont feel dont place on their oppression heirarchy regardless of the word we use
100% agree.
I’m not trying to stop anyone from using the term. Just trying to offer some perspective as to why it can mean more than the direct dictionary definition to some people.
Generally it doesn’t matter, but it’s something to keep in mind when someone takes the usage of the term negatively. Don’t immediately assume they’re taking offense because they’re transphobes. Jordan Peterson is, but there’s going to be a non-zero amount of people out there where their main exposure to the term “cis” is where it was being used negatively.
Female literally means egg holding human. Do peeps get offended being called female?
Oh shit. Is language fucking social? Jesus. Motherfuckers think gender is social but language is concrete apparently.
FOH
Lmao
Someone actually downvoted you for this.
It’s discourse. Fuck off with your emotions. Talk or gtfo.
Lol
Fucking kedy lamarr over here.
?
Do peeps get offended being called female?
Yes. It’s scientific language usually used to insult women. IE; men and females.
That’s entirely my point. We don’t have to be robotic about this shit. We can’t argue against people we refuse to understand.
Reasonable, nobody should have to accept a label they don’t ascribe to themselves.
Bruh. We use labels to sort shit. Abstraction is how we deal with complexity. Choose your own labels, but how others see you isn’t up to you. You’ve got no ownership of other peep’s heads.
I don’t care what’s in your head just keep it to yourself. No-one wants to get misgendered, no-one wants to get mislabeled.
Do you find all the other labels that can be used to describe yourself offensive, or just this one?
Like are you offended by being called a human or homo sapien? Are you offended by being described by your skin color or race? Sexual preference? I just find it weird to single out the one label for no apparent reason.
How would you suggest we describe people that aren’t trans or non-binary in a way that wouldn’t offend you for whatever reason? As uncomfortable as it may be for you, gender identity is a thing, and the rest of the world is going to use that word to describe people. It would probably be best for you to just get over it.
Why are some women unhappy with being referred to as female? It’s biologically accurate, yeah? Obviously can’t be offensive.
You understand why some people find being called cis a problem, you just don’t want to accept it ideologically. That’s fine. Don’t try to drag others to your viewpoint for bullshit reasons.
I understand that some women don’t want to be called female when they are not cisgendered.
I just don’t understand why a cisgendered person would have a problem being referred to as such, unless they were unsure if they were cis, or were bothered by the topic of gender identity as a whole.
If its the former, than I can understand, but if its the latter, then that’s a you problem, and I don’t care if you are offended being called cis.
Why would a trans woman have any more problem with being called female?
Male/female have a usecase of being used to try to distance oneself from the subjects of your sentence and often used in more scientific or legalistic styles and can come off as dehumanizing as a result.
Ah, I see ehat you are saying. I understand the connotations of referring to someone as female directly, and I would never do so.
There are times where female is more proper to use, such as in medical settings, or as a descriptor in certain settings, e.g. ‘female hygiene products’. Some trans males and enbys would still be bothered by seeing the word ‘female’ in the proper setting, too.
Some trans males … would still be bothered by seeing the word ‘female’ in the proper setting, too.
Trans men are males and trans women are females…
The problem I’ve seen with being called “female” is when a speaker uses “men” for one set of people and “female” for another, in the same context. It feels gross, like they don’t see women as fully human. It feels much less bleck when a speaker uses “male” and “female”.
The going line is that “female” is for animals, “woman” is for human women, and if you say “female” you’re an incel bigot who should die. They also often say “you’d never say ‘male’ to refer to men” but I actually do that all the time, to the degree now if I don’t want to be bullied unnecessarily I have to say things like “My male friends don’t care what I call them, but my
fem-[backspace] woman friends are very particular about verbiage.”It’s weird, but what can ya do.
I don’t agree with the concept of gender. Therefore, I object to being referred to as “cis” or “trans”. I have a sexed body and a brain within it that does brain things.
No, I don’t identify as agender either. That still is part of the concept of gender.
Downvotes or deletion in 3…2…1…
Do you have pronouns folks should use when referring to you, or should folks just use your screen name?
Based off of their comment, if its not sarcastic, the only pronoun I could think of that doesn’t have any hint of gender on enbyism to it is, “it”.
“It” refers to things. I am a human being.
