Topic: What does the acronym CIS actually stand for?
Lemon Drop !CITRUS3QCY started this discussion 11 years ago #42,574
No one ever says.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later[^] [v] #564,784
Commonwealth of Independent States
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #564,791
I'm not sure, but apparently they all need to die because they are scum.
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #564,792
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #564,794
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #564,795
@previous (C)
it's not a derogatory term. it's only considered derogatory because it's used in a way that denormalizes a cis identity.
it's not a derogatory term. it's only considered derogatory because it's used in a way that denormalizes a cis identity.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #564,797
@previous (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
Not derogatory, but only used in a derogatory way? That's how every slur ever and all hate speech has been used.
Not derogatory, but only used in a derogatory way? That's how every slur ever and all hate speech has been used.
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 42 seconds later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #564,798
@previous (C)
Dude are you late for yoga because you're stretching.
How is denormalizing derogatory?
Dude are you late for yoga because you're stretching.
How is denormalizing derogatory?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #564,799
Confederacy of Independant Systems. They're the bad guys in Star Wars episodes 2 and 3 who have the droid army.
@564,795 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
Yeah, it's no more offensive than calling somebody heterosexual.
Though I think many who are offended by it just have a skewed perception. The term is heavily associated with Tumblr/SJWs, which can often rub people the wrong way. So they just assume it's an inherently hostile term.
@564,795 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
Yeah, it's no more offensive than calling somebody heterosexual.
Though I think many who are offended by it just have a skewed perception. The term is heavily associated with Tumblr/SJWs, which can often rub people the wrong way. So they just assume it's an inherently hostile term.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #564,800
Computer Information Systems
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 48 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #564,808
@564,798 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
Die cis scum is not "denormalizing" it is offensive and derogatory and it is not okay to tell people to die or kill themselves. Regardless of their sex or gender or orientation or political views.
Die cis scum is not "denormalizing" it is offensive and derogatory and it is not okay to tell people to die or kill themselves. Regardless of their sex or gender or orientation or political views.
Anonymous C double-posted this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #564,810
@564,799 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
It is a hostile term. Gay used to mean happy, but it is used as a hostile term by some. The same is true for cis.
It is a hostile term. Gay used to mean happy, but it is used as a hostile term by some. The same is true for cis.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #564,811
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #564,815
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc double-posted this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #564,817
this thread's now about calliope. what a nice skull monster.Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #564,823
@564,815 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
> i agree that its not okay but pedos and people are two different groups.
Wait, what? Cis means pedo now?
> i agree that its not okay but pedos and people are two different groups.
Wait, what? Cis means pedo now?
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 49 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #564,824
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #564,826
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 47 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #564,827
@previous (C)why are you so insistent on denying that this thread is about callie
are you skullmonster-racist
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #564,833
@previous (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
When your position in an argument or discussion is challenged I thought you started attacking spelling mistakes, not quickly change the subject.
When your position in an argument or discussion is challenged I thought you started attacking spelling mistakes, not quickly change the subject.
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #564,834
@previous (C)dude what argument
it wasnt an argument
i told matt to kill himself you rushed to his defense and then i was like "this is going nowhere" and made the thread better
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #564,836
@previous (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
Discussion then. About whether cis is deemed offensive. I don't think you should tell anyone to kill themselves btw. Keep discussing it with me, leave, or go make another thread about cartoons. Thanks
Discussion then. About whether cis is deemed offensive. I don't think you should tell anyone to kill themselves btw. Keep discussing it with me, leave, or go make another thread about cartoons. Thanks
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 45 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #564,837
@previous (C)> cartoons
lol'd.
also it's only as offensive as "straight" or "white". you getting offended by it seems like a personal problem.
also, this isn't callie, please keep the thread on topic dear
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #564,838
@previous (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
As I explained earlier, gay means happy, but because it had been used in a derogatory way the meaning has changed. Cis is offensive because it is only ever used in an offensive way. My example of saying "thanks cis friend" is a reasonable point. I don't think I have ever seen or heard of the term used positively before. I doubt anyone can link to it being used positively.
