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

Gervais08

LLMMLL wrote: »

I wasn't saying you used mumsnet. Just that the "story" is doing the rounds there. Probably people on Twitter too saying their surgeon friend took their students down to the cadaver lab for a bit of a laugh.

Again you lie and deflect to make your ridiculous “point”.

It was not for a laugh - it was to try and educate people who listen to morons online rather than medical tutors as they should.

LLMMLL

Gervais08 wrote: »

Again you lie and deflect to make your ridiculous “point”.

It was not for a laugh - it was to try and educate people who listen to morons online rather than medical tutors as they should.

Mmmhmm. And soon you'll be posting "nobody can argue with TRAs publically or else they'll get fired" and I'll be like "but...didnt your friend supposedly make a big point using cadavers...."

It obviously never happened.

Gervais08

Gatling wrote: »

Can you imagine now going back to something more recent as say WW1 and then trying to climb a certain percentage of the millions of soldiers killed were trans based off an internet opinion .

It's bad enough we see groups pressuring the likes of studios to make movie or TV characters trans and gay to be more inclusive or face somekind of transpobic backlash

When you have two incredibly brave drag queens at Stonewall in the late 60s now being revised by kids who were nowhere near there as transgender - and the same kids trying to get someone who was there at the Stonewall Inn “cancelled” for telling the truth; you know we are in bat **** cray cray territory.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's pretty much the function of adjectives. The adjectives you quote all divide up groups into subgroups. The only difference is that you don't mind if humans are divided into tall and short groups, but you have a Amajor problem with women being divided into cis and trans. The issue is with you, not me. You have an issue with cis being used as an adjective so instead of just saying that, you try to claim it's not being used as an adjective as it doesn't align with your political views. Your political views do not get to decide what is an adjective or not.

An adjective cannot change the fundamental characteristics of the set or group. Eg one cannot say a trans bull is part of the same sex or gender as a cis bull. One is female, a cow, and is not the same as the bull, nor has the category of bull been thus divided into male and female by the application of the words cis and trans. One can however say a fat bull and a thin bull, or a black bull and a white bull, and the fundamental characteristics of the group or set ''bull'' remain coherent.

A tall woman like a short woman remains a woman - ie an adult human female. A transwoman is not an adult human female.
If one must briefly use the word cis, a cis woman IS an adult human female. Thus trans and cis cannot be used as complimentary words in relation to the same sex group.

One could say a trans person and a cis person, as person can be either sex, and is part of a larger group that includes both male and female.

One could perhaps also interrogate more profitably the use of the word ''trans'' because it is from there that the use of ''cis'' has emerged supposedly as a complimentary state - but trans from what? transgendered from what? transitioned from what? Is the transgendered person moving from one state to another in real time? Transing. Is that person transing regularly across a divide if they are non-binary, or gender fluid? Has that person transed back and forth across an actual space when they return to identification with their natal sex as happens quite frequently now with desisters and detransitioners?
Your argument has been that a trans person is who they truly are ab initio, they have always been a woman (etc) - therefore the use of the word trans by you is surely superfluous. And renders the use of the word cis meaningless also.

And yet trans has not been abandoned as either a word, a state, an act, a process = it means movement towards the opposite, or the state of being the opposite. In this case movement towards or the state of being in the gender expression of the opposite sex. But you do not believe anyone is, has or will be transitioning as they are simply identifying with their reality ab initio. So why do you use the word trans at all?

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

An adjective cannot change the fundamental characteristics of the set or group. Eg one cannot say a trans bull is part of the same sex or gender as a cis bull. One is female, a cow, and is not the same as the bull, nor has the category of bull been thus divided into male and female by the application of the words cis and trans. One can however say a fat bull and a thin bull, or a black bull and a white bull, and the fundamental characteristics of the group or set ''bull'' remain coherent.

A tall woman like a short woman remains a woman - ie an adult human female. A transwoman is not an adult human female.
If one must briefly use the word cis, a cis woman IS an adult human female. Thus trans and cis cannot be used as complimentary words in relation to the same sex group.

One could say a trans person and a cis person, as person can be either sex, and is part of a larger group that includes both male and female.

One could perhaps also interrogate more profitably the use of the word ''trans'' because it is from there that the use of ''cis'' has emerged supposedly as a complimentary state - but trans from what? transgendered from what? transitioned from what? Is the transgendered person moving from one state to another in real time? Transing. Is that person transing regularly across a divide if they are non-binary, or gender fluid? Has that person transed back and forth across an actual space when they return to identification with their natal sex as happens quite frequently now with desisters and detransitioners?
Your argument has been that a trans person is who they truly are ab initio, they have always been a woman (etc) - therefore the use of the word trans by you is surely superfluous. And renders the use of the word cis meaningless also.

