Hungary Scrap Gender Studies Indoctrination Courses

LLMMLL

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

You're making little headway, with a marked ability to dance around questions.

Take the paedophiles.
Your statement isnt in the least controversial.
But what if you introduce your friend Gary to Sile at a party..
"Sile, I'd like you to meet Gary. He isn't a paedo."

You see context...It's everything...
When you need to further define a group, specifics are required. When referring to the general population, a descriptor for outliers is required.

Will you continue to use the term cis despite people telling you they dont like it?

The party example is perfect. I completely agree. As I said earlier I only use cis when making a relevant distinction. When it’s irrelevant (the example I gave was talking about discrimination women face in the workplace) I simply use the term women. Which seems to be exactly what you’re saying about the party.

And since you agree that it would be a relevant distinction to make in a prison sex offenders setting it seems you agree that it’s fine to label the majority group when the distinction is relevant.

Yes I’ll continue to use the word cis. I don’t see why some people not liking a term would prevent me from using it.

fattymuatty

LLMMLL wrote: »

The party example is perfect. I completely agree. As I said earlier I only use cis when making a relevant distinction. When it’s irrelevant (the example I gave was talking about discrimination women face in the workplace) I simply use the term women. Which seems to be exactly what you’re saying about the party.

And since you agree that it would be a relevant distinction to make in a prison sex offenders setting it seems you agree that it’s fine to label the majority group when the distinction is relevant.

Yes I’ll continue to use the word cis. I don’t see why some people not liking a term would prevent me from using it.

It's called courtesy. Most people who understand courtesy and respect do it. I don't call biological men 'he' when they would rather be referred to as 'her', not because I actually think they are a 'her' but because I know they wouldn't like it. I get that not everybody is polite and respectful though.

LLMMLL

fattymuatty wrote: »

It's called courtesy. Most people who understand courtesy and respect do it. I don't call biological men 'he' when they would rather be referred to as 'her', not because I actually think they are a 'her' but because I know they wouldn't like it. I get that not everybody is polite and respectful though.

Interesting. Would you stop using the word “he” altogether as I’ve been asked to not use the word “cis” at all?

PlaneSpeeking

I see this is still going on and I am still yet to fathom why people so desperate to say we don't need labels are determined to label that which does not need it!

Roger Hassenforder

LLMMLL wrote: »

The party example is perfect. I completely agree. As I said earlier I only use cis when making a relevant distinction. When it’s irrelevant (the example I gave was talking about discrimination women face in the workplace) I simply use the term women. Which seems to be exactly what you’re saying about the party.

So lets recap:

You will refer to cis women to distinguish them from trans women in some vague but general context, or referring to the set of women".
(I cant see the "relevant" distinction. "Trans" informs sufficiently. It's a superfluous label).
But you refer to all women as "women" when discrimination in the workplace is afoot.

LLMMLL wrote: »

And since you agree that it would be a relevant distinction to make in a prison sex offenders setting it seems you agree that it’s fine to label the majority group when the distinction is relevant.

That's not what I said.
You know it, and I know it.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes I’ll continue to use the word cis. I don’t see why some people not liking a term would prevent me from using it.

There's a word for that...
H...hy.....

PlaneSpeeking

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So lets recap:

You will refer to cis women to distinguish them from trans women in some vague but general context, or referring to the set of women".
(I cant see the "relevant" distinction. "Trans" informs sufficiently. It's a superfluous label).
But you refer to all women as "women" when discrimination in the workplace is afoot.


That's not what I said.
You know it, and I know it.




There's a word for that...
H...hy.....

I think has "crisy" at the end if that's a help Rog ?

LLMMLL

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So lets recap:

You will refer to cis women to distinguish them from trans women in some vague but general context, or referring to the set of women".
(I cant see the "relevant" distinction. "Trans" informs sufficiently. It's a superfluous label).
But you refer to all women as "women" when discrimination in the workplace is afoot.





That's not what I said.
You know it, and I know it.




There's a word for that...
H...hy.....

These silly accusations of H...hy.... are predicated on the idea that someone seems to have made up that I’ve demanded or requested that anyone else use the same terms I do. It’s pure nonsense. I’ve never demanded anyone use the same terms at me and I’m under no obligation to modify the terms I use at anybody’s request.

The contexts i use cis to distinguish from trans aren’t vague at all. It’s when trans issues are being discussed. Clearly if someone discriminated against a woman in the workplace regardless of whether she was cis or trans, then trans issues would not be under discussion in that case and I would not use the term cis as it would serve no purpose.

