Topic: How do you feel about the word cis?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ started this discussion 12 years ago #34,246
I dont care for it. I feel like it assumes that someone who is not transitioning is also someone who is gender conforming, compliant, or is comfortable with gender roles.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later[^] [v] #472,631
It's basically like calling someone a nigger. It's usually meant with the best of intentions (just like calling someone a nigger), but the person that is called cis is actually being called a nigger in the tranny worldkook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #472,632
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) double-posted this 12 years ago, 12 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #472,633
I just saw this quote, and I mostly agree.
“cis is a term that is at best, useless, and at worst, misogynistic.
1) the term “cis” posits that everyone has an innate gender identity. that isn’t true. while gender might be something you identify with, it isn’t an actual, measurable concept. gender was created specifically to keep women inferior to men, it isn’t a natural part of who we are.
2) it asserts that women are privileged for being women. this is NEVER the case, but it draws the attention away from misogyny and towards transphobia.
3) it prevents women from uniting as a social class. it forces them to be very general about the sex-specific abuses they face and prevents them from naming the actual agents of their oppression. it turns “woman” into a costume to put on and take off and not a lifelong struggle against the patriarchy.
4) it assigns women an identity that they did not pick themselves. it is sacrilegious to tell a trans person their identity isn’t “real” but trans activists consistently force women into the label of “ciswomen” dispute their protest that they are explicitly NOT CIS.
5) it frames oppression as something based on identity and not the very real, very inescapable genital-based “inferior” class we women are forced into at birth.
in summary: “cis” is bad. if you want to refer to yourself as cis, that’s your choice, but don’t assign it to other women (and that includes taking about “ciswomen” in a general, sociological way)
“cis is a term that is at best, useless, and at worst, misogynistic.
1) the term “cis” posits that everyone has an innate gender identity. that isn’t true. while gender might be something you identify with, it isn’t an actual, measurable concept. gender was created specifically to keep women inferior to men, it isn’t a natural part of who we are.
2) it asserts that women are privileged for being women. this is NEVER the case, but it draws the attention away from misogyny and towards transphobia.
3) it prevents women from uniting as a social class. it forces them to be very general about the sex-specific abuses they face and prevents them from naming the actual agents of their oppression. it turns “woman” into a costume to put on and take off and not a lifelong struggle against the patriarchy.
4) it assigns women an identity that they did not pick themselves. it is sacrilegious to tell a trans person their identity isn’t “real” but trans activists consistently force women into the label of “ciswomen” dispute their protest that they are explicitly NOT CIS.
5) it frames oppression as something based on identity and not the very real, very inescapable genital-based “inferior” class we women are forced into at birth.
in summary: “cis” is bad. if you want to refer to yourself as cis, that’s your choice, but don’t assign it to other women (and that includes taking about “ciswomen” in a general, sociological way)
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 17 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #472,634
Calling people 'cis' is almost a creature-comfort; yet another category to shove people you don't wish to meaningfully interact with in. The logic, I'm sure, goes something like this:
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #472,635
Also, feminists don't like getting a taste of their own medicine when they get called out by trannys it seems
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #472,636
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) double-posted this 12 years ago, 30 seconds later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #472,637
Metæ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #472,639
@472,633 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
> 2) it asserts that women are privileged for being women. this is NEVER the case, but it draws the attention away from misogyny and towards transphobia.
I don't see how it does. "Cis" is a sex neutral term. Cis women are every bit as cis as cis men. Also, when did caring about issues become a zero-sum game?
> 4) it assigns women an identity that they did not pick themselves. it is sacrilegious to tell a trans person their identity isn’t “real” but trans activists consistently force women into the label of “ciswomen” dispute their protest that they are explicitly NOT CIS.
But don't TERFs do the same thing? How is a ciswoman any different from a womyn born womyn? As far as I can tell, they mean the same thing.
> 2) it asserts that women are privileged for being women. this is NEVER the case, but it draws the attention away from misogyny and towards transphobia.
I don't see how it does. "Cis" is a sex neutral term. Cis women are every bit as cis as cis men. Also, when did caring about issues become a zero-sum game?
> 4) it assigns women an identity that they did not pick themselves. it is sacrilegious to tell a trans person their identity isn’t “real” but trans activists consistently force women into the label of “ciswomen” dispute their protest that they are explicitly NOT CIS.
But don't TERFs do the same thing? How is a ciswoman any different from a womyn born womyn? As far as I can tell, they mean the same thing.
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #472,643
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #472,647
also, cibophonia is more common than transphobia
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #472,663
i think they made up CIS to force a label onto a group that normally doesn't have labels forced onto them. Since "straight" is the norm from which other "lifestyles" are measured i can see why that group doesn't have labels other than, just, gender normative or heterosexual. But it seems like the community espousing the term cis is attempting to "make a point" about labeling people by placing a weird, misunderstood, and derogatory term onto heterosexuals.
"Oh, you don't like being called CIS? think i like being called a faggot?"
"buddy, i never called you a faggot..."
"shut up, cis scum."
