⚤'The words "cis" and "cisgender" are considered SLURS on this platform!' ⚤

Will 'Karen' be the next slur on Twitter:

 

Cisgender means "normal" so why not use normal? (its because Cis is derogatory and normal is not)

 

But your explanation, here, shows that you are completely wrong, in your idea. For a white person to call a black person, a n*****, is definitely a slur. But calling a black person "black," or "African American," is not a slur, at all. This is because, even though both cover some of the same information about the indicated person, the n- word adds more, negative connotations, which are not evident in the word "black," (regardless if, in your or someone else's mind, the two words are thought of as exact synonyms). In objective reality, they are not interchangable, without varying the meaning.

However, I was contending that "cis-gender" and "straight," do have identical meanings. Calling someone "straight," is no more a slur than an appropriate reference to someone being gay, or transsexual.

While, if I am being completely straight, that is, honest-- I understand peoples' viewing a new word for "straight," as an unnecessary hassle. I can also understand, however, the negative implication of being not straight. Another word for that, is "crooked." So, putting the more common sexual disposition on a more equal footing with the less common ones-- defining all in a similar manner (either "trans" or "cis" gendered)-- seems perfectly reasonable, even if the term does not come naturally to me. It is akin, in my mind, to calling the right turning part of a racemic molecule, "dextrorotory," and the other, leftward-turning part "levorotory"-- as opposed to calling them the levorotory part, and the "right" part.

 

At least you can finally agree homosexuality can be normal can they are Cisgender too.

 

Instead of heterosexual I think I prefer to identify as "not gay" but then again I am a fire truck.

But I see the game they want to play. For starters, we should start referring to men as one-holers and women as two-holers-

Because, some of you can't define what a woman is and maybe some of you freaks can only count to two. We can't discriminate against the confused. So no more men and women. Just one holers and two holers.

Glad we got that straightened out.

 

By your way of assessing things, would a blow up doll, with a concavity in both its groin and mouth areas, then be considered a woman, that is, a "two-holer?"

 

So are you saying that the gender ideology is just a sexual identity? Because otherwise this is not a very well thought out reply to what I said

 

In psycological terms, right out of their medical handbook, that makes you cisgendered.

It's not a slur, it's a medical definition.

"Cisgender: Describes a person whose gender identity aligns in a traditional sense with the sex assigned to them at birth."

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients...escribes a person whose,with no gender at all.

YOu people get all worked up over the silliest ****.

 

sorry but the term cisgender was coined in English in 1994 in a Usenet newsgroup about transgender topics[12] as Dana Defosse, then a graduate student, sought a way to refer to non-transgender people that avoided marginalizing transgender people or implying that transgender people were an other.

So to avoid correctly labeling trans person as an "other" you have to use a derogatory term for normal people to downgrade the "normal" aspect of being "normal" hence the derogatory term of cis..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisge...r itself was,transgender people were an other.

 

LOL, there's nothing derogatory about it. Wikipedia isn't exactly a definitive source. I think I'mma stick with Psychiatry.org.

You people are such delicate little nancys about this stuff.

 

Its not complicated, if I come up with a term to downgrade your existence all to make someone else feel better about themselves then how is that not derogatory or offensive?

Now add in the fact that the father of gender identity was a pedophile sexologist that forced child siblings to have sex with themselves all while him and his psychiatrist friends watched is disgusting, any normal person would be offended and want to reject everything associated with that ideology that such an evil person created.

 

Cisgenders are gay too. That’s all I’m saying. You are the one who said Cisgender is the same as normal.

 

Cis doesn't exist in the minds of normal folk.

 

Wow, that is a deep hole you're in there.

 

Don't be silly.

Of course it would be.

 

yeah not a great argument because you can be completely normal in one regard and still have an abnormality in another, someone could have completely normal vision and still be deaf, see how that works?

 

Posting facts is a deep hole? lol I noticed you decided to just glass over the whole pedophile that created your ideology

also the fact is that creating a term to downgrade "normal" all so a group of people feel better about themselves is offenses to a lot of people. Now its true that a lot of Liberals seem to be self-deprecating so dont have a problem with it, but that doesnt change the fact that a term designed for that purpose is offensive..

 

Making a statement like kind kills your street cred, no?

 

Imagine being so consumed with your 'self' that you have to create different ways to refer to yourself.