The Bishop Basher

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes I’ll continue to use the word cis. I don’t see why some people not liking a term would prevent me from using it.

That goes both ways.

I sincerely hope you’re not an advocate for trans people because you are doing them a massive disservice here on boards.

PlaneSpeeking

Rennaws wrote: »

That goes both ways.

I sincerely hope you’re not an advocate for trans people because you are doing them a massive disservice here on boards.

Jesus that post before yours is truly pathetic. I have no problem with the word queer - a mate will ONLY be called that as a) he says gay is ridiculous as he is 6 foot 5 and built like a wall and b) it's the term of choice for Michael Stipe.

However I know lots of people who hate it - and he'd never call anyone it who hated it, or even self refer around them.

When did people become so arrogant that they will "call people whatever I want" - even if they don't like it ? It's just bad form.

LLMMLL

Rennaws wrote: »

That goes both ways.

I sincerely hope you’re not an advocate for trans people because you are doing them a massive disservice here on boards.

Ah the old classic “I’m concerned that you’re doing the side I disagree with a disservice”.

You saw it all the time with the gay marriage and abortion debates. “Oh pro choice people are turning me off voting yes”. No, you were never going to vote yes, you’re just trying to get a dig in.

You need to try harder Rennaws

Brian?

Bootlegger wrote: »

No you can't change your gender.

Fortunately you’re wrong.

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

Fortunately you’re wrong.

Sorry B, I'm afraid those pesky scientific facts disagree. Someone born with XX chromosomes is a female of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, id est; a biological woman. Now someone can choose to take hormones to reduce the appearance of their biological state, maybe even have surgery that creates some semblance of the physical characteristics of the other gender they feel themselves to be. And that's fine, and I would treat such a person with courtesy out of basic manners and would hope society treats them well. However, the day you convince me that actual scientific facts have to be skewed or ignored on the basis of some current and pretty recent ideological stance, is the day Satan skates to work in the morning ducking to avoid the aviating porcines on his route.

Brian?

Wibbs wrote: »

Sorry B, I'm afraid those pesky scientific facts disagree. Someone born with XX chromosomes is a female of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, id est; a biological woman. Now someone can choose to take hormones to reduce the appearance of their biological state, maybe even have surgery that creates some semblance of the physical characteristics of the other gender they feel themselves to be. And that's fine, and I would treat such a person with courtesy out of basic manners and would hope society treats them well. However, the day you convince me that actual scientific facts have to be skewed or ignored on the basis of some current and pretty recent ideological stance, is the day Satan skates to work in the morning ducking to avoid the aviating porcines on his route.

You’re mixing up sex and gender. You know full well you are.

I genuinely hope no young person struggling with their gender identity is reading this thread. The lack of empathy is horrific.

cantdecide

Brian? wrote: »

I genuinely hope no young person struggling with their gender identity is reading this thread. The lack of empathy is horrific.

The progressive definition of "empathy" usually amounts to 'animal abusers should be shot like dogs'.

Brian?

cantdecide wrote: »

The progressive definition of "empathy" usually amounts to 'animal abusers should be shot like dogs'.

When all else fails, make stuff up.

emo72

Brian? wrote: »

You’re mixing up sex and gender.

i always assumed it was the same thing basically. im an idiot i guess.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Brian? wrote: »

You’re mixing up sex and gender. You know full well you are.

I genuinely hope no young person struggling with their gender identity is reading this thread. The lack of empathy is horrific.

Ok so do you change your gender or your sex or both?

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

You’re mixing up sex and gender. You know full well you are.

I'm the mixed up one? OK... Until very recently sex and gender were interchangeable. EG Gender; either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behaviour. The second part of that definition is closer to the Trans definition. Sex; either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures.

But let's run with this. So would you say a Trans man is of the female sex, or a Trans woman is of the male?

I genuinely hope no young person struggling with their gender identity is reading this thread. The lack of empathy is horrific.

I hope no young person struggling with their identity in puberty reckons they're Trans because it's quite the fashion - for the real want of a better word - in some circles and makes biological decisions that will impact the rest of their lives on the back of it. I hope young people struggling get the help they need based on good science and good medicine not ideology. That studies are showing that some vulnerable young people are more likely to choose/believe themselves Trans when people among their peers do it at least begs some questions.

Brian?