"Oh, you don't like being called CIS? think i like being called a faggot?"
"buddy, i never called you a faggot..."
"shut up, cis scum."
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #472,664
It's transgender bullshit. Maybe there's something about the imbalance of their brains that makes them love drama so much, but it's really uncanny.
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #472,667
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 8 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #472,721
It's extremely useful - it prevents a dichotomy of "normal" and "trans". Y'know, like white isn't explicitly called "normal", or male isn't explicitly called "normal", or straight isn't explicitly called "normal".
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 24 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #472,723
Jack !UFatvuyTEQ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #472,727
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 30 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #472,729
@472,723 (B)
t h e f u c k
Nah. It's like "white person", or "straight", or "male", or "bourgeois". It describes an identity whose members would probably otherwise be granted the privilege of determining themselves to bethe normal.
Nah. It's like "white person", or "straight", or "male", or "bourgeois". It describes an identity whose members would probably otherwise be granted the privilege of determining themselves to be
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 47 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #472,734
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
Actually, I think calling anyone cis is like calling a black person a nigger. It doesn't matter if they like it or not, or if it's meant as a derogatory term, or as a way to define a different (lower) class of people. I think black people like being called niggers by people who aren't niggers, the same way that any person likes being called cis by extremist feminists and trannys
Cis = nigger. When is it ever used in a positive way?
Actually, I think calling anyone cis is like calling a black person a nigger. It doesn't matter if they like it or not, or if it's meant as a derogatory term, or as a way to define a different (lower) class of people. I think black people like being called niggers by people who aren't niggers, the same way that any person likes being called cis by extremist feminists and trannys
Cis = nigger. When is it ever used in a positive way?
dw !jdTkvovFCQ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 33 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #472,737
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 15 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #472,738
@472,639 (Metæ)
Because its mostly transwomen (males), saying it to females. It also assumes that people who arent trans are gender normative.
Because its mostly transwomen (males), saying it to females. It also assumes that people who arent trans are gender normative.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) double-posted this 12 years ago, 36 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #472,739
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) triple-posted this 12 years ago, 46 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #472,740
@472,721 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
They dont have to call themselves trans. If they're women, they can just say women, right?
They dont have to call themselves trans. If they're women, they can just say women, right?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) quadruple-posted this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #472,741
@472,643 (B)
They do dislike the idea that changing your appearance or special "feelings" is what makes a woman.
They do dislike the idea that changing your appearance or special "feelings" is what makes a woman.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 27 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #472,746
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,783
@472,741 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
You can't just put on a dress, and go into the female changing rooms and toilets.
My bud got suspended from his bar job for calling a butch tranny sir (repeatedly, and laughing). The guy looked hilarious he was a burly, thick set, weathered guy about 50 yrs old with a 5 o'clock shadow. He used to drink at the pub, and showed up one day with makeup and a skirt wanting everyone to accept him as a woman. After that my bud called him friend when he served him, and he wasn't allowed in the womens toilets because some of the women complained.
You can't just put on a dress, and go into the female changing rooms and toilets.
My bud got suspended from his bar job for calling a butch tranny sir (repeatedly, and laughing). The guy looked hilarious he was a burly, thick set, weathered guy about 50 yrs old with a 5 o'clock shadow. He used to drink at the pub, and showed up one day with makeup and a skirt wanting everyone to accept him as a woman. After that my bud called him friend when he served him, and he wasn't allowed in the womens toilets because some of the women complained.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,786
I am perpetually perturbed by it.
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,787
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,835
@472,734 (B)
Jesus fucking Christ.
Oh my fuck, just, wow. Wow. How fucking dense can you possibly be!? The context to the two words is absolutely, entirely, completely and totally incomparable, and it's really just extremely damaging to pretend that something which is literally justthe antonym to "trans" is possibly in the same league as a word which has been used for centuries, solely in the context of insulting and dehumanising Black people.
@472,738 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Uh, you're essentialising "sex" again.
I will ask again — what is "sex"? How do you define it? How is your definition better than the other definitions? Why do we need to lump numerous little biological and medical traits into one word as opposed to treating them as what they are — mere distinct little traits which are of little bearing to one's life in many circumstances?
@472,740 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Uh, they need a term to describe their position as compared to people whose assignment ends up lining up with their identity. Hard to discuss their unique experiences and oppressions without terminology.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Oh my fuck, just, wow. Wow. How fucking dense can you possibly be!? The context to the two words is absolutely, entirely, completely and totally incomparable, and it's really just extremely damaging to pretend that something which is literally just
@472,738 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Uh, you're essentialising "sex" again.
I will ask again — what is "sex"? How do you define it? How is your definition better than the other definitions? Why do we need to lump numerous little biological and medical traits into one word as opposed to treating them as what they are — mere distinct little traits which are of little bearing to one's life in many circumstances?
@472,740 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Uh, they need a term to describe their position as compared to people whose assignment ends up lining up with their identity. Hard to discuss their unique experiences and oppressions without terminology.