They? ‘it’ can be used in an offensive manner.
I use the pronoun that is appropriate for my sex.
I think it’s mostly about how it’s used, yeah? Nobody calls me cis in real life. 40+ years and it hasn’t come up. The only time I see it used is derogatively.
I don’t mind - I have strong opinions about letting peeps vent, but I can see why others find it negative.
The only time I see it used is derogatively.
Give a few examples, please.
I find your finding of the cis label offensive to be offensive. That’s my right.
Okay, is queer better?
JP’s pronouns are twat / cunt, as in ‘that twat JP has been saying bullshit on the internet again’ or ‘I hope that cunt JP has shut his big mouth’
Oh god it’s JP I didn’t even notice 🤦♂️
DIOGENES, holding a chicken he plucked: Here is Peterson’s man.
i don’t know what’s more pathetic: a) that a grown ass man still makes /c/iamverybadass threats on the internet; or b) that there are grown ass men who actually think he’s tough
People who think Jordan Peterson is very badass.
Bold of you to assume that he or his fans are grown.
Listen, everyone. It’s so simple. We just need a neutral word to describe people who are not trans. Okay, the prefix “trans” is Latin for across, so the Latin word for not across is… you’re not going to believe this.
ok ok maybe that’s not familiar enough as a prefix so it gets a reaction. we could find a familiar prefix to note that your gender is the same as what you were assigned at birth…
from now on the opposite of transgender is… homogender!
Yay, I’m a homo!
Congrats homo!
Same goes for cisfats opposed to transfats
obviously the people that object to the word object to needing a word for “non-trans”, not that they have some particular objection to the word “cis” itself.
it’s important to understand your opponents’ point of view if you want to be able to destroy it effectively
Trans-ex?
So It’s hard to get into the headspace where I could get offended by being called cis but I’ll try. Here is a metaphor that hopefully won’t be too offensive.
Imagine if vegetarians started identifying non-vegetarians en masse with the label “Omnivores”. The first critique would likely be, “But it’s normal for humans to be omnivores; It’s the neutral state!”. That’s how most people, including many allies, feel about being cis. It’s the neutral state to them and doesn’t/shouldn’t require a label.
Obviously context matters but I can see how inflection could make it sound like a slight if someone is already loaded with insecurities.
I’ll gladly call non-vegans, who vehemently defend eating meat and oppose anything remotely vegan, carnies to piss them off
As a lifetime vegetarian, please utilize that energy in a more useful way. Your cohort makes my life difficult.
Porque no los dos?
Because idealistic posturing is for children and getting someone to eat less meat is more helpful than creating an atmosphere where vegans/vegetarians have to spend time apologizing for the loud minority.
I’d have to disagree. Calling out unethical and hypocritical dietary choices shouldn’t be frowned upon. Sure, calling someone names isn’t the ideal way, but there’s only so much giving in to cognitive dissonance one can endure before you’re frustrated enough to call someone a carnie (which is basically not an insult if you ask me). It’s obviously striking a chord if they’re offended and getting them to think about their life choices.
I’ve heard from many vegans who have only changed their ways when exposed to the very blunt ways of vegancirclejerk, so there is definitely some merit to it. At least online where there are a lot of babies around. It’s a different thing when in person.
Mountains don’t grow in a day. We don’t feel the ground shifting under us.
I would argue the majority of people react to sharp critique by closing themselves off. I know plenty of people that started by reducing their meat intake to a few meals a week. That kind of conversion is the most likely to get results.
Honestly the word just has a gross sound to me. Reminds me of cysts.
Imagine if vegetarians started identifying non-vegetarians en masse with the label “Omnivores”. The first critique would likely be, “But it’s normal for humans to be omnivores; It’s the neutral state!”
I don’t see the problem. Non-vegatarians/vegans are already called omnivores and it doesn’t seem to be a problem. I wouldn’t expect them to go out of their way to label themselves as such unless they were saying something like “I’m an omniVore” as a Vore joke. Carnists is the term that’s used to be derogatory (although I think some weirdos who like to define themselves in opposition to vegans do call themselves that?). Likewise, “cissies” is a derogatory way to refer to the cis, but “cis” is just the neutral word used describe them. I wouldn’t expect people to go out of their way to proclaim their cisness, but getting upset that the term exists and people use it is mostly just a bit.