Merrick Jealous Monogamy wrote: »

Ok so do you change your gender or your sex or both?

Gender.

Brian?

emo72 wrote: »

i always assumed it was the same thing basically. im an idiot i guess.

Not an idiot. Just wrong.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

You’re mixing up sex and gender. You know full well you are.

I genuinely hope no young person struggling with their gender identity is reading this thread. The lack of empathy is horrific.

Okay. I'm genuinely confused. Can you (not others) tell me the difference between sex and gender? (I assume we're not talking about the act of sex)

yes, Wibbs explained it from his pov, but I'd be interested to hear your definition, the actual differences between the two, and why there should be a distinction made about them being different.

Brian?

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm the mixed up one? OK... Until very recently sex and gender were interchangeable. EG Gender; either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behaviour. The second part of that definition is closer to the Trans definition. Sex; either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures.

But let's run with this. So would you say a Trans man is of the female sex, or a Trans woman is of the male?

Until recently they were interchangeable, mostly. But language is a wonderful thing, it evolved. It’s beautiful. A greater understanding of the world means sometimes the meaning of words change through evolution. No point in being stuck in the past.

The distinction between sex and gender differentiates a person's biological sex (the anatomy of an individual's reproductive system, and secondary sex characteristics) from that person's gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity). In this model, the idea of a "biological gender" is an oxymoron: the biological aspects are not gender-related, and the gender-related aspects are not biological. In some circumstances, an individual's assigned sex and gender do not align, and the person may be transgender.In other cases, an individual may have biological sex characteristics that complicate sex assignment, and the person may be intersex.

The sex and gender distinction is not universal. In ordinary speech, sex and gender are often used interchangeably.Some dictionaries and academic disciplines give them different definitions while others do not. Some languages, such as German or Finnish, have no separate words for sex and gender, and the distinction has to be made through context. On occasion, using the English word gender is appropriate.

Among scientists, the term sex differences (as compared to gender differences) is typically applied to sexually dimorphic traits that are hypothesized to be evolved consequences of sexual selection.

I hope no young person struggling with their identity in puberty reckons they're Trans because it's quite the fashion - for the real want of a better word - in some circles and makes biological decisions that will impact the rest of their lives on the back of it. I hope young people struggling get the help they need based on good science and good medicine not ideology. That studies are showing that some vulnerable young people are more likely to choose/believe themselves Trans when people among their peers do it at least begs some questions.

I hope everyone gets the help they need. Based on the best judgment of clinicians, not on ideology.

I hope they don’t read this thread and see the casual dismissal of the concept of being transgender.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Not an idiot. Just wrong.

Except that nobody got around to telling the rest of the us about it (I was going to say the world, but that might be a bit excessive). I was curious if I was alone in thinking they were the same, so I went in to my parents (retired teachers, both with educational degrees coming out of their ears), and they didn't see any difference.

Where/when did the concept change, and who changed it?

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Okay. I'm genuinely confused. Can you (not others) tell me the difference between sex and gender? (I assume we're not talking about the act of sex)

yes, Wibbs explained it from his pov, but I'd be interested to hear your definition, the actual differences between the two, and why there should be a distinction made about them being different.

I quoted from here above. Google it, YouTube. There’s plenty of information out there on it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction

Given that the psychiatric community have pretty much come to a consensus on transgenderism, it’s a pretty well understood concept.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Given that the psychiatric community have pretty much come to a consensus on transgenderism, it’s a pretty well understood concept.

Err, I'm still waiting another few decades before I accept Psychology as a "science". It's fluctuated it's concepts plenty of times within the span of a few years, often going from one extreme to another. The type of research and the manner in which assumptions are made, combined with a focus on "peer" related approval make the whole area rather dodgy.

And yes, I've studied applied psychology (haven't finished it yet), and I have NLP certification.

As for transgenderism being a well understood concept, it's still a relatively small and "new" area within western countries, with a lot of space to evolve as it fits within western society/culture. A bit early to be making assumptions that it's well understood. Especially, considering the massive reversal of expert opinion on the topic within a few short decades.

But thanks for the link. I'll take a proper look through it.

emo72

Brian? wrote: »

Until recently they were interchangeable, mostly. But language is a wonderful thing, it evolved. It’s beautiful. A greater understanding of the world means sometimes the meaning of words change through evolution. No point in being stuck in the past.