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,838
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
Biological sex (ie XX vs. XY) is a real, biological thing. Males and females are different and play different roles in reproduction and the rearing of young. All the baggage (gender) that humans ascribe to XX/XY is negotiable, but there really is a biological concept of "male" and "female".
Chromosomes are not a social construct: you can actually view them with an electron microscope.
Biological sex (ie XX vs. XY) is a real, biological thing. Males and females are different and play different roles in reproduction and the rearing of young. All the baggage (gender) that humans ascribe to XX/XY is negotiable, but there really is a biological concept of "male" and "female".
Chromosomes are not a social construct: you can actually view them with an electron microscope.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
advi !!3gpAcg/hF joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,857
Social justice warriors are stupid. We fucking get it.
dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,859
who gives a fuck no one actually uses the term
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 52 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,866
@472,835 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
cis people are the niggers of the trans world. That much is clear. That is how they use it, it is specifically an insult and meant to cause harm. It's just another reason why trannys aren't accepted in society, because they label people with names like that and use them to demean others.
cis people are the niggers of the trans world. That much is clear. That is how they use it, it is specifically an insult and meant to cause harm. It's just another reason why trannys aren't accepted in society, because they label people with names like that and use them to demean others.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,887
advi !!3gpAcg/hF replied with this 12 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,915
@472,866 (N)
Getting your impressions of a real life group from the Internet is a dangerous thing, bruh.
Getting your impressions of a real life group from the Internet is a dangerous thing, bruh.
Anonymous N replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,947
@previous (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
And where else can you meet such groups? At the pub? The supermarket? You must be from the internet in the 90's. Bruh
And where else can you meet such groups? At the pub? The supermarket? You must be from the internet in the 90's. Bruh
advi !!3gpAcg/hF replied with this 12 years ago, 33 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,951
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #472,952
Threads grate
Anonymous N replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,973
@472,951 (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
> You don't. That's the point.
You don't have a point.
Next you'll probably try to say that I shouldn't get impressions from people I talk to on the phone. Thanks for trying though, maybe you'll get a thread participation certificate to put on the fridge or something
> You don't. That's the point.
You don't have a point.
Next you'll probably try to say that I shouldn't get impressions from people I talk to on the phone. Thanks for trying though, maybe you'll get a thread participation certificate to put on the fridge or something
dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 12 years ago, 40 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,974
@previous (N)http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=vocal%20minority
Anonymous N replied with this 12 years ago, 27 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,975
@previous (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
Everyone here is the vocal minority, or no one here is except for the trannys?
Everyone here is the vocal minority, or no one here is except for the trannys?
advi !!3gpAcg/hF replied with this 12 years ago, 11 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,993
@472,973 (N)
Oh, condescending backtalk, that's a debate winner.
You know who someone is on the other end of a phone call. You don't actually know the random jagoff who runs a blog.
Oh, condescending backtalk, that's a debate winner.
You know who someone is on the other end of a phone call. You don't actually know the random jagoff who runs a blog.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 19 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,994
@472,973 (N)
> maybe you'll get a thread participation certificate
Those were limited edition only. Sorry.
> maybe you'll get a thread participation certificate
Those were limited edition only. Sorry.
Anonymous N replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #472,996
@472,993 (advi !!3gpAcg/hF)
Trannys with blogs are random jagoffs to you? It's no wonder then, that they call you cis nigger
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
That's because they were rose scented, and personally signed. I believe a generic version is in development though
Trannys with blogs are random jagoffs to you? It's no wonder then, that they call you cis nigger
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
That's because they were rose scented, and personally signed. I believe a generic version is in development though
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,027
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) double-posted this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,028
@472,835 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
If they have no bearing on ones life, than trans people can not be oppressed by such things.
If they have no bearing on ones life, than trans people can not be oppressed by such things.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) triple-posted this 12 years ago, 25 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,029
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) quadruple-posted this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,030
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 22 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,039
@472,838 (Meta)
> Biological sex (ie XX vs. XY) is a real, biological thing. Males and females are different and play different roles in reproduction and the rearing of young. All the baggage (gender) that humans ascribe to XX/XY is negotiable, but there really is a biological concept of "male" and "female".
> Chromosomes are not a social construct: you can actually view them with an electron microscope.
Funny you cite chromosomes here, when phenotype is almost completely determined by hormones. Let's take a look at where your definition disintegrates.
1. People with an XY karyotype and a large or total degree of androgen insensitivity. Born with an obvious vagina, assigned female, grows up to have a phenotype totally typical of a cis women, and, in most cases, is female. (When I use such adjectives, it is literally only referring to gender.)
2. People with karyotypes such as X, XXX, XXY, XYY, etcetera - lacking a Y, they will most often have a vagina, etcetera; having a Y, they will most often have a penis. Whether they have the gonads generally found with their genitalia or not is not guaranteed. XXY people, for example, are almost always assigned male, and generally end up being male. See, the interesting thing is, they aren't fucking XY. So there. Your definition of "sex" fails once again!