And yet trans has not been abandoned as either a word, a state, an act, a process = it means movement towards the opposite, or the state of being the opposite. In this case movement towards or the state of being in the gender expression of the opposite sex. But you do not believe anyone is, has or will be transitioning as they are simply identifying with their reality ab initio. So why do you use the word trans at all?

I fully agree that an adjective does not change the fundamental characteristics of the group. And cis does not do that. Trans women are women so describing cis women as cis women does not alter the group. Cis women are still women.

Again the issue is that it is TERF ideology that trans women are not women. That is the source of the disagreement. The word cis is still an adjective either way.

BTW to be really precise adjectives are defined syntactically not semantically. Adjectives are defined by their cooccurence properties NOT by their descriptive effects on the group the adjective precedes and definitely NOT on any ideological considerations.

Cis is by all accounts an adjective.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

I fully agree that an adjective does not change the fundamental characteristics of the group. And cis does not do that. Trans women are women so describing cis women as cis women does not alter the group. Cis women are still women.

Again the issue is that it is TERF ideology that trans women are not women. That is the source of the disagreement. The word cis is still an adjective either way.

BTW to be really precise adjectives are defined syntactically not semantically. Adjectives are defined by their cooccurence properties NOT by their descriptive effects on the group the adjective precedes and definitely NOT on any ideological considerations.

Cis is by all accounts an adjective.

We are at an impasse.
You are an intelligent person. I can see what you wish to assert and I can even understand and perceive how you feel there is absolute logical coherence in what you assert. I know you fully believe it. And I also think you hold this view from a place where you think it is more just.
But I cannot see or accept how a biologically male person can be an ACTUAL woman, from the point of view of science and reason. It is not bigotry or hate on my part, as posters sometimes say; it is a simply an empirical leap my intelligence absolutely refuses to make, as I would have to deny reality in order to go there. That does not mean I hate or am bigoted towards trans people - I am not at all. I just cannot be made to say what I perceive to be a lie.
You have adopted a belief that a biological male is a woman not based on science but based on the over-riding construct of political gender theory which for you modifies empirical science.

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

We are at an impasse.
You are an intelligent person. I can see what you wish to assert and I can even understand and perceive how you feel there is absolute logical coherence in what you assert. I know you fully believe it. And I also think you hold this view from a place where you think it is more just.
But I cannot see or accept how a biologically male person can be an ACTUAL woman, from the point of view of science and reason. It is not bigotry or hate on my part, as posters sometimes say; it is a simply an empirical leap my intelligence absolutely refuses to make, as I would have to deny reality in order to go there. That does not mean I hate or am bigoted towards trans people - I am not at all. I just cannot be made to say what I perceive to be a lie.
You have adopted a belief that a biological male is a woman not based on science but based on the over-riding construct of political gender theory which for you modifies empirical science.

This is exactly what I'm saying. This is our source of disagreement. And we're never going to agree. But I will continue to debate.

The point is that cis is an adjective and it's not an insult. The source of disagreement is whether trans women are women.

So when someone says I use cis as an insult and/or say it's not an adjective they should recognise that the reason they are saying that is because they believe that trans women are not women. People who do not share this belief obviously are not going to agree with the things that stem from that belief.

CtevenSrowder

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

What was it?

I cannot remember, but I think it was around the time they invented the term trans-female, so that could have been part of it. But it a good few months ago now so my timeline could be off.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

This is exactly what I'm saying. This is our source of disagreement. And we're never going to agree. But I will continue to debate.

The point is that cis is an adjective and it's not an insult. The source of disagreement is whether trans women are women.

So when someone says I use cis as an insult and/or say it's not an adjective they should recognise that the reason they are saying that is because they believe that trans women are not women. People who do not share this belief obviously are not going to agree with the things that stem from that belief.

People who state trans-women aren't woman are not stating a belief. They are stating objective reality. You seem incapable of understanding this point.

1. What you say = belief
   
2. What we say = reality

1. The World is flat = belief.
   
2. The World is an oblate spheroid = reality

1. Climate change isn't real = belief
   
2. Climate Change is real = reality

1. Trans-woman are women = belief
   
2. Trans-woman are not women = reality

Gervais08

For the sake of removal of any doubt - no, trans women are not women. Trans men are not men.