As I explained earlier, gay means happy, but because it had been used in a derogatory way the meaning has changed. Cis is offensive because it is only ever used in an offensive way. My example of saying "thanks cis friend" is a reasonable point. I don't think I have ever seen or heard of the term used positively before. I doubt anyone can link to it being used positively.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 14 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #564,839
@564,817 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
Motherfuck, I'm way behind on Homestuck. Gotta set some time aside for it.
Motherfuck, I'm way behind on Homestuck. Gotta set some time aside for it.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,840
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Thanks for sharing about homestuck cis friend!
Is that offensive?
Thanks for sharing about homestuck cis friend!
Is that offensive?
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,841
@564,838 (C)cis is only offensive to you because you're a victimized child who can't deal with what you dish out when it's returned. is this the first time you've had a label put on you that you didn't choose because you're trying to talk SJ shit but you don't know anything about it and you're making a fool of yourself.
this isn't murder. this isn't corrective rape. it's giving you a label to denormalize cis identities and promote the idea that being trans isn't unnatural. i reiterate. you getting offended over being called cis is a personal issue you need to work past with a therapist, not something that can be explained away.
also, keep the thread on topic please.
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc double-posted this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,842
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,843
@564,841 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
This is a cis topic. You can post a cartoon thread and talk with killer lettuce about it there if you want.
You don't get to decide if I find something offensive. That is my decision. Calling or labeling someone something they don't like does not equal murder or corrective rape. That's a very, very large leap to make and is somewhat silly.
So do you think that "denormalizing" is a way to make a minority overpower a majority?
This is a cis topic. You can post a cartoon thread and talk with killer lettuce about it there if you want.
You don't get to decide if I find something offensive. That is my decision. Calling or labeling someone something they don't like does not equal murder or corrective rape. That's a very, very large leap to make and is somewhat silly.
So do you think that "denormalizing" is a way to make a minority overpower a majority?
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,844
@previous (C)this topic is about callie. the nature of this boards design means image posts will get more attention than text posts and putting appealing art in the image means more people will see this thread as about callie than your victim complex.
and i didn't decide you found cis offensive. you told me you found it offensive and i explained in a simple way the function of a label like "cis" and then you stuck your head even farther up your ass. this is twice now i've recapped this thread. would you like a third?
is the term cisatlantic, meaning "this side of the atlantic ocean" offensive to you?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,846
@564,838 (C)
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're not a troll.
Literally, all CIS means is a person whose gender identity matches their biological sex. It's just a term for something that undeniably exists in the world. Yes, it has an association with aggressive SJWs, but consider that just because one group is shouting the loudest, it doesn't make them the only representatives of something.
And yes, it can be and is used non-offensively. Here's an excrept from some research into transgender people, from 1994. It uses the term cisgendered purely academically. Here's a dictionary of queer terms that lays it out in neutral terms.
@564,842 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
I briefly checked the latest updates yesterdaty, and I saw a sprite that looked like a fusion of Jaspers and Rose? Definitely gonna have to find up what the funk was up with that.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're not a troll.
Literally, all CIS means is a person whose gender identity matches their biological sex. It's just a term for something that undeniably exists in the world. Yes, it has an association with aggressive SJWs, but consider that just because one group is shouting the loudest, it doesn't make them the only representatives of something.
And yes, it can be and is used non-offensively. Here's an excrept from some research into transgender people, from 1994. It uses the term cisgendered purely academically. Here's a dictionary of queer terms that lays it out in neutral terms.
@564,842 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
I briefly checked the latest updates yesterdaty, and I saw a sprite that looked like a fusion of Jaspers and Rose? Definitely gonna have to find up what the funk was up with that.
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,847
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)that made me lose my shit. very few things in homestuck can surprise me at this point but i'll be damned if that didn't get me.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,849
@564,844 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
If it is only used to say die cisatlantic scum then it is offensive, yes.
