You must log in or register to comment.
Is being in touch with your emotions good or not? Is men crying okay? Or should they be mocked?
It depends on why they’re crying. Bitching and moaning about people not being on board with bigotry is worthy of ridicule. Salty tears over an invented persecution complex deserves harsh mockery. Force them to choose between public shaming and the chance of redemption (for those not so far gone that they’re beyond the possibility).
That’s not the same as being genuinely in touch with your emotions and crying from traumatic events or other stressful situations. It’s a human response that doesn’t give a shit about genitalia or chromosomes or any other factors that I, as a layperson without specific education in such matters, may not be well-suited to articulate.
I’m an adult man, cisgender and my life experience includes things that many see as traditionally masculine pursuits. Won’t say I cry terribly often but just within the first half of this month, I have been brought to tears multiple times in public and private settings. A recent loss in the family has been tough on all of us and while I’m not going around and making a spectacle of myself, I know there are cousins and nieces and nephews who look up to me and I see it as one of my responsibilities to model healthy behaviors and speak openly about how I’m feeling. I love them all and want them to grow into well-adjusted adults who will recognize that this is not a weakness and are willing to ask for help if and when it is needed.
Probably more info than necessary there but it’s a topic that’s been on my mind a lot recently. By breezing past the matter of sincerity and cry-bullying, it seems to me that the poster above has missed the mark.
Yes men can only express their emotions if it not going to bother someone else
Men crying is fine. Jordan Peterson is a troll.
In short, I wish I could cry. When I was younger I did it when I felt I need to. Now that I’m older, I’m suddenly not allowed to. I get so many looks, and comments, and follow up calls that it’s just simpler to stop myself. And then, when I’m alone, I’ll cry.
You can cry with me anytime.
And I appreciate that.
JP’s tweet heavily implied he would react violently or argue with someone to their face if they say “cis” to him. The response implies JP would, in fact, do neither. JP would instead scurry off with maybe a mean glance and then whine for an hour from the safety of his podcast.
The response to JP is making fun of false bravado, toxicity, and whatever the word is for people that take everything as a personal insult - even a simple fact that JP is a cis man.
Granted, some people can deliver obvious facts in a tone that can draw blood. And some facts do cut into insecurities really deep.
But JP, based on his rhetoric should not be hurt or insulted by being cis. He is instead angry about people existing that are trans and threatening violence over a word.
So no, I don’t think this is mocking men having or showing real feelings. It’s mocking the talk-tough toxicity that gets pushed to cover genuine emotions.
crying is completely ok. Jordan is mocked for several reasons, one of them is advocacy for traditional gender roles. also he cries a lot not because he’s in touch with his emotions but because he broke his own brain with his benzo addiction and his self induced coma while telling everyone else to get their shit together.
It suck because JRE actually has had a lot of men share some heavy stuff in their lives in a way that would be frowned upon in most other podcasts. He could have been so much more if he leaned left.
If that’s a real tweet, he has my compassion. He used to seem kind of sweet, in a bigoted grandfatherly sort of way.
he’s disgusting in so many ways. and is currently working to make so many people as disgusting as himself. fuck him.
Is he/she saying they transitioned?
How wonderful!
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
Bold of you to assume that he or his fans are grown.
People who think Jordan Peterson is very badass.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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! 🏳️⚧️
uwu
Who the fuck knows. His story arc still has some life in it.
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
maybe he’s just on another level of transatude
The many layers of TRANSCEPTION!
🏳️⚧️ 🏳️⚧️ 🏳️⚧️
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 🙏
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.
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?
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.
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
Why are you engaging with this sea lion?
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.
“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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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”.
Threatening violence is not the appropriate way to express a “preference.”
100% agreed. The original twitter poster is a outrage merchant.
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.(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
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
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.
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?
… 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?
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.
I’ve certainly seen people attempt (and fail) to use cis as a slur online in an intentional way.
Oh, so you’re trans? Okay, will call you that, then.
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
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.
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.
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.
Honestly the word just has a gross sound to me. Reminds me of cysts.
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.
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.
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?
Look a lot of us wish we weren’t cis but them’s the breaks
Doubtful that Kermit Peterson was giving honest tactical advice to the left here, but he does have a point: “cis” is pretty bad branding when the biggest social group that slows down trans rights is the red-meat alpha-male boomers for whom “sissy” was the ultimate insult of their teenage years.
Petty and eyeroll-worthy? Yeah. Also an unforced error on the part of trans rights? Probably.
It’s literally the Latin counterpart of “trans” nobody in the trans rights community decided on that word. Trans in Latin means “on the other side of” and Cis means “on this side of”. Cisgender - Transgender
Mr big brain resorting to threats of violence.
Poor snowflake can’t handle three little letters :(
Bitch this whole thing started because _your side _ couldn’t handle him using three letters
The only bitch in here is the person trying and failing to defend Jordan Peterson. I just can’t believe I actually saw one of his ten fans in the wild. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is one of his alts.
With all due respect (none), what the hell are you talking about?
Not in any way agreeing with the take, but I’d imagine they mean MtF vs Female and FtM vs Male.
Those are normal terms used by the trans community…
Lad seems like a Peterphile.
I imagine they’re referring to Peterson misgendering someone using him/her, perhaps the Elliot Page debacle. A stupid and unrelated comment, to be sure.
I think people were just aware that he made inappropriate comments about Elliot’s breasts, called him a sinner, and called his physician a criminal, before absolutely losing his shit and having a very public meltdown about getting his tweets removed for being harassing and derogatory.
What thing?
Him coming to prominence and speaking up about the rediculesness of modern leftist politics
Be specific so you can be properly owned
He gained traction by openly fighting against forced speech in the form of ‘personal pronouns’. He used ‘he’ to adress a male-to-‘female’ trans person and people lost their minds, which is quite funny now that you all make fun about “three letters”.
One is actually backed by every single major medical and psychological institution in the country and has been consistently studied by the medical field for a century, the other is people upset by a word that isnt even derogatory
Imagine needing to other someone so badly that you have a tantrum because someone created a name for the “default” category. Peterson views trans people as so subhuman he doesn’t even want there to be a word for non-trans people.
I am pretty sure I can beat Jordan Pattersons ass.
Jordan Pattersons
I’m enjoying the thought that some random Patterson is out there summoned to this challenge, answering the call ready to beat the pants off you, with no reason other than “he challenged, I accepted”
That was a thing once. Don’t remember which name it was, but they made a group with many people sharing the name, set a time and place for the fight, then got together there. A kid won.
Josh fight
I could make him cry.
Start saying: Neener neener neener and he will start tearing up.
Call me siss to my face and see what happens. 😏