They want to be, they deserve to be addressed by whatever title or name they request to be but they are not and never will be the sex they were not born.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's pretty much the function of adjectives. The adjectives you quote all divide up groups into subgroups. The only difference is that you don't mind if humans are divided into tall and short groups, but you have a Amajor problem with women being divided into cis and trans. The issue is with you, not me. You have an issue with cis being used as an adjective so instead of just saying that, you try to claim it's not being used as an adjective as it doesn't align with your political views. Your political views do not get to decide what is an adjective or not.

.

If you're a woman, you're either a woman, or somewhere along the spectrum to becoming a trans man
The very word trans denotes you have changed, you no longer identify as original.

Does a detransitioned trans-man become cis again?
No. The prefix trans is just dropped.

"Cis" therefore is a tautology, and absolutely superfluous. And a nonsense.
Its only use is as a denigration or slur. To insist on using it, is being deliberately offensive.

Gervais08

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

People who state trans-women aren't woman are not stating a belief. They are stating objective reality. You seem incapable of understanding this point.

1. What you say = belief
   
2. What we say = reality

1. The World is flat = belief.
   
2. The World is an oblate spheroid = reality

1. Climate change isn't real = belief
   
2. Climate Change is real = reality

1. Trans-woman are women = belief
   
2. Trans-woman are not women = reality

“Reality” is somehow trumped by “feelings” to some people ....

Gervais08

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

If you're a woman, you're either a woman, or somewhere along the spectrum to becoming a trans man
The very word trans denotes you have changed, you no longer identify as original.

Does a detransitioned trans-man become cis again?
No. The prefix trans is just dropped.

"Cis" therefore is a tautology, and absolutely superfluous. And a nonsense.
Its only use is as a denigration or slur. To insist on using it, is being deliberately offensive.

And a rarity on social media - an allowable insult where other non swear words that are “deemed offensive” to some will get you a card; this is a word that the thrower can simply say “I don’t believe you are offended” and use it time and time again with impunity.

LLMMLL

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

If you're a woman, you're either a woman, or somewhere along the spectrum to becoming a trans man
The very word trans denotes you have changed, you no longer identify as original.

Does a detransitioned trans-man become cis again?
No. The prefix trans is just dropped.

"Cis" therefore is a tautology, and absolutely superfluous. And a nonsense.
Its only use is as a denigration or slur. To insist on using it, is being deliberately offensive.

It's a major error to try and give the word trans an inherent meaning outside of transgender and then make an argument based on that meaning.

It's like saying "oh gay originally meant merry but I met a load of gay people who aren't merry so they're not gay". Trans and cis have particular meanings in this debate. It doesn't matter what they were originally used for in the context of chemistry. Completely irrelevant.

LLMMLL

Gervais08 wrote: »

And a rarity on social media - an allowable insult where other non swear words that are “deemed offensive” to some will get you a card; this is a word that the thrower can simply say “I don’t believe you are offended” and use it time and time again with impunity.

If a tall person said they were offended by being called tall would you support the banning of that word on boards?

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

If a tall person said they were offended by being called tall would you support the banning of that word on boards?

The difference is your labelling people to insult them despite being asked not to ,how would anyone on here know if a another poster was tall .

Like your claim that you have always said cis seems your post history doesn't agree with you

Smacruairi

LLMMLL wrote: »

If a tall person said they were offended by being called tall would you support the banning of that word on boards?

False equivalence. Tall is a widely used and historical description of people of a certain height.

You've taken a random word outside of the usual lexicon, and applied it to people who fulfil your own criteria as opposed to criteria widely accepted by the masses - man is male. You use it to show disrespect, not describe. It's a slur.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's a major error to try and give the word trans an inherent meaning outside of transgender and then make an argument based on that meaning.

It's like saying "oh gay originally meant merry but I met a load of gay people who aren't merry so they're not gay". Trans and cis have particular meanings in this debate. It doesn't matter what they were originally used for in the context of chemistry. Completely irrelevant.

Not sure what point you're trying to make there.
Want another go?

LLMMLL

Smacruairi wrote: »

False equivalence. Tall is a widely used and historical description of people of a certain height.

You've taken a random word outside of the usual lexicon, and applied it to people who fulfil your own criteria as opposed to criteria widely accepted by the masses - man is male. You use it to show disrespect, not describe. It's a slur.

No a tiny number of people claim it is offensive to shut down debate.