3. Mosaicism. There're more than a few people out there who have XX cells throughout most of their body, and XY in some, vice versa. Are you going to call their "sex" "female" if they're unambiguously male, have XY chromosomes throughout most of their body, and just happen to have a vagina and uterus?
4. Post-op trans people on HRT. ...just, let's be fucking serious here. If someone has a totally functioning penis, an unambiguously male phenotype and presentation, and a typically "male" concentration of testosterone in their blood, are they still under your bizarre definition of "female"?
5. The previous four points are essentially moot, because you have literally no reason to be policing the identities of other human beings via a bizarre amalgamation of at most incidentally related traits.
"Sex" is an entirely useless concept. Completely devoid of value. Chromosomes? Relevant at times. Phenotype? Often relevant. Hormones? Very relevant for medical stuff. Internal anatomy? Also really relevant for medical stuff. What bits someone has? Relevant when people want to penetrate each other. But this bizarre kitchen-sink jumble of fuck that gets blindly accepted as useful - without being understood by most people who engage it - called "sex"? It needs to be examined for what it is: a meaningless mess made to normalise merely statistically common configurations.
@472,866 (N)
I'm going to be fucking blunt here.
This is the most utterly fucking reprehensible shipwreck of trash that I've read in a fucking week.
It's.
It's fucking staggering, and I want you to fucking examine the fuck out of what you're saying. Oh, also, see what Black trans women think of your cute little analogy there. It's absolutely deplorable. :v
@473,028 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
What I'm getting at is that they'd be mostly irrelevant were it not for the massive clusterfuck of institutionalised transphobia that gets people murdered daily for daring to go against their assignment.
> Biological sex (ie XX vs. XY) is a real, biological thing. Males and females are different and play different roles in reproduction and the rearing of young. All the baggage (gender) that humans ascribe to XX/XY is negotiable, but there really is a biological concept of "male" and "female".
> Chromosomes are not a social construct: you can actually view them with an electron microscope.
Funny you cite chromosomes here, when phenotype is almost completely determined by hormones. Let's take a look at where your definition disintegrates.
1. People with an XY karyotype and a large or total degree of androgen insensitivity. Born with an obvious vagina, assigned female, grows up to have a phenotype totally typical of a cis women, and, in most cases, is female. (When I use such adjectives, it is literally only referring to gender.)
2. People with karyotypes such as X, XXX, XXY, XYY, etcetera - lacking a Y, they will most often have a vagina, etcetera; having a Y, they will most often have a penis. Whether they have the gonads generally found with their genitalia or not is not guaranteed. XXY people, for example, are almost always assigned male, and generally end up being male. See, the interesting thing is, they aren't fucking XY. So there. Your definition of "sex" fails once again!
3. Mosaicism. There're more than a few people out there who have XX cells throughout most of their body, and XY in some, vice versa. Are you going to call their "sex" "female" if they're unambiguously male, have XY chromosomes throughout most of their body, and just happen to have a vagina and uterus?
4. Post-op trans people on HRT. ...just, let's be fucking serious here. If someone has a totally functioning penis, an unambiguously male phenotype and presentation, and a typically "male" concentration of testosterone in their blood, are they still under your bizarre definition of "female"?
5. The previous four points are essentially moot, because you have literally no reason to be policing the identities of other human beings via a bizarre amalgamation of at most incidentally related traits.
"Sex" is an entirely useless concept. Completely devoid of value. Chromosomes? Relevant at times. Phenotype? Often relevant. Hormones? Very relevant for medical stuff. Internal anatomy? Also really relevant for medical stuff. What bits someone has? Relevant when people want to penetrate each other. But this bizarre kitchen-sink jumble of fuck that gets blindly accepted as useful - without being understood by most people who engage it - called "sex"? It needs to be examined for what it is: a meaningless mess made to normalise merely statistically common configurations.
@472,866 (N)
@473,028 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
What I'm getting at is that they'd be mostly irrelevant were it not for the massive clusterfuck of institutionalised transphobia that gets people murdered daily for daring to go against their assignment.
(Edited 34 seconds later.)
Anonymous P replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,042
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 46 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,043
Anonymous P replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,048
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,051
@473,039 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
You know what else gets people murdered? Being born with a vagina.
You know what else gets people murdered? Being born with a vagina.
Anonymous P replied with this 12 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,057
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Sure is Oppression Olympics in here
Try intersectionality for a change?
Sure is Oppression Olympics in here
Try intersectionality for a change?
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,059
@473,048 (P)
Damn, thanks. :D
@473,051 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
I'd be fucking lying if I pretended that FAAB people didn't face oppressions as a group that MAAB people don't. This does not nullify oppression along gender lines, though.
Damn, thanks. :D
@473,051 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
I'd be fucking lying if I pretended that FAAB people didn't face oppressions as a group that MAAB people don't. This does not nullify oppression along gender lines, though.
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,060
@473,039 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
I certainly don't deny that occasionally there will be people with XXY XXXY, XYY, androgen insensitivity, etc. mutations (not meaning that perjoratively -- just in a neutral biological sense) but that would be like saying "I saw an albino black person with white skin and blonde hair, therefore PoC aren't real because some black people are white".