.

ok. this is where things break down. "it evolved. It’s beautiful."

language is a tool we need for communication, its primary function is communication, beauty doesnt come into. no-one is stuck in the past by being good at communicating, by using our language. we need yes to mean yes and no to mean no. the meaning of words shouldnt change.

this is why i never post in these threads, you're always dragged down a rabbit hole, like explaining why the language we all thought we understood and agreed its meanings is not what it means anymore.

im lost lads. this is ridiculous.

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

Given that the psychiatric community have pretty much come to a consensus on transgenderism, it’s a pretty well understood concept.

The same psychiatric community that barely a few years ago were of the consensus that it was a mental illness, along the lines of a body dysphoria? Medicine is not even close to being definitive, or at least not for long. Which is how science works, though at the coalface medicine is often lagging behind for various reasons. Along with incredible positives for humanity, the history of medicine is also strewn with "fashions" within, that can change overnight, sometimes swing 180 degrees while doing so, and every so often change 180 degrees back. As I've pointed out before, on Trans matters the medical opinion flipped near overnight and the same medical authorities that had confidently claimed it an illness one day, proclaimed it not the next. Evidence based or ideological? Ideology and ideological change is also present within the history of medicine too.

Doctor Jimbob

emo72 wrote: »

ok. this is where things break down. "it evolved. It’s beautiful."

language is a tool we need for communication, its primary function is communication, beauty doesnt come into. no-one is stuck in the past by being good at communicating, by using our language. we need yes to mean yes and no to mean no. the meaning of words shouldnt change.

this is why i never post in these threads, you're always dragged down a rabbit hole, like explaining why the language we all thought we understood and agreed its meanings is not what it means anymore.

im lost lads. this is ridiculous.

Language has always evolved, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

The same psychiatric community that barely a few years ago were of the consensus that it was a mental illness, along the lines of a body dysphoria? Medicine is not even close to being definitive, or at least not for long. Which is how science works, though at the coalface medicine is often lagging behind for various reasons. Along with incredible positives for humanity, the history of medicine is also strewn with "fashions" within, that can change overnight, sometimes swing 180 degrees while doing so, and every so often change 180 degrees back. As I've pointed out before, on Trans matters the medical opinion flipped near overnight and the same medical authorities that had confidently claimed it an illness one day, proclaimed it not the next. Evidence based or ideological? Ideology and ideological change is also present within the history of medicine too.

I've been firing out some quick google searches on this difference between gender and sex... and I'm seeing a load of theories (and a lot of very conflicting theories). I'm not seeing much in the way of proof. Now, I still have to go through some of these researches but... they seem rather presumptive. Am I missing something here?

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

Until recently they were interchangeable, mostly. But language is a wonderful thing, it evolved. It’s beautiful. A greater understanding of the world means sometimes the meaning of words change through evolution. No point in being stuck in the past.

Ah that argument? Evolution doesn't necessarily go one way.

The distinction between sex and gender differentiates a person's biological sex (the anatomy of an individual's reproductive system, and secondary sex characteristics) from that person's gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity). In this model, the idea of a "biological gender" is an oxymoron: the biological aspects are not gender-related, and the gender-related aspects are not biological. In some circumstances, an individual's assigned sex and gender do not align, and the person may be transgender.In other cases, an individual may have biological sex characteristics that complicate sex assignment, and the person may be intersex.

You haven't answered my question; would you say a Trans man is of the female sex, or a Trans woman is of the male sex? That's your ideology talking. Or not.

I hope everyone gets the help they need. Based on the best judgment of clinicians, not on ideology.

And yet the ideology is there.

I hope they don’t read this thread and see the casual dismissal of the concept of being transgender.

At no point have I dismissed the concept. As I stated before many times I would describe people as male, female, intersex*. Trans folks would fit in the latter. I have also many times stated that such individuals need societies help and support, all the way down to common courtesy.



*Just as I have stated I see sexuality as Hetro/Homo/Bi, with a fourth state of Asexual. Covers all the bases without going into the word salad of myriad self identifying labels which only serve to confuse the issues.

Doctor Jimbob

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Language has always evolved, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

I think he explains it well enough here:

emo72 wrote: »

the language we all thought we understood and agreed its meanings is not what it means anymore.

Roger Hassenforder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’m under no obligation to modify the terms I use at anybody’s request.

well, there's no real point railing against that!
You'll use whatever term you like.

