J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

Gruffalux

Cis Cow and Trans Cow
Cis Sow and Trans Sow
Cis Hen and Trans Hen
Cis Vixen and Trans Vixen
Cis Doe and Trans Doe

See how fcuking idiotic this is.

If a male bull identifies as a cow, he can be a transcow all he wants, but the Cow is still just a freaking COW. It is not now a STUPID BLOODY '''CIS COW.'''

PreparationH

RWCNT wrote: »

All sounds a bit tin foil hat.

Methinks you protest too much

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

I think it doesn't help that cis just doesn't sound pleasant. Yeah, it's used in chemistry but that's to describe... chemicals. Using it to describe humans, I don't know, it's just not nice. It's like hiss or sissy.

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I think it doesn't help that cis just doesn't sound pleasant. Yeah, it's used in chemistry but that's to describe... chemicals. Using it to describe humans, I don't know, it's just not nice. It's like hiss or sissy.

Yes. ''Beautiful'' I would have accepted as a prefix.

suicide_circus

Cis is an attempt to medicalize being non-trans and i'm not playing that game.

andekwarhola

RWCNT wrote: »

It's really not. I agree that it's a pretty confusing and unnecessary label but it's not a slur or hateful term. Big Trans isn't crafting some sort of conspiracy to marginalise you, don't worry.

Maybe 'cis' people don't want to be called that and see no purpose for it?

But merely being of the opinion that people are and remain the biological entity into which they were born - and not what you decide they want to be today - is hate speech right?

andekwarhola

RWCNT wrote: »

All sounds a bit tin foil hat.

Why not address the point instead of gaslighting?

PreparationH

andekwarhola wrote: »

Why not address the point instead of gaslighting?

He's a big fan of gaslighting.... Loves a bit of it. Trying to make others feel bad is a big part of his avoid the argument strategy.

RWCNT

andekwarhola wrote: »

Maybe 'cis' people don't want to be called that and see no purpose for it?

But merely being of the opinion that people are and remain the biological entity into which they were born - and not what you decide you want to be today - is hate speech right?

Maybe some do, maybe some don't. I personally don't mind it but have reservations about the term I've already explained.

I don't know if that is legally classified as hate speech, I'd hope not. Sex is real, and that's a scientific fact- as is gender identity.

andekwarhola wrote: »

Why not address the point instead of gaslighting?

Read the point that you're suggesting I address. How am I meant to disprove those assertions exactly?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

RWCNT wrote: »

Maybe some do, maybe some don't. I personally don't mind it but have reservations about the term I've already explained.

I don't know if that is legally classified as hate speech, I'd hope not. Sex is real, and that's a scientific fact- as is gender identity.

Gender identity is a scientific fact?

RWCNT

PreparationH wrote: »

He's a big fan of gaslighting.... Loves a bit of it. Trying to make others feel bad is a big part of his avoid the argument strategy.

I engage with any argument that's put to me. I also make fun of wild hyperbole, victimhood complexes and what sounds to me like conspiracy theorism.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Gender identity is a scientific fact?

Sure, gender identity is widely believed to exist by the scientific community. If it didn't exist would this thread or transgender people exist? You can find any number of studies on it. Tends to align with sex in the overwhelming majority of people.

ProfessorPlum

RWCNT wrote: »

I don't really use it, most people don't know what it means and a small amount of people are REALLY tetchy about it for reasons I've never had explained to my satisfaction!

So if most people don’t know what it means, and some of the ones that do really really really don’t like it, maybe then don’t use it. That would be the respectful and considerate approach, right? Woman, Transwoman, Man, Transman, when a distinction needs to be made.

andekwarhola

RWCNT wrote: »

Read the point that you're suggesting I address. How am I meant to disprove those assertions exactly?

I personally don't want to be called cis by anybody. Not to the extent of wanting them banned, cancelled or fired, mind you.

Why shouldn't my personal preference be respected, and indeed ring fenced by notions of hate speech?