> "Sex" is an entirely useless concept. Completely devoid of value
Okay, make some ova. I'll wait.
> 3. Mosaicism. There're more than a few people out there who have XX cells throughout most of their body, and XY in some, vice versa. Are you going to call their "sex" "female" if they're unambiguously male, have XY chromosomes throughout most of their body, and just happen to have a vagina and uterus?
Yes, and from what I've read it's actually universal. I have some XX cells from my mother, but I'm not worried about getting pregnant anytime soon.
> 4. Post-op trans people on HRT. ...just, let's be fucking serious here. If someone has a totally functioning penis, an unambiguously male phenotype and presentation, and a typically "male" concentration of testosterone in their blood, are they still under your bizarre definition of "female"?
You misunderstand me. I said, biologically male and femalesex (not gender) do exist. They are really really real. Definitely more real than race. It's strange to me that you would unquestioningly accept race as gospel, but attack something so well founded in biology as sex. Take a biology course and ask your teacher about sex. Not specifically human sex, but the concept of sexual reproduction in general. Ask them if it's a social construct. I would be interested in what they say.
Would I consider Buck Angel to be a man? Of course. Can he ever be a sperm donor? No. This is what I'm getting at: biological sex is a real thing, gender not so much. Does Buck Angel's lack of spermatozoa make him less of a man in my eyes? No. But it does make him still biologically female. I'm not trying to be transphobic: just stating a biological fact. I have nothing, at all, against trans people. If someone born into an XY body identifies as a woman and wants to live as one, then more power to her. Life is short and we must all pursue our own happiness. Live and let live has always been my philosophy.
> 5. The previous four points are essentially moot, because you have literally no reason to be policing the identities of other human beings via a bizarre amalgamation of at most incidentally related traits.
So you listed four points... and then declared them moot? Okay. I'm not policing anyone's identity. If someone identifies as a different sex than they were born with, then that's fine. I'm not going to try to stop them. I will accept them as their preferred gender and do my best to use their preferred pronouns. I have far more pressing issues in my life than worrying other people's gender: it's their deal.
I certainly don't deny that occasionally there will be people with XXY XXXY, XYY, androgen insensitivity, etc. mutations (not meaning that perjoratively -- just in a neutral biological sense) but that would be like saying "I saw an albino black person with white skin and blonde hair, therefore PoC aren't real because some black people are white".
> "Sex" is an entirely useless concept. Completely devoid of value
Okay, make some ova. I'll wait.
> 3. Mosaicism. There're more than a few people out there who have XX cells throughout most of their body, and XY in some, vice versa. Are you going to call their "sex" "female" if they're unambiguously male, have XY chromosomes throughout most of their body, and just happen to have a vagina and uterus?
Yes, and from what I've read it's actually universal. I have some XX cells from my mother, but I'm not worried about getting pregnant anytime soon.
> 4. Post-op trans people on HRT. ...just, let's be fucking serious here. If someone has a totally functioning penis, an unambiguously male phenotype and presentation, and a typically "male" concentration of testosterone in their blood, are they still under your bizarre definition of "female"?
You misunderstand me. I said, biologically male and female
Would I consider Buck Angel to be a man? Of course. Can he ever be a sperm donor? No. This is what I'm getting at: biological sex is a real thing, gender not so much. Does Buck Angel's lack of spermatozoa make him less of a man in my eyes? No. But it does make him still biologically female. I'm not trying to be transphobic: just stating a biological fact. I have nothing, at all, against trans people. If someone born into an XY body identifies as a woman and wants to live as one, then more power to her. Life is short and we must all pursue our own happiness. Live and let live has always been my philosophy.
> 5. The previous four points are essentially moot, because you have literally no reason to be policing the identities of other human beings via a bizarre amalgamation of at most incidentally related traits.
So you listed four points... and then declared them moot? Okay. I'm not policing anyone's identity. If someone identifies as a different sex than they were born with, then that's fine. I'm not going to try to stop them. I will accept them as their preferred gender and do my best to use their preferred pronouns. I have far more pressing issues in my life than worrying other people's gender: it's their deal.
Anonymous N replied with this 12 years ago, 39 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,061
@473,039 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
Were you masturbating when you posted that?
If people don't want to be called cis because they believe it has a negative connotation, stop using that slur. It's that simple.
To call someone cis who doesn't want that label, is the same as calling a black person a nigger, the same as calling a gay person a faggot, someone with disabilities a retard etc. A gay black trans jewish woman has no right to call a straight white male who is short a midget, if he finds it offensive. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Were you masturbating when you posted that?
If people don't want to be called cis because they believe it has a negative connotation, stop using that slur. It's that simple.
To call someone cis who doesn't want that label, is the same as calling a black person a nigger, the same as calling a gay person a faggot, someone with disabilities a retard etc. A gay black trans jewish woman has no right to call a straight white male who is short a midget, if he finds it offensive. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,062
@473,030 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
You're welcome. Heart you too. I really have no issue with what gender someone presents or operates as. But calling biological sex a social construct is just going a bit over the top.