LLMMLL wrote: »

The contexts i use cis to distinguish from trans aren’t vague at all. It’s when trans issues are being discussed. Clearly if someone discriminated against a woman in the workplace regardless of whether she was cis or trans, then trans issues would not be under discussion in that case and I would not use the term cis as it would serve no purpose.

so when talking about women/trans issues:
1.there is a set of women
2. within that set of women, some are "trans"
(this identifies them as different from the others)

There is no need for a second label for the other group, other than to give them a label. It serves no purpose

givyjoe

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

well, there's no real point railing against that!
You'll use whatever term you like.




so when talking about women/trans issues:
1.there is a set of women
2. within that set of women, some are "trans"
(this identifies them as different from the others)

There is no need for a second label for the other group, other than to give them a label. It serves no purpose

The purpose is possibly/probably so the smaller group doesn't feel targeted or singled out by being given a label, if the other larger group is also given a label... Even if said label for the larger was completely uncesscary for the purposes of distinguishing them from the much smaller group.

Roger Hassenforder

givyjoe wrote: »

The purpose is possibly/probably so the smaller group doesn't feel targeted or singled out by being given a label, if the other larger group is also given a label... Even if said label for the larger was completely uncesscary for the purposes of distinguishing them from the much smaller group.

I think that's it.
We're labelled so they must be.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Wibbs wrote: »

The same psychiatric community that barely a few years ago were of the consensus that it was a mental illness, along the lines of a body dysphoria? Medicine is not even close to being definitive, or at least not for long. Which is how science works, though at the coalface medicine is often lagging behind for various reasons. Along with incredible positives for humanity, the history of medicine is also strewn with "fashions" within, that can change overnight, sometimes swing 180 degrees while doing so, and every so often change 180 degrees back. As I've pointed out before, on Trans matters the medical opinion flipped near overnight and the same medical authorities that had confidently claimed it an illness one day, proclaimed it not the next. Evidence based or ideological? Ideology and ideological change is also present within the history of medicine too.

Psychiatry has long been a farce. They seem to have abandoned their founding father who did see homosexuality as an aberration, assumed an inherent sexual desire between a child and his/her parent, saw breastfeeding as sexual and thought that humans have a desire to die (a death wish).

However if Fraiser is any guide that Freudian nonsense was going strong in the 1990s. Now it’s all pills, pills, pills.

Pills do work bit nobody knows why, which is almost as bad as the other nonsense.

Meanwhile the DSM bible the American psychiatry uses keeps medicalising normal human activities while legitimising some others.

Wiki says of the 5th edition, in terms of its differences from the previous edition that amongst other additions it:

Deletes the "bereavement exclusion" for depressive disorders;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5

So grief is defined a mental illness. In a pill popping society that makes economic sense.

LLMMLL

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

well, there's no real point railing against that!
You'll use whatever term you like.




so when talking about women/trans issues:
1.there is a set of women
2. within that set of women, some are "trans"
(this identifies them as different from the others)

There is no need for a second label for the other group, other than to give them a label. It serves no purpose

It does. Sometimes I need to talk about women who are not trans. If I use the term “women” that includes trans women so doesnt serve my purpose.

LLMMLL

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I think that's it.
We're labelled so they must be.

Not at all. You see it with my straight/gay example all the time.

Every single person I know has used the word straight to describe non gay people at some point. Yet only a tiny minority of the people I know have any political or ideological notions around being gay.

I’m imaging what your conversations must be like if you object to labelling a majority group:

RHs gay Male friend: I like your mate. Do you think he’d be into me?

RH: no he’s a man

Friend: yeah I know but why wouldn’t he be into me. Is he not gay?

RH: no he’s a man. Men aren’t into other men

Friend: do you mean straight men aren’t into other men?

RH: no I mean men. We don’t need a term for them because we have the word gay to describe the minority and that’s all we need

Friend backs away slowly

Roger Hassenforder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Not at all. You see it with my straight/gay example all the time.

Every single person I know has used the word straight to describe non gay people at some point. Yet only a tiny minority of the people I know have any political or ideological notions around being gay.

I’m imaging what your conversations must be like if you object to labelling a majority group:

RHs gay Male friend: I like your mate. Do you think he’d be into me?

RH: no he’s a man

Friend: yeah I know but why wouldn’t he be into me. Is he not gay?

RH: no he’s a man. Men aren’t into other men

Friend: do you mean straight men aren’t into other men?