I’ve seen them call omnivores “bloodmouths” now on lemmy because carnist wasn’t offensive enough I guess?
We spend immense effort getting the world to listen and allow us to be identified by how We wish to be identified. To flip the script and say we get to determine how others are identified unapologetically does not parse.
If someone wanted to identify their pronouns as “fuck n******”, I’m never going to respect their label or the person as a whole. If you make your whole identity about hating others, then you deserve to either totally ignored or mocked.
well the whole point is to make all of it “normal”. it’s normal for humans to be cis, yes, and so is to be trans. so instead of calling people “trans” and “normal”, you call them “trans” and “cis”.
and make no mistake, that’s why people oppose the term “cis”. they want to other trans people, and normalizing the term threatens the system of oppression.
That’s the obvious motivation, my comment is to illustrate how the frustration could be relatable and to humanize everyone involved. For those people who don’t value their freedoms the entire idea is just an inconvenience.
Sad Kermit noises
I don’t understand why some people get so bent out of shape over the term cisgender. Latin prefixes are even more common in English than abbreviations like AMAB.
As someone who used to think it was an offensive term, it’s likely ignorance and because it’s often used in a deragatory and dehumanizing way on the internet.
At first I didn’t know what cisgendered or cis meant, but I definitely saw it used to describe a group of people non-cis folks didn’t like very much. Of course I eventually learned, but still had a bit of a distaste due to the initial impression.
Also, I always saw “cishet” as a cheeky way of saying “cis shit” because it was also often used negatively in the places I originally came across the term. Once someone explained it in a comment section I finally understood it wasn’t hateful terminology but instead descriptive.
You can’t stop someone from being negative but at least knowing what the words are meant to mean can help identify a bad person rather than bad word.
Interesting. I didn’t have that experience myself, but I’ve definitely seen those types of comments. I absolutely understand how that could leave a bad impression. I’ll be more mindful of educational opportunities when having discussions about it in the future. Exposure and understanding are the enemies of bigotry.
Thanks for the insight!
At first I didn’t know what cisgendered or cis meant, but I definitely saw it used to describe a group of people non-cis folks didn’t like very much. Of course I eventually learned, but still had a bit of a distaste due to the initial impression.
How long was this “eventually”? I feel like it should be a couple minutes to search and land on the Wikipedia page.
Hmm maybe longer that it should have been, but do you really expect everyone to search for something instead of inferring the meaning based on context?
Yes? I often look up words I don’t know what they mean.
I’m gonna be real with you. I do the same shit. I don’t understand something? Well, I have a phone on me so unless it’s horribly complicated I’m about to understand it.
We aren’t normal in that respect. Most people are happy with their ignorance, or at least that’s my observation so far.
Bigots often have a problem with being accurately described because gaslighting is part of the strategy. Useful ignorants provide cover.
Look, I’ve never been anti-gay or anti-trans, but this kind of attitude isn’t winning over the people who are in the middle.
I’m talking about generalizing and stereotyping type statements that, even if you aren’t homo/transphobic, feel like they’re targeted at you. When someone says, to give a hyperbolic example, “cisgendered white men are bigots”, they are not actually referring to all cis white men. But if you’re cis and white, you now know they assume you’re not a good person by default.
Tribalism is never the way.
Where were you seeing this online? (How much can I blame cursed social media algorithms feeding you bullshit?)
Reddit was where I came across that the most. I don’t use much social media so my exposure is relatively small.
It’s just transphobia. If you don’t have cis (wo)men and trans (wo)men, then you just have (wo)men and trans (wo)men, which implies that trans (wo)men are not (wo)men.
Got it. I didn’t understand because they make it seem like it’s an insult to be called cisgender. They’re actually just upset that it removes an avenue of bigotry.
Fucking gross.
They think it’s an insult as they use trans as one.
I live in a conservative area and when I’m at the bar I sometimes hear people using the term “liberal” as a slur. I kinda makes me laugh, but also makes me a bit sad.