And the term is not offensive to me personally, I never said I was offended by it, nor have I ever been called it before. I just see it only being used in an offensive way. Therefore I find the term to be offensive.
Your cartoons look lovely, but I believe the topic headline still holds more weight. Especially if you can just go ahead and make your own thread with homestuck as the headline.
If it is only used to say die cisatlantic scum then it is offensive, yes.
And the term is not offensive to me personally, I never said I was offended by it, nor have I ever been called it before. I just see it only being used in an offensive way. Therefore I find the term to be offensive.
Your cartoons look lovely, but I believe the topic headline still holds more weight. Especially if you can just go ahead and make your own thread with homestuck as the headline.
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,850
@previous (C)but "die cis scum" is a dead unicorn trope at best. parodies of things that never happened to begin with.
also
> not posting Callie
please, keep the thread on topic.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 9 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,851
@564,846 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Sorry bud, but a research paper from 1994 vs every other time the word has been used is a bit far for me to go. Thanks for finding a time when its use was neutral though.
I'll have to counter you with the term gay though. For many years in many countries it meant happy. Then the vocal few changed it's meaning to something derogatory by using it in that way.
Maybe the term used to mean gender that matches sex, now it means die cis scum. That's unfortunate, but it is still a slur.
Sorry bud, but a research paper from 1994 vs every other time the word has been used is a bit far for me to go. Thanks for finding a time when its use was neutral though.
I'll have to counter you with the term gay though. For many years in many countries it meant happy. Then the vocal few changed it's meaning to something derogatory by using it in that way.
Maybe the term used to mean gender that matches sex, now it means die cis scum. That's unfortunate, but it is still a slur.
Anonymous C double-posted this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,853
@564,850 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
Die cis scum is how I have seen the term used though. And also when someone is upset and makes generalized assumptions about someone online and calls them cis as though it were a bad thing.
Post a callie thread if you want to talk about that. There is a new topic button just waiting for you bud
Die cis scum is how I have seen the term used though. And also when someone is upset and makes generalized assumptions about someone online and calls them cis as though it were a bad thing.
Post a callie thread if you want to talk about that. There is a new topic button just waiting for you bud
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,854
@previous (C)you have seen it used by "satirists" (in air quotes because i've seen actual satire and that's not what this is) and troll blogs but if you have some kind of trans utopia where the pledge of allegiance is "die cis scum" as you're describing it please, by all means link me
and yes i could make a new thread but there's an empty thread right here. gotta save space in the topics table because these boards get all raggedy when there's more than ~500 topics.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,855
@564,851 (C)
> I'll have to counter you with the term gay though.
But gay is even more commonly used to just mean homosexual... Why would homosexuals refer to themselves as gay if it was just a slur? LGBT, the popular acronym, even contains the word "gay".
> every other time the word has been used
You've seen every use other than that research paper?
> but it is still a slur.
Only if you think it is.
> I'll have to counter you with the term gay though.
But gay is even more commonly used to just mean homosexual... Why would homosexuals refer to themselves as gay if it was just a slur? LGBT, the popular acronym, even contains the word "gay".
> every other time the word has been used
You've seen every use other than that research paper?
> but it is still a slur.
Only if you think it is.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,857
@564,854 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
Cis is still used as a derogatory term though, if you would like to remove die cis scum from the discussion. It's thrown around the same way check your privilege was. That has become somewhat of a joke now, because of the way it was used. Cis is used the same way by the same angry people as an offensive and derogatory term.
Remember when check your privilege wasn't laughed at?
Cis is still used as a derogatory term though, if you would like to remove die cis scum from the discussion. It's thrown around the same way check your privilege was. That has become somewhat of a joke now, because of the way it was used. Cis is used the same way by the same angry people as an offensive and derogatory term.
Remember when check your privilege wasn't laughed at?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,858
@previous (C)
The fact is, we need a term for people who aren't trans when talking in the context of transsexualism. Just like we need the term heterosexual when talking in the context of sexuality. We can't just call CIS people "normal", because it alienates trans people as "odd", and it just doesn't sound very academic or technical.