If you take it to its final conclusion, everybody is an individual [just like they were when all of this non-sense started].

 

Ok, but that is not how he phrased his comment

 

who phrased his comment? you are the one who tried a "gotcha" when I said there is already a world (normal) that describes cisgender..

Whos comment are you talking about?

 

No need to disrespect Wikipedia-- it doesn't say any of that stuff about "downgrading" normal people; everything about the word being meant derogatorily, came out of dbldrew's idiosyncratic interpretation. Here is a quote from the word's creator, in the Wiki article:

<Snip>
While intended to be a positive descriptor to distinguish between trans and non-trans identity, the term has been met with criticisms in more recent years.[33] Three decades later, in a personal essay, Defosse said she did not intend the word as an insult. She says she does not believe the word cisgender "caused problems – it only revealed them."[13]
<End Snip>

Sorry, but that is not what your source says. See my snip, directly quoting Defosse, just above your quote. The part of your quote, here, in red, is your own personal idea.

This is the beginning of that Wiki article:

<Snip>
A cisgender (sometimes shortened to cis; sometimes cissexual) person has a gender identity that matches their sex assigned at birth. A person whose sex was assigned male at birth and identifies as a boy or a man, or someone whose sex was assigned female at birth and identifies as a girl or a woman, is considered cisgender.[1] This is the case for the majority of human beings.

The word cisgender is the antonym of transgender[2][3] (which refers to someone whose gender identity or gender expression does not correspond with the sex they were assigned at birth). The prefix cis- is Latin and means 'on this side of'. The term cisgender was coined in 1994 and entered into dictionaries starting in 2015 as a result of changes in social discourse about gender.[4][5]

Cisgender people may or may not conform to gender norms and stereotypes associated with their gender identity. A cisgender man may not necessarily exhibit all stereotypical masculine traits, and a cisgender woman may not necessarily exhibit all stereotypical feminine traits. Cisgender people's identity development is often viewed as normative, in contrast to transgender people's. According to some academic literature, cisgender people are afforded cisgender privilege, defined as "a set of unearned advantages".[6]
<End Snip>

Apparently it is too complicated for you. You had it right in the beginning of your first quote: it was merely an attempt not to marginalize transgenders. But in your view of things, you cannot use terminology which treats two things equally, without "downgrading" the one that (again in your opinion) is meant to be higher up than the other. IOW, you cannot help but see transgenderism in a marginalizing, derogatory way, and so depicting it as just the opposite of being cisgender, is to you a defacto insult. You insist on marginalizing transgenders, on depicting them in a way that patently announces the judgement, that there is something wrong with it, and that it is worse, and a lower state, than the normal cisgenderism. This is your own problem.

I will note another option, from one of the detractors from the cisgender term: non-trans. Does that work better for you?

 

Correct, if calling most of society "normal" is marginalizing trans people, then the only way to not "marginalize" them is to use a term that is downgrade of the term that was used. Otherwise if your new term means the exact same thing then they would still be marginalized.. see how that works?

 

No, that is not "how that works." See the example, in my earlier post of the words "dextrorotory" and "levorotory," for the two halves of a racemic molecule. The opposite conditions are expressed, without judgement. It makes no difference, in their naming, which one is more abundant, in any given substance. If they were termed "levorotory" and "the normal one," or "the better one," or "the good one," or "the right one," this would be marginalizing the levorotory condition; but that needn't be done, in order to differentiate it, when the same language model, "dextrorotary," is used for the contrasting part. This is the exact parallel, for "transgender," and "cisgender." Neither one is marginalized, or set above the other. You, however, are insisting that the "cisgender" group, must be spoken about using different terminology, to indicate that it is the more common situation, though this is not an essential part, of merely distinguishing between the two. There is no reason to have to indicate that cisgenders are more "normal," other than your need to discriminate against transgenders. You see them as worse, so that depicting the two in similar language, seems insulting to you. But that is all in your head. Using "cisgender," is merely expressing the two different conditions, without being insulting to transgenders. You, though, apparently feel that it is necessary for language to degrade them, by indicating that the non-trans group is better.


http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/⚤the-words-cis-and-cisgender-are-considered-slurs-on-this-platform-⚤.611394/page-10#post-1074288308

 

The quality of being a genius isn't normal, I suppose you think referring to them as "different" is some kind of indication they are inferior.,