I tend to think that conservative is actually a description for limited cognitive means. Progress in any form or shape needs liberal thinking as you wouldn’t find any progressing features by thinking inside the box. Ergo conservatism is inherently the bane of progress. Labeling yourself, proudly even, is just a tell-tale sign that you’re either cognitively limited or afraid of progress. The weird part though is that conservatives lacked the drive to counter the idea that reactionary or regressive thinking people (i.e mostly fanatics or fascists,monarchists ) may be called conservative. They are not by the definition of the word itself
The reasoning is simple: it’s just straight up transphobia. The term “cis” is just a neutral descriptor to pair with “trans” with no implication of being right or wrong. They’re mad at the existence of a term for the majority that doesn’t imply an insult to the minority.
Thanks. Another commenter pointed that out. They’re not really taking offense to the term so much as objecting to the concept of alternative genders.
There’s no reason to challenge the term otherwise. Cis is Latin for “on this side of” and trans is “across, beyond, or on the other side.” There’s really nothing objectionable about either prefix.
Botox in the brain. Not even once.
It wasn’t Botox tho, right?
Like the dude who’s all about “personal responsibility” couldn’t man up and make it thru benzo detox got put in a coma to avoid it in a eastern European hospital because no one else would risk it
Then they couldn’t bring him out of the coma and he got brain damage.
But did he really get Botox in the brain to intentionally cause the coma?
Like, that just sounds even more insane…
A coma to avoid benzo detox?
I mean, I guess that’s one way to skip it.
I’d personally just let the docs provide me stuff to deal with the symptoms along the way, it’s not like it’s going to be any quicker
Yeah. That’s why western doctors wouldn’t do it
The detox isn’t even that bad, and he ended up with brain damage.
One of the most common side effects of brain damage is poor emotional regulation and responding to confusion with belligerence.
At one point, this asshole was just a psychology professor with right-wing political beliefs that rarely came up. The change happened before the coma, but he wasn’t threatening to fight people on Twitter.
My comment just below : https://lemmy.ca/comment/10408240
The full story is much…much more crazy.
Jordy In a coma.
His Russian son in law, in 2 days, gets him a visa to Russia.
In a coma, they transport jordy to Russia.
In Russia, jordy undergoes a still unknown ‘treatment’.
Jordy later awakens, confused, because Russian.
Jordy joins the dark side.
This is fact.
(Will find the news article (from Canada’s very right wing paper))
Edit: here it is from the horses own ass
Oh I didnt realise Jordan Peterson had come out as trans! 🏳️⚧️
Hmm he still uses he/him so it’s beyond me but maybe he’s just on another level of transatude that we haven’t unlocked yet
Perhaps he’s a man in a woman’s body in a man’s body.
Instead of a skeleton inside him it’s just an entire second person. He’s a Russian nesting person.
DOOT DOOT JORDAN YOUR SKELETON WANTS OUT
He’s a non-binary boymoder. Lots of “traditionalist” friends and family, you see, so he’s taking his time to test the waters and hasn’t even changed pronouns yet. Please be patient with him 🙏
maybe he’s just on another level of transatude
The many layers of TRANSCEPTION!
🏳️⚧️ 🏳️⚧️ 🏳️⚧️
uwu
Who the fuck knows. His story arc still has some life in it.
Like cis is just the word for being comfortable with who you were born as. Unlike Jesus.
Are we not respecting people’s self chosen labels now? I must have missed the memo
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.
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”.
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.
Threatening violence is not the appropriate way to express a “preference.”
100% agreed. The original twitter poster is a outrage merchant.
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”.
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.
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!
“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.
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.
- 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
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.
Self chosen label
Have you chosen to be cis? Have you chosen to be trans?
Because there isnt any other option. If he isn’t cis, then he is trans.
cisgender /sĭs-jĕn′dər/ adjective 1. Identifying as having a gender that corresponds to the sex one has been assigned at birth; not transgender.transgender /trăns-jĕn′dər, trănz-/ adjective 1. Identifying as or having undergone medical treatment to become a member of the opposite sex.You could call somebody a slur then go “why are you getting worked up? It’s what you are, look at this definition in the book”. A person can say “I don’t want to be called that”, regardless of who they are. If you don’t respect it, you’re not being nice.
Simple as
… you think cisgender or transgender is a slur?
Ok. “call me a person to my face. see what happens”. If you’re not a person, what label do want?
I’ve certainly seen people attempt (and fail) to use cis as a slur online in an intentional way.