Even if you were to invent a new term for CIS people, free of all of the supposed baggage that the term "CIS" has, if it became popular enough it would eventually be used by the same crowd that first made people scared of the term "CIS" anyway, starting the cycle over again.
The fact is, we need a term for people who aren't trans when talking in the context of transsexualism. Just like we need the term heterosexual when talking in the context of sexuality. We can't just call CIS people "normal", because it alienates trans people as "odd", and it just doesn't sound very academic or technical.
Even if you were to invent a new term for CIS people, free of all of the supposed baggage that the term "CIS" has, if it became popular enough it would eventually be used by the same crowd that first made people scared of the term "CIS" anyway, starting the cycle over again.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 1 second later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,859
@564,855 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
No not every use. But that one use in 1994 as a nutrual term does not overrule when I have seen it used.
And also, gay has been taken back by the community in much the way black people have taken the word nigger and removed some of its negativity. Its still offensive to say nigger, but not nigga, and not when blacks are calling each other that.
And yes. I think cis is a slur.
No not every use. But that one use in 1994 as a nutrual term does not overrule when I have seen it used.
And also, gay has been taken back by the community in much the way black people have taken the word nigger and removed some of its negativity. Its still offensive to say nigger, but not nigga, and not when blacks are calling each other that.
And yes. I think cis is a slur.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,860
@previous (C)
It's not really the same as "nigger", though. Anybody can call a gay person gay and not have it seen as a slur. And was gay ever "reclaimed" in the first place? I don't know the specifics, but it may've started as a neutral term and later seen use as an insult due to homophobia.
> And yes. I think cis is a slur.
You're conflating what you see as a common use with the word's actual meaning, m8.
Some angry Tumblr types also use "white people" or "straight" in a negative way, but those would never be viewed as a slur. That's because they have widely-known, purely descriptive meanings that people know to be entirely seperate from Tumblr. "CIS" doesn't have the advantage of being well-known outside of Tumblr, so the widely-seen Tumblr posts are some people's only exposure to the term.
It's not really the same as "nigger", though. Anybody can call a gay person gay and not have it seen as a slur. And was gay ever "reclaimed" in the first place? I don't know the specifics, but it may've started as a neutral term and later seen use as an insult due to homophobia.
> And yes. I think cis is a slur.
You're conflating what you see as a common use with the word's actual meaning, m8.
Some angry Tumblr types also use "white people" or "straight" in a negative way, but those would never be viewed as a slur. That's because they have widely-known, purely descriptive meanings that people know to be entirely seperate from Tumblr. "CIS" doesn't have the advantage of being well-known outside of Tumblr, so the widely-seen Tumblr posts are some people's only exposure to the term.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,863
@564,858 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I think you are going too far there. The way it is used is offensive. You can make up as many words for "normal" as you would like, the meaning is still "normal" right? It can be cis, flup, splonk, whatever you like, if the word is used in a derogatory way it is offensive.
Even if the word means "normal" in 1994 research papers, if it is used to verbally attack someone then it is being used offensively, so its offensive. I find it simple to understand, sorry.
I think you are going too far there. The way it is used is offensive. You can make up as many words for "normal" as you would like, the meaning is still "normal" right? It can be cis, flup, splonk, whatever you like, if the word is used in a derogatory way it is offensive.
Even if the word means "normal" in 1994 research papers, if it is used to verbally attack someone then it is being used offensively, so its offensive. I find it simple to understand, sorry.
Anonymous C double-posted this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,865
@564,860 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
So your saying that peoples opinions about being offended are wrong, because they don't know what a word used to mean?
So your saying that peoples opinions about being offended are wrong, because they don't know what a word used to mean?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 35 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,866
@564,863 (C)
You haven't quite addressed my point. Usage is irelevant, as any popular term will eventually be subject to the same usage that got CIS feeling controversial to some people.