RH: no I mean men. We don’t need a term for them because we have the word gay to describe the minority and that’s all we need

Friend backs away slowly

Mother of god.
Reading comprehension: 1/10
You might remind me where I said I would never use the word 'gay' or 'staight'.

In the interim I'll reiterate what I have said:
(I've taken the liberty of underlining one word)

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I would rarely describe someone by their sexuality or sexual preferences (If any). I leave that to them.

And I wouldn't say someone was "straight" unless the assumption was they weren't. "Straight" is the default setting, it's almost assumed, unless its evident they're not, or you've heard the contrary.

I've gay friends. Two of them are a couple
However most of my friends are not gay. I dont call my gay friends "gay" and my straight friends "straight". They're just "my friends."
When they're coming up the garden path, I dont say "here come my gay friends" or "here come my straight friends".
When I tell my kids Brian and Pat are coming for the weekend, my kids dont say "Are they the gay couple?)

The only time I might need to differentiate would be if someone asked me to specify the sexuality of my friends. Or assumed their sexuality.

So in your hypothetical example the conversation would probably go:

LLMMLL wrote: »

RHs gay Male friend : I like your mate. Do you think he’d be into me?
RH: "no he's not gay"
Or
RH: "ask him, I doubt it"
Or
RH: "i dont think you're his type, but sure chance it"

But a conservation with my friend LMMLL might go:
LLMMLL:Have you gay and straight friends?
Me: yes
LLMMLL: how many are gay?
Me: Only a few
LLMMLL: are the rest straight?
Me: Is that not self evident?
LLMMLL: say it
Me: ?
LLMMLL: say they are straight
Me: They're not gay. Ok?

There really is a whiff of "so what you're saying is...."
Read what I'm saying!

Roger Hassenforder

LLMMLL wrote: »

It does. Sometimes I need to talk about women who are not trans. If I use the term “women” that includes trans women so doesnt serve my purpose.

So when you're referring to women, and you have used the term "trans" to refer to a minority, you need another term to refer to the remaining group, thus far bereft of a label.
(Fair enough if youre in a very niche* role).

But when referring to the whole population of women, and you refer to a small subset as trans, there is no need to refer to the remaining as cis. It is evident they are not trans as you haven't included them in your trans group...



*Edit:
Actually I cant think of such a role.
Even within trans services...
LLMMLL: "Are you trans"?
"Yes"
LLMMLL: "are you cis"?
*looks around... "eh no"

Maybe you could enlighten me?

The Bishop Basher

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ah the old classic “I’m concerned that you’re doing the side I disagree with a disservice”.

No. It's just the fact that your complete lack of manners reflects badly on those for whom your claim to speak for. That was all really.

Brian? wrote: »

“Cis” is not derogatory. Never has been, never will be.

Brian? wrote: »

But language is a wonderful thing, it evolved. It’s beautiful. A greater understanding of the world means sometimes the meaning of words change through evolution. No point in being stuck in the past.

Indeed it is Brian. Indeed it is..

PlaneSpeeking

Rennaws wrote: »

No. It's just the fact that your complete lack of manners reflects badly on those for whom your claim to speak for. That was all really.





Indeed it is Brian. Indeed it is..

Ah there's that H word Roger H was referencing last night!

Brian?

Rennaws wrote: »

No. It's just the fact that your complete lack of manners reflects badly on those for whom your claim to speak for. That was all really.





Indeed it is Brian. Indeed it is..

So in the lifetime of this thread “cis” has evolved into an insult?

Me: words change their meaning over time
Loads of posters: they don’t. Except when we want them to, to prove a point.

Me: I’m out.

mvl

Not sure if it was said, but if we're looking at the Latin origin, cis "on this side of" being the opposite of trans ("across from" or "on the other side of") - imo actually using it, doesn't bring unity, as it reminds about the discord, or the so called hierarchies.
- so cis can be seen as serving other purpose than intended by the trans supporters here.

I said before, in real life I would not accept to be addressed as cis-woman in a conversation, and that means I am also selective with my reading.
While on written media, redefining the entire grouping as womxn would be acceptable from my view.

Last but not least, more concerning is that this recent debate, while being interesting - has nothing to do with the thread subject. So ... I think this thread should be closed.

mvl

mvl wrote: »

So ... I think this thread should be closed.

Never quite understood posters saying that a thread should be closed, especially from posters who aren't terribly active in the thread. Always figured the mods would decide that without posters declarations.