Why don't I just adopt your stance and tell somebody who has been misgendered to take off their tin hat?

On yeah, I'll get banned, I forgot.

excludedbin

It's literally just a Latin word that means "on the same side". Do you get upset when someone says transport, or transfer? Jesus...

andekwarhola wrote: »

Maybe 'cis' people don't want to be called that

Now there's irony for ya. An entire thread of people bitching about how trans people aren't what they say they are... then turn around and get upset when people call them something they don't identify as.

You couldn't make it up.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

RWCNT wrote: »

I engage with any argument that's put to me. I also make fun of wild hyperbole, victimhood complexes and what sounds to me like conspiracy theorism.



Sure, gender identity is widely believed to exist by the scientific community. If it didn't exist would this thread or transgender people exist? You can find any number of studies on it. Tends to align with sex in the overwhelming majority of people.

Can you post some?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

excludedbin wrote: »

Now there's irony for ya. An entire thread of people bitching about how trans people aren't what they say they are... then turn around and get upset when people call them something they don't identify as.

You couldn't make it up.

Where is the contradiction there?

suicide_circus

excludedbin wrote: »

It's literally just a Latin word that means "on the same side". Do you get upset when someone says transport, or transfer? Jesus...


Now there's irony for ya. An entire thread of people bitching about how trans people aren't what they say they are... then turn around and get upset when people call them something they don't identify as.

You couldn't make it up.

Yes i had thought of that. I suppose the difference is one group have a medical condition which requires a word to differentiate themselves, the other group doesn't.

andekwarhola

excludedbin wrote: »

It's literally just a Latin word that means "on the same side". Do you get upset when someone says transport, or transfer? Jesus...


Now there's irony for ya. An entire thread of people bitching about how trans people aren't what they say they are... then turn around and get upset when people call them something they don't identify as.

You couldn't make it up.

I can't see the irony here. You may have to explain it more throughly to me.

Gruffalux

excludedbin wrote: »

It's literally just a Latin word that means "on the same side". Do you get upset when someone says transport, or transfer? Jesus...


Now there's irony for ya. An entire thread of people bitching about how trans people aren't what they say they are... then turn around and get upset when people call them something they don't identify as.

You couldn't make it up.

I don't ''identify'' as anything. I am. As Popeye says.

PreparationH

RWCNT wrote: »

I engage with any argument that's put to me.

except for the ones where you're just casting slurs at people eh

andekwarhola

Gruffalox wrote: »

I don't ''identify'' as anything. I am. As Popeye says.

The point of being labelled 'cis' is to deliberately place people - who don't feel to the need to identify as anything - in a framework of self identification.

If any adult wishes to identify as anything, I'm cool with it and I will defend their right to do so as long as nobody else is adversely affected or subdued.

Likewise, everybody should have the right to object or affirm otherwise without bannings or cancellings.

I, however, don't wish to be drawn into any of these identity frameworks. I don't identify as anything and I don't require a label to be affixed to me. I am biologically what I was born as.

suicide_circus

andekwarhola wrote: »

The point of cis is to deliberately place people - who don't feel to the need to identify as anything - in a framework of self identification.

This.

Gentlemanne

That is exactly how the term straight is used but there is not the same outrage. You guys just have a problem with trans people.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gentlemanne wrote: »

That is exactly how the term straight is used but there is not the same outrage. You guys just have a problem with trans people.

Personally, I never hear anyone announcing their sexuality in real life, unless asked. Online, yes, but in real life, no. Because, why would they?

andekwarhola

There are situations where it would be declared. For example, in situations where it's practical to declare your sexuality. Meeting partners, dates etc but otherwise I agree with ODB.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

andekwarhola wrote: »

There are situations where it would be declared. For example, in situations where it's practical to declare your sexuality. Meeting partners, dates etc but otherwise I agree with ODB.

I just think the whole "I identify as" thing is weird. Like, so? A person's personality is what makes them interesting, not what they are. Oh, you're straight/gay/transgender/Irish. That's... fascinating.