I'll lay it out: we need a term for non-trans people. Even if we invent a new term, it will eventually be used by the people that you perceive as having "ruined" CIS. So we might as well go with CIS.
Also, Iceland guy.
You haven't quite addressed my point. Usage is irelevant, as any popular term will eventually be subject to the same usage that got CIS feeling controversial to some people.
I'll lay it out: we need a term for non-trans people. Even if we invent a new term, it will eventually be used by the people that you perceive as having "ruined" CIS. So we might as well go with CIS.
Also, Iceland guy.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,867
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,870
I don't think we really need a term for non trans people though. What is the term for non dwarf people?
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 51 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,871
@564,859 (C)Wrong. The term "homosexuality" was used during the pre-millenium AIDS outbreak as a term to attempt to create public opinion that being gay is a medical condition to be cured instead of AIDS, not as a legitimate orientation.
@564,863 (C)
let's put this in another context and one that's easy to understand. think about an online competitive video game in which there's an easy strategy to get kills and points that breaks competitive balance (ie. there are no hard counters accounted for in the game's design) the community for that game would come up with a term FOR that strategy, like the noob-tube in COD or W+M1ing in TF2. that doesn't make the strategy any less legitimate, nor does it make it a slur. being told you're using the noob-tube doesn't make it a slur, nor does it make it offensive. it means you're using the fucking noob-tube and that shit's easy for you because you're using a noob-tube.
@564,860 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
jeez kl you're significantly better at explaining this shit than i am
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc double-posted this 11 years ago, 46 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,872
@564,870 (C)
well yeah you think cis is offensive, of course you don't think about the sociopolitical implications of trans people's increased visibility and acceptance.
well yeah you think cis is offensive, of course you don't think about the sociopolitical implications of trans people's increased visibility and acceptance.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,875
@564,866 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
how about heteronormative? oh, is it that the "normative" part offends people? well too bad, normal has never had an offensive conotation, but, cis does. why replace a perfectly acceptable NON offensive term for one dripping with salt? it's becuase the people pushing CIS want a generally accepted offensive word to call heteronormative people. it's the gay version of nigger, that is how is is mostly used is as an insult, so it doesn't really matter what people insist it means, all that matters is its useage, and people use it as an insult. that's how language works. it's never not going to be an insult, because angry gays won't stop using it as an insult.if they'd not use it as an insult then it would be just as good as heteronornative, but they won't, becuase they wanted an insult, not another term for hetero because "trigger words."
i'm sorry, but y'all are blind to this new gay bigotry, obviously. no one should have "protected insults," and that's exactly what you're trying to do. it's like saying "nigger just means black, it's root word is negro which is black in many languages, so i'm just referring to his skin tone, not insulting anyone."
how about heteronormative? oh, is it that the "normative" part offends people? well too bad, normal has never had an offensive conotation, but, cis does. why replace a perfectly acceptable NON offensive term for one dripping with salt? it's becuase the people pushing CIS want a generally accepted offensive word to call heteronormative people. it's the gay version of nigger, that is how is is mostly used is as an insult, so it doesn't really matter what people insist it means, all that matters is its useage, and people use it as an insult. that's how language works. it's never not going to be an insult, because angry gays won't stop using it as an insult.if they'd not use it as an insult then it would be just as good as heteronornative, but they won't, becuase they wanted an insult, not another term for hetero because "trigger words."
i'm sorry, but y'all are blind to this new gay bigotry, obviously. no one should have "protected insults," and that's exactly what you're trying to do. it's like saying "nigger just means black, it's root word is negro which is black in many languages, so i'm just referring to his skin tone, not insulting anyone."
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 49 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,876
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,877
@564,871 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
Wrong. If you call someone a noob tuber in an offensive way, don't be surprised if they take offense.
@564,872 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
I think it is used offensively. I have not seen it used in a thanks cis friend sort if way. Therefore I find it offensive regardless of trans people.
Wrong. If you call someone a noob tuber in an offensive way, don't be surprised if they take offense.