Since the topic is likely start up again in a few days with another thread title, and a rehashing of the same material in the first few pages. .

Both the Gender studies topic and the transgender issue is interesting. While, I'm not a fan of this cis BS, I certainly would like the thread to continue. Good referencing throughout the thread.

The Bishop Basher

Brian? wrote: »

So in the lifetime of this thread “cis” has evolved into an insult?

It is when repeated requests by a number of posters that they not be labelled in that manner are consistently and deliberately ignored.

Remember this ?

Brian? wrote: »

What? The more I use a term that isn’t an insult, the more it becomes an insult? That’s brilliant.

Well you're just proving the point.

mvl

Deleted User wrote: »

Never quite understood posters saying that a thread should be closed, especially from posters who aren't terribly active in the thread. Always figured the mods would decide that without posters declarations.

Since the topic is likely start up again in a few days with another thread title, and a rehashing of the same material in the first few pages. .

Both the Gender studies topic and the transgender issue is interesting. While, I'm not a fan of this cis BS, I certainly would like the thread to continue. Good referencing throughout the thread.

Then what about having the transgender issue split out in a separate thread ?

I guess this can be one reason some posters didn't post more: for sure the original issue has to do with the measures taken by an authoritarian regime in Central Europe.

mvl

mvl wrote: »

Then what about having the transgender issue split out in a separate thread ?

I guess this can be one reason some posters didn't post more: for sure the original issue has to do with the measures taken by an authoritarian regime in Central Europe.

And people posted to that. Just as if you roll back the pages, I'm one of the last posters to write any substantial piece about gender studies. It's a discussion forum. Discussions spread/sprawl... especially considering the posters debating the issue are those who have argued previously with each other on other threads about these kind of issues.

As for posters not posting more... that's their choice.. I'd suggest they grow a pair but that might be overly inappropriate considering the conversations of the last few pages. :pac:

[I see little call to piss on other peoples discussions by asking for the thread to be closed simply because you can't be bothered to join in.]

mvl

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And people posted to that. Just as if you roll back the pages, I'm one of the last posters to write any substantial piece about gender studies. It's a discussion forum. Discussions spread/sprawl... especially considering the posters debating the issue are those who have argued previously with each other on other threads about these kind of issues.

As for posters not posting more... that's their choice.. I'd suggest they grow a pair but that might be overly inappropriate considering the conversations of the last few pages. :pac:

[I see little call to piss on other peoples discussions by asking for the thread to be closed simply because you can't be bothered to join in.]

Guess my fault for failing to understand how MOD- ing works on AH.

Roger Hassenforder

Brian? wrote: »

So in the lifetime of this thread “cis” has evolved into an insult?

Me: words change their meaning over time
Loads of posters: they don’t. Except when we want them to, to prove a point.

Me: I’m out.

Words change all the time. Yet I wouldnt dream of calling my gay friends a F****t. Or a queer. These words no longer have their original meaning, and have no use being used other to be insulting (IMO- "Queer" may be different, AFAIK its used within the gay community cant, much like "N****R" is used within the African American community. If members of a group want to use it within their group, fine. I'm not a member.)

Cis exists outside this thread. We're not the arbiters of whether its offensive or not.
You're going around in circles, labouring your point about language, protesting your expertise.
If someone tells you, a word you are using to describe them is offensive, common courtesy and respect would suggest you desist from using that word to describe them, as you would expect them to reciprocate.
I know I would.

Malayalam

Brian? wrote: »

“Cis” is not derogatory. Never has been, never will be. You need to go and find something else to be outraged and upset by.

It’s a technical term to distinguish cisgendered people from transgendered people. What possible reason do you have to dislike it?

Twitter is not my scene, but I do maintain silent accounts on some social media platforms, mostly out of curiosity, and I find Twitter good for monitoring fringe trends, outliers, weird stuff etc, but stuff that gathers momentum. (Looking at the fringes via Twitter and other platforms was how I could see ages in advance that Trump was going to win, for example.) As a quick exercise, Brian, you should type ''cis scum'' into the search bar on Twitter. Yeah, it's the fringe elements still, yeah it's the losers and the haters, but the use of CIS as a term of abuse is plentiful and recent and recurring and growing in popularity. It will be recognised as hate speech at some point in the future. You could do the same with ''cishet''. To keep denying it is doled out by some as dismissive is a lie. It is especially used against gay men in fact, as if they have done the trans community a disservice by being happy in their bodies but loving men.