Identity politics is brimming with narcissists who are straining to be interesting.

Gruffalux

Gentlemanne wrote: »

That is exactly how the term straight is used but there is not the same outrage. You guys just have a problem with trans people.

Do people "identify" as their sexuality? That is new to me. I thought people just naturally know with whom they like to share slobber. You are opening up a whole other dimension there Gentlemanne. Beware the power of politically manifesting magical wormholes.

andekwarhola

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I just think the whole "I identify as" thing is weird. Like, so? A person's personality is what makes them interesting, not what they are. Oh, you're straight/gay/transgender/Irish. That's... fascinating.

Identity politics is brimming with narcissists who are straining to be interesting.

'Personal politics' have escaped universities into the mainstream now and are fine in of themselves and people should have the right to do what they want to do without oppression.

It's just when the need for others to affirm your personal politics starts to overlap the lived reality and rights of others, it becomes problematic unfortunately.

RWCNT

andekwarhola wrote: »

I personally don't want to be called cis by anybody. Not to the extent of wanting them banned, cancelled or fired, mind you.

Why shouldn't my personal preference be respected, and indeed ring fenced by notions of hate speech?

Why don't I just adopt your stance and tell somebody who has been misgendered to take off their tin hat?

On yeah, I'll get banned, I forgot.

I never said it shouldn't. If someone is engaging you directly in conversation they should be polite and not refer to you with a term you dislike. (For shame, I broke this rule myself earlier as I didn't particularly feel like being polite) I feel parameters change a bit during large group conversations though, I've gone into detail about this in previous posts.

Someone being misgendered doesn't have any conspiracy theory vibes to it, so the tin foil hat remark would make no sense. All these ideas about how the word "cis" is part of some kind of plan by shadowy figures to control how we think does to me, though.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Can you post some?

Sure. Here's one that looks into the neurobiology of gender identity and sexual orientation, as an example : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677266/

It's got a bucketload of other studies that refer to gender identity in the references section as well. I'm not married to this, so please tell me if Im wrong, but my current understanding is that a consensus of psychologists and neurobiologists both acknowledge that gender identity exists. Psychologists I've met have told me this

PreparationH wrote: »

except for the ones where you're just casting slurs at people eh

You've cut out the bit of the post that applies to you in what you've quoted, there.

And sorry folks but it's literally impossible to "not identify as anything".

excludedbin

andekwarhola wrote: »

The point of being labelled 'cis' is to deliberately place people - who don't feel to the need to identify as anything - in a framework of self identification.

And you could say the same thing about "straight". You could say the same about "human", frankly. Having words to identify things isn't some bloody conspiracy, Jesus.

You don't like it, that's fine. Just don't turn around and start getting stroppy when trans people ask for the same courtesy.
[/Quote]I, however, don't wish to be drawn into any of these identity frameworks. I don't identify as anything and I don't require a label to be affixed to me. I am biologically what I was born as.[/quote]
You don't identify as "anything"? Do you, for example, believe you're working class or any other class? Do you hold any political beliefs that can be grouped under an identity?

Gruffalox wrote: »

I don't ''identify'' as anything. I am. As Popeye says.

That's nice pedantry, dear. Feel free to come back to me when you've an actual point to make.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I just think the whole "I identify as" thing is weird. Like, so? A person's personality is what makes them interesting, not what they are. Oh, you're straight/gay/transgender/Irish. That's... fascinating.

Identity politics is brimming with narcissists who are straining to be interesting.

Yeah, it's almost like human beings state their identities to share similar experiences with others like them. Clearly something that's totally new and has never been done before in the entirety of human history. Nobody goes out to meet like-minded people, nah, doesn't happen apparently.

Jesus, all politics is """identity politics""". If you're working class, middle class, you're right, left, your economic and social outlooks. Terfs (and right wingers in general these days) have this frankly ludicrous idea that nobody ever grouped themselves together under common identities or groups before the modern day. I've no idea where it originated but it's frustratingly nonsensical.