You're welcome. Heart you too. I really have no issue with what gender someone presents or operates as. But calling biological sex a social construct is just going a bit over the top.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,065
@473,059 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
I agree. Though I dont believe that people who feel like women are most oppressed than people who are born as women. I also dont believe that intact males should be able to use womens facilities because they are afraid of other, intact males.
I agree. Though I dont believe that people who feel like women are most oppressed than people who are born as women. I also dont believe that intact males should be able to use womens facilities because they are afraid of other, intact males.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) double-posted this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,066
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 46 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,076
@473,060 (Meta)
> I certainly don't deny that occasionally there will be people with XXY XXXY, XYY, androgen insensitivity, etc. mutations (not meaning that perjoratively -- just in a neutral biological sense) but that would be like saying "I saw an albino black person with white skin and blonde hair, therefore PoC aren't real because some black people are white".
That's not even relevant. I get a feeling that you're trying to conflate construction with nonexistence here, which is... hah, no.
> Okay, make some ova. I'll wait.
So what the fuck is an entirely infertile XX cis woman with typical phenotype, hormone concentrations, and internal anatomy? Not "female-sexed"?
Yeah. Whooooooooooooooops.
> Yes, and from what I've read it's actually universal. I have some XX cells from my mother, but I'm not worried about getting pregnant anytime soon.
Huh, I... was legitimately not aware of the more minor instances of it before!
> You misunderstand me. I said, biologically male and female sex (not gender) do exist. They are really really real. Definitely more real than race. It's strange to me that you would unquestioningly accept race as gospel, but attack something so well founded in biology as sex. Take a biology course and ask your teacher about sex. Not specifically human sex, but the concept of sexual reproduction in general. Ask them if it's a social construct. I would be interested in what they say.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying entirely. "Has a penis and testes" is a thing, no shit. "Has a vagina, uterus, and ovaries" is, too. There's nothing intrinsically "male" or "female" to one or the other, though, and really, it's erroneous to pretend that all genitalia are penis or vagina, that all organisms are fertile, and that all organisms will line up with the most common configurations of inside and outside parts.
Besides, your comparison with race there? I don't pretend that gender doesn't exist. Gender and race are extremely real social constructs. Yes! Constructed and real! Holy shit! And guess what - "sex" as a single monolithic idea is entirely constructed, too! The traits that constitute, and are used to reinforce, all three of those things are physical, to at least some extent, but the concepts themselves are constructed.
So yeah. What I'm saying is that it'd be foolish to deny that there are physical traits that exist which are relevant to reproduction and sexuality which are used, in varying ways, to create "sex", but sex itself is just a bullshit inference from diverse traits which needn't necessarily fall into the same configurations at all times.
@473,061 (N)
You're demonstrating anabsolute lack of understanding of any sociological context. Please, actually read up on the power dynamics around slurs before talking about the issue again.
@473,065 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
I generally try to avoid trying to quantify oppressions - it's obnoxious at best, and damaging most of the time. I just treat different oppressions as simultaneously different and overlapping, and don't try to quantify or anything.
> I certainly don't deny that occasionally there will be people with XXY XXXY, XYY, androgen insensitivity, etc. mutations (not meaning that perjoratively -- just in a neutral biological sense) but that would be like saying "I saw an albino black person with white skin and blonde hair, therefore PoC aren't real because some black people are white".
That's not even relevant. I get a feeling that you're trying to conflate construction with nonexistence here, which is... hah, no.
> Okay, make some ova. I'll wait.
So what the fuck is an entirely infertile XX cis woman with typical phenotype, hormone concentrations, and internal anatomy? Not "female-sexed"?
Yeah. Whooooooooooooooops.
> Yes, and from what I've read it's actually universal. I have some XX cells from my mother, but I'm not worried about getting pregnant anytime soon.
Huh, I... was legitimately not aware of the more minor instances of it before!
> You misunderstand me. I said, biologically male and female sex (not gender) do exist. They are really really real. Definitely more real than race. It's strange to me that you would unquestioningly accept race as gospel, but attack something so well founded in biology as sex. Take a biology course and ask your teacher about sex. Not specifically human sex, but the concept of sexual reproduction in general. Ask them if it's a social construct. I would be interested in what they say.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying entirely. "Has a penis and testes" is a thing, no shit. "Has a vagina, uterus, and ovaries" is, too. There's nothing intrinsically "male" or "female" to one or the other, though, and really, it's erroneous to pretend that all genitalia are penis or vagina, that all organisms are fertile, and that all organisms will line up with the most common configurations of inside and outside parts.
Besides, your comparison with race there? I don't pretend that gender doesn't exist. Gender and race are extremely real social constructs. Yes! Constructed and real! Holy shit! And guess what - "sex" as a single monolithic idea is entirely constructed, too! The traits that constitute, and are used to reinforce, all three of those things are physical, to at least some extent, but the concepts themselves are constructed.