Ask a friend who isn't involved in the trans debate "some people use cis woman (or cis man) to refer to a woman who is not a trans woman. Do you think this word is a slur". You'll find out pretty soon how "offensive" the average person considers this word.

suicide_circus

LLMMLL wrote: »

If a tall person said they were offended by being called tall would you support the banning of that word on boards?

If a tall person said they were short, would they in fact be short?

Smacruairi

LLMMLL wrote: »

No a tiny number of people claim it is offensive to shut down debate.

Ask a friend who isn't involved in the trans debate "some people use cis woman (or cis man) to refer to a woman who is not a trans woman. Do you think this word is a slur". You'll find out pretty soon how "offensive" the average person considers this word.

Why do you always go to "ask a friend" for all your debates. There are enough people here who have pointed out in many different ways why your use of language is troublesome, sometimes offensive, and your intransigence does not one bit if help to any cause you support.

Many people have asked you to stop using the term cis terf. Out of respect to those people, in the same way that I'll use a trans person's new name despite me not believing that they have switched sex, please refrain from using it.

Sittingpretty

LLMMLL wrote: »

No a tiny number of people claim it is offensive to shut down debate.

Ask a friend who isn't involved in the trans debate "some people use cis woman (or cis man) to refer to a woman who is not a trans woman. Do you think this word is a slur". You'll find out pretty soon how "offensive" the average person considers this word.

Few find it offensive. Most find it surplus to requirements. It’s use is only to “other” actual women.

I am a woman. Not a cis woman. As is every other female that was or ever will be born.

There is no need for an adjective to describe the noun woman when woman is used in the context of describing female of the species. It is a stand alone universally understood term.

You clearly use cis with the same intent you use TERF.

You’ve repeatedly been asked not to use it and you continue to do so. At least own your intent.

LLMMLL

Smacruairi wrote: »

Why do you always go to "ask a friend" for all your debates. There are enough people here who have pointed out in many different ways why your use of language is troublesome, sometimes offensive, and your intransigence does not one bit if help to any cause you support.

Many people have asked you to stop using the term cis terf. Out of respect to those people, in the same way that I'll use a trans person's new name despite me not believing that they have switched sex, please refrain from using it.

Because cis describes billions of people. Just because 10 or so people on a thread claim something is offensive to shut down debate and control the language of a debate does not mean it's actually offensive.

I will not refrain from using it. It's a perfectly acceptable term.

LLMMLL

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Few find it offensive.

Thank you.

What I've been saying all along.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ask a friend who isn't involved in the trans debate "some people use cis woman (or cis man) to refer to a woman who is not a trans woman. Do you think this word is a slur". You'll find out pretty soon how "offensive" the average person considers this word.

The average person who is not involved in the discussion would be likely to ask what do you mean “trans woman”? Upon explaining that much, they’re as likely as I am to come to the conclusion that it’s intended as a slur and I’m trying to insult their intelligence, which they are likely to take offence to.

Sittingpretty

LLMMLL wrote: »

Thank you.

What I've been saying all along.

I suppose I should have seen that weak attempt at response coming.

The debating equivalent of “I know you are but what am I”.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The average person who is not involved in the discussion would be likely to ask what do you mean “trans woman”? Upon explaining that much, they’re as likely as I am to come to the conclusion that it’s intended as a slur and I’m trying to insult their intelligence, which they are likely to take offence to.

Go try it. I guarantee the answer will be that it's not a slur. Seriously actually try it.

LLMMLL

Sittingpretty wrote: »

I suppose I should have seen that weak attempt at response coming.

The debating equivalent of “I know you are but what am I”.

The debate is whether cis is offensive. You said few.find it offensive. We agree. How is that "I know you are but what am I"?

Gervais08

LLMMLL wrote: »

The debate is whether cis is offensive. You said few.find it offensive. We agree. How is that "I know you are but what am I"?

It is not your call you decide whether something is offensive based on how many you think it offends, or that you decide those it offends are lying.

You are deliberately offending people as not caring that you are solely to further your agenda.

I am beyond shocked that you are allowed to get away with breaching the very basic rule of this thread as detailed in post 1.

LLMMLL

Gervais08 wrote: »

It is not your call you decide whether something is offensive based on how many you think it offends, or that you decide those it offends are lying.

You are deliberately offending people as not caring that you are solely to further your agenda.

I am beyond shocked that you are allowed to get away with breaching the very basic rule of this thread as detailed in post 1.

Absolutely not. As sittingpretty has pointed out. Few find cis to be offensive.