@564,872 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
I think it is used offensively. I have not seen it used in a thanks cis friend sort if way. Therefore I find it offensive regardless of trans people.
(Edited 46 seconds later.)
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 18 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,878
@564,876 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
it doesn't matter how it's used irl, what matters is that i convince people it's not insulting, right? heteronormative isn't insulting, it just means you're straight and nontras.
it doesn't matter how it's used irl, what matters is that i convince people it's not insulting, right? heteronormative isn't insulting, it just means you're straight and nontras.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 26 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,879
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc double-posted this 11 years ago, 48 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,880
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 45 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,881
@previous (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
and i don't think you know what cis really means. otherwise you entirely missed my point. it doesn't matter what the common usage is, like cis is commonly considered insulting. but it's not becuase i claim the definition to mean only that a person is straight and nontrans
and i don't think you know what cis really means. otherwise you entirely missed my point. it doesn't matter what the common usage is, like cis is commonly considered insulting. but it's not becuase i claim the definition to mean only that a person is straight and nontrans
(Edited 1 minute later.)
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 43 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,882
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,883
@564,879 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
For the last time, I am not called it or would I care if I was. I find the term offensive because it us used offensively. I am not a victim or slightly worried about what people label me or what names they call me.
I am not offended when called a nigger. But I find the term itself offensive because it is used in an offensive way.
For the last time, I am not called it or would I care if I was. I find the term offensive because it us used offensively. I am not a victim or slightly worried about what people label me or what names they call me.
I am not offended when called a nigger. But I find the term itself offensive because it is used in an offensive way.
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,884
what about non retards? it must be insulting to retards to call people "normal", so we need a whole new word to describe people as non-retards. it's not enough to label the outliers, we have to label everyone else compared to the outliers.
why even fucking do that? oh yeah, were talking about insults, not actally correcting a labeling problem.
why even fucking do that? oh yeah, were talking about insults, not actally correcting a labeling problem.
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,885
@previous (squeegee)
here's a quick link for "non-retards"
squeegee do you need me to call your caretaker? you seem upset.
here's a quick link for "non-retards"
squeegee do you need me to call your caretaker? you seem upset.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,887
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,889
@previous (C)
shrug. the general term for non-disabled people is usually abled but i don't fuckin' know. google it or something. i'm sure there is a term for it.
shrug. the general term for non-disabled people is usually abled but i don't fuckin' know. google it or something. i'm sure there is a term for it.
Delicate Flower !PANSYvsg1k (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 38 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,890
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 35 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,891
@564,885 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
but that has the word typical in it, which might trigger retards so it's not nice to use that word. we need something else. i'm going to suggest GDK. it means non-retard, but it's actually commonly used as an insult against people with high intellect, but don't worry about that. it means "nonretard."
but that has the word typical in it, which might trigger retards so it's not nice to use that word. we need something else. i'm going to suggest GDK. it means non-retard, but it's actually commonly used as an insult against people with high intellect, but don't worry about that. it means "nonretard."
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,895
@564,870 (C)
Well, it just seems like no popular term has developed for non-dwarf people. At least not that I'm aware of. So I guess there's not as much demand for it?
And if we don't need a term for non-trans people, then we arguably don't need one for non-gays either. What's the decider, here? If it's visibility or prominence, then non-transsexuals should get a term because transsexualism has indeed become a prominent social issue.
@564,875 (squeegee)
Okay, I have to ask, how much exposure to the transsexual community have you had besides visting angry Tumblr blogs, or looking at screencaps from the worst of said blogs? Consider your environment, for a second. A student in a rough highschool might only hear "gay" being used as an insult (and thus think of it as such) until they get into the wider world.
Here's a good example of it being used non-aggressively: an international trans-rights organisation. Right in the banner at the top, it mentions "cis-gendered" in a non-offensive, even positive way. You seem to be under the impression that only resentful trans people would use the term, but that's just not the case.