So yeah. What I'm saying is that it'd be foolish to deny that there are physical traits that exist which are relevant to reproduction and sexuality which are used, in varying ways, to create "sex", but sex itself is just a bullshit inference from diverse traits which needn't necessarily fall into the same configurations at all times.
@473,061 (N)
You're demonstrating an
@473,065 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
I generally try to avoid trying to quantify oppressions - it's obnoxious at best, and damaging most of the time. I just treat different oppressions as simultaneously different and overlapping, and don't try to quantify or anything.
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 55 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,087
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
> That's not even relevant. I get a feeling that you're trying to conflate construction with nonexistence here, which is... hah, no.
Could you please rephrase that? I literally do not know what that means.
> So what the fuck is an entirely infertile XX cis woman with typical phenotype, hormone concentrations, and internal anatomy? Not "female-sexed"?
> Yeah. Whooooooooooooooops.
Again: cherrypicking exceptions. I have seen albino black people with whiter skin than the most nordic "aryans". Does that mean there's no such thing as black people because some black people aren't black? Is an albino black person not black? Of course not. Because race is mainly cultural.
The vast majority of XX/XY humans are capable of performing their designated reproductive functions, which is why there's 7 billion of us today. Will there be all manner of exceptions? Yes, but that does not invalidate the concept of sex, biologically. Again: I don't care if someone is trans or not. Be whatever gender you want to be. Be otherkin, be a furry, have headmates, whatever. I really don't care what others do as long as it doesn't infringe on my freedom. All I'm saying is that 1) humans reproduce sexually, and 2) males and females have different roles to play in this 3) therefore, sex is not entirely meaningless'' as a term.
> I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying entirely. "Has a penis and testes" is a thing, no shit. "Has a vagina, uterus, and ovaries" is, too. There's nothing intrinsically "male" or "female" to one or the other, though, and really, it's erroneous to pretend that all genitalia are penis or vagina, that all organisms are fertile, and that all organisms will line up with the most common configurations of inside and outside parts.
But the vast majority of them are.
> Besides, your comparison with race there? I don't pretend that gender doesn't exist. Gender and race are extremely real social constructs. Yes! Constructed and real! Holy shit! And guess what - "sex" as a single monolithic idea is entirely constructed, too! The traits that constitute, and are used to reinforce, all three of those things are physical, to at least some extent, but the concepts themselves are constructed.
Race is melanin, hair texture, and trivial differences in bone structure. I honestly believe everything beyond that is a social construct. It's "real" because we make it real as a shared delusion. Sex is real because it is real, in the same way that gravity is real. How much of what we call "masculine" and "feminine" is due to underlying biology and how much is due to social constructs, I really don't know. Again: I'm fine with whatever gender identity/orientation/transitioning people have.
> That's not even relevant. I get a feeling that you're trying to conflate construction with nonexistence here, which is... hah, no.
Could you please rephrase that? I literally do not know what that means.
> So what the fuck is an entirely infertile XX cis woman with typical phenotype, hormone concentrations, and internal anatomy? Not "female-sexed"?
> Yeah. Whooooooooooooooops.
Again: cherrypicking exceptions. I have seen albino black people with whiter skin than the most nordic "aryans". Does that mean there's no such thing as black people because some black people aren't black? Is an albino black person not black? Of course not. Because race is mainly cultural.
The vast majority of XX/XY humans are capable of performing their designated reproductive functions, which is why there's 7 billion of us today. Will there be all manner of exceptions? Yes, but that does not invalidate the concept of sex, biologically. Again: I don't care if someone is trans or not. Be whatever gender you want to be. Be otherkin, be a furry, have headmates, whatever. I really don't care what others do as long as it doesn't infringe on my freedom. All I'm saying is that 1) humans reproduce sexually, and 2) males and females have different roles to play in this 3) therefore, sex is not entirely meaningless'' as a term.
> I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying entirely. "Has a penis and testes" is a thing, no shit. "Has a vagina, uterus, and ovaries" is, too. There's nothing intrinsically "male" or "female" to one or the other, though, and really, it's erroneous to pretend that all genitalia are penis or vagina, that all organisms are fertile, and that all organisms will line up with the most common configurations of inside and outside parts.
But the vast majority of them are.
> Besides, your comparison with race there? I don't pretend that gender doesn't exist. Gender and race are extremely real social constructs. Yes! Constructed and real! Holy shit! And guess what - "sex" as a single monolithic idea is entirely constructed, too! The traits that constitute, and are used to reinforce, all three of those things are physical, to at least some extent, but the concepts themselves are constructed.
Race is melanin, hair texture, and trivial differences in bone structure. I honestly believe everything beyond that is a social construct. It's "real" because we make it real as a shared delusion. Sex is real because it is real, in the same way that gravity is real. How much of what we call "masculine" and "feminine" is due to underlying biology and how much is due to social constructs, I really don't know. Again: I'm fine with whatever gender identity/orientation/transitioning people have.