Their point isn’t entirely invalid.
I feel like everyone has a right to self identify and label themselves how they wish, or choose to not be labeled at all. It’s fundamentally the same concept the trans/etc community has been pushing for for a very long time and it’s difficult to justify rejecting it just because we may not like the person making use of it at the moment.
… you think cisgender or transgender is a slur?
Bro, I wrote 3 sentence that say no such thing and yet, you think that’s what I wrote. Read it again. Good grief.
A person can say “I don’t want to be called that”, regardless of who they are. If you don’t respect it, you’re not being nice.
Is that really that difficult to understand? If it is, maybe you need to go back to 6th grade and start over because your reading level wouldn’t even be that.
Wow, could you misinterpret my response any further?
(Technically, there’s a secret third option: agender. Gender folks are not cis, but not necessarily trans, either. Source: am agender)
I am absolutely not challenging your definition or view of agender!
Is this because cisgender is identifying with your birth sex (being different to gender?) and transgender identifying with the opposite sex of birth. But agender dont identify with either?
I think sex and gender are considered different? I might have written this very poorly with use of wrong terminology
Y’all are not doing the snowflake memes any favour when you downvote someone for politely asking a question.
Agreed. Breadsmasher was polite–they acknowledged it could be a minefield of a question, explained what their fuzzy understanding was, and asked for clarification on what they got wrong, from someone who’d already shown a willingness to discuss the topic. I didn’t take it as confrontational, rude, sea-lioning, or anything stressful.
No worries :) It’s roughly that agender people don’t identify as either man or woman, but as neither. They might not even feel like they have “neutral” gender. It’s more “404: gender not found”, which doesn’t fit neatly into a binary gender system.
Sex and gender are different. Sex is biology, gender is cultural/social. My doctor might need to know my plumbing, hormones, and chromosomes, but my coworkers don’t. Someone’s perceived sex at birth gives them their ‘default’ gender, but they might end up not being that gender when they’re able to voice their own feelings on the subject.
(caveat: I do not speak for all agender people, non-binary gender language evolves, it can be wibbly-wobbly fuzzy at times. Also, I do see myself under the Trans umbrella because ‘the more the merrier’ and there’s no need to fragment the non-cis community. Alternative definitions of “trans” can be broader, and include “anyone who doesn’t identify with the gender assigned to them at birth”)
Edit: this instagram post sums it up nicely https://www.instagram.com/the_crafty_queer/p/CzqzG4oOf-8/?img_index=1
I have never heard cis being used as a slur.
Maybe it’s just factually inaccurate and he doesn’t want there to be anyone mistaking him as cissexual.
It’s impossible to use it as a slur, as cis people are not oppressed.
A slur is any word that is used to insult someone based on their immutable characteristics (race, gender, sexuality, religion, ableness, etc.). There is NO requirement of oppression.
Extremely shallow analysis, certain words have a much different history than others and theres a lot of bad faith implications going on herea
Would you say cracker and the nword are on the same level?
Interesting abuse of the relative privation fallacy
E: oh, it’s a burner account.
“Plus power” is not how cooquial definitions work. Speak colloquial if you want go talk to normies
That sounds sensible on first thought…but it’s easy to find slurs that are for non-oppressed people’s.
The French, for example.
It’s not sensible in any way, you can have slurs for anyone.
Someone not being oppressed doesn’t make them suddenly incapable of being oppressed or held down.
Any word said with enough hatred is a slur
Of course that being said I’ve never ever heard cis used like that either
I actually have. Mind I don’t have a problem with the word in particular but I’ve read it used as a slur on the Internet and in real life.
It’s all about intention imo. Many people use it just to clearly communicate but some also use it with hatred.
Lol sure bud, def not a weird concocted scenario
The only time I’ve seen it as an insult was on Tumblr. And then the phrase, “cisgender shitlord,” was eventually added to the meme pile, too
It is not. There are many queer people that were wronged by society. It is understandable why they would have hatred in their hearts.
But I guess I’m just a liar on the Internet. Have a nice one.
We usually call ‘em clankers.
Where does this come from?
Probably X-Men judging by the use of the term mutant.
Some people are just looking for something to be upset about.
Call me siss to my face and see what happens. 😏