Anonymous N replied with this 12 years ago, 39 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,088
@473,076 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
How about putting it in a really simple context. The person being called the slur gets to decide if they want to be called it or not.
How about putting it in a really simple context. The person being called the slur gets to decide if they want to be called it or not.
dw !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 12 years ago, 7 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,132
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,149
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 30 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,152
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 15 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,155
@473,132 (dw !jdTkvovFCQ)
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Outside of the internet, I never have. I remember cis-trans isomerism in the introduction to chemistry course I took, but I don't think anyone's started a Tumblr about that yet.
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Outside of the internet, I never have. I remember cis-trans isomerism in the introduction to chemistry course I took, but I don't think anyone's started a Tumblr about that yet.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 2 days later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,402
@previous (Meta)
I have been threatend and called a facist cis dyke irl for turning down a "lesbian" trans woman for sex. I was then defended by several "straight" trans women.
I have been threatend and called a facist cis dyke irl for turning down a "lesbian" trans woman for sex. I was then defended by several "straight" trans women.
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,403
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Weird because she considered herself a woman, yet called you a "dyke" when you turned her down. It would be like a trans man calling a cis man a faggot for turning him down. Makes no sense. To me, it implies that she still considered herself a "he" on some level.
Weird because she considered herself a woman, yet called you a "dyke" when you turned her down. It would be like a trans man calling a cis man a faggot for turning him down. Makes no sense. To me, it implies that she still considered herself a "he" on some level.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,405
@previous (Meta)
I believe that they do. Many trans women have a hatred for people who they call hons or huns. These are other trans women who dont "pass". A poster on this site (wont name them) even admitted that hons make her uncomfortable because it reminds her that trans women are actually male. Also, many trans women are homophobic against gay men, and trans women who have sex with men. I've also heard trans women mock females who they dont consider to be feminine enough, because they feel like they are "wasting their womanhood".
I believe that they do. Many trans women have a hatred for people who they call hons or huns. These are other trans women who dont "pass". A poster on this site (wont name them) even admitted that hons make her uncomfortable because it reminds her that trans women are actually male. Also, many trans women are homophobic against gay men, and trans women who have sex with men. I've also heard trans women mock females who they dont consider to be feminine enough, because they feel like they are "wasting their womanhood".
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,407
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Realistically, very few transwomen (I'd guess ~5%) will ever pass with any certainty.
> Also, many trans women are homophobic against gay men,
Never knew that. I always assumed they'd ally with the gay people, cause they kinda have the same struggle against the cishets.
> and trans women who have sex with men.
But this is technically heterosexual: you can't be both heterophobic and homophobic at the same time, surely? Unless you're asexual?
> I've also heard trans women mock females who they don't consider to be feminine enough, because they feel like they are "wasting their womanhood".
Understandable due to jealousy.
Realistically, very few transwomen (I'd guess ~5%) will ever pass with any certainty.
> Also, many trans women are homophobic against gay men,
Never knew that. I always assumed they'd ally with the gay people, cause they kinda have the same struggle against the cishets.
> and trans women who have sex with men.
But this is technically heterosexual: you can't be both heterophobic and homophobic at the same time, surely? Unless you're asexual?
> I've also heard trans women mock females who they don't consider to be feminine enough, because they feel like they are "wasting their womanhood".
Understandable due to jealousy.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,411
@previous (Meta)
I guess they manage? They use the word gay as an insult frequently, call people faggots/cocksuckers, say that fucking people with body hair is "gay", and say that they themselves (as lesbians) could never deaal with penises, but expect gay females to deal with theirs. Its really odd.
I guess they manage? They use the word gay as an insult frequently, call people faggots/cocksuckers, say that fucking people with body hair is "gay", and say that they themselves (as lesbians) could never deaal with penises, but expect gay females to deal with theirs. Its really odd.
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,413
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
I really don't get how you could not deal with a penis after having had one for many years. Not like it? Sure. But being unable to deal with it is silly. Lesbian transwomen discriminating against other transwomen is utter hypocrisy.
I really don't get how you could not deal with a penis after having had one for many years. Not like it? Sure. But being unable to deal with it is silly. Lesbian transwomen discriminating against other transwomen is utter hypocrisy.
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 11 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,464
Is that a hard "c" or a soft "c"? If the former, then I am reminded of the horrible rock band of the 70's... If the latter, then of course I am reminded of the niece in "Family Affair". Neither are fond memories.
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,467
Anonymous Q replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #473,474
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 16 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #473,524
@472,633 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
> 2) it asserts that women are privileged for being women. this is NEVER the case, but it draws the attention away from misogyny and towards transphobia.
Stopped reading right there. Never is a big word. Not only is the statement most certainly false, this author obviously has an agenda to be speaking in such hyperbole.
> 2) it asserts that women are privileged for being women. this is NEVER the case, but it draws the attention away from misogyny and towards transphobia.
Stopped reading right there. Never is a big word. Not only is the statement most certainly false, this author obviously has an agenda to be speaking in such hyperbole.