> it doesn't really matter what people insist it means
Not insisting, stating. Reciting the definition of the word. It's a very bland and simple definition, by the way.
> angry gays
Don't you mean angry transsexuals? CIS has nothing to do with sexuality.
> and that's exactly what you're trying to do
Please don't strawman me. I've only even advocated it being a technical term. Thanks.
Well, it just seems like no popular term has developed for non-dwarf people. At least not that I'm aware of. So I guess there's not as much demand for it?
And if we don't need a term for non-trans people, then we arguably don't need one for non-gays either. What's the decider, here? If it's visibility or prominence, then non-transsexuals should get a term because transsexualism has indeed become a prominent social issue.
@564,875 (squeegee)
Okay, I have to ask, how much exposure to the transsexual community have you had besides visting angry Tumblr blogs, or looking at screencaps from the worst of said blogs? Consider your environment, for a second. A student in a rough highschool might only hear "gay" being used as an insult (and thus think of it as such) until they get into the wider world.
Here's a good example of it being used non-aggressively: an international trans-rights organisation. Right in the banner at the top, it mentions "cis-gendered" in a non-offensive, even positive way. You seem to be under the impression that only resentful trans people would use the term, but that's just not the case.
> it doesn't really matter what people insist it means
Not insisting, stating. Reciting the definition of the word. It's a very bland and simple definition, by the way.
> angry gays
Don't you mean angry transsexuals? CIS has nothing to do with sexuality.
> and that's exactly what you're trying to do
Please don't strawman me. I've only even advocated it being a technical term. Thanks.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 40 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,898
@564,890 (Delicate Flower !PANSYvsg1k)
I'm pretty sure they are the Tolkien sort that carry axes.
@564,889 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
They aren't really disabled though, just shorter. I imagine some people would find what you said offensive. Maybe you could tell them they are wrong.
I'm pretty sure they are the Tolkien sort that carry axes.
@564,889 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
They aren't really disabled though, just shorter. I imagine some people would find what you said offensive. Maybe you could tell them they are wrong.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,899
@564,884 (squeegee)
By this logic, you should also be against the terms "straight" and "heterosexual". Becuase "it's not enough to label the outliers, we have to label everyone else compared to the outliers". And that is clearly a ridiculous thing to do!
By this logic, you should also be against the terms "straight" and "heterosexual". Becuase "it's not enough to label the outliers, we have to label everyone else compared to the outliers". And that is clearly a ridiculous thing to do!
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,901
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 23 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,902
@564,895 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I don't think transsexualism has become a prominent social issue. There are so many more social issues that have so much more importance its laughable.
I don't think transsexualism has become a prominent social issue. There are so many more social issues that have so much more importance its laughable.
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 37 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,903
@564,899 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
i am against those words. i am for the words "normal", "correct", and "regular."
like, "when having regular sex, it is normal to be straight and correct to act like it." that's what i propose in place of CIS, which is openly derogatory. compare to this statement, "die CIS scum" and you'll understand why.
i am against those words. i am for the words "normal", "correct", and "regular."
like, "when having regular sex, it is normal to be straight and correct to act like it." that's what i propose in place of CIS, which is openly derogatory. compare to this statement, "die CIS scum" and you'll understand why.
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 55 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,904
@564,902 (C)
"i think there are other things we can focus on instead of giving attention to trannies"
less than 3 hours ago though you yelled at me for changing the topic. keep up the hypocritical cis tears. it fuels me in my soul.
"i think there are other things we can focus on instead of giving attention to trannies"
less than 3 hours ago though you yelled at me for changing the topic. keep up the hypocritical cis tears. it fuels me in my soul.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 8 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,905
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 8 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,906
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 7 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,907
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,908
@564,904 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
I don't think its prominent, sorry, just a small group amongst many.
And did you just try to offend me by calling me cis little buddy? Lol!
I don't think its prominent, sorry, just a small group amongst many.
And did you just try to offend me by calling me cis little buddy? Lol!
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,909
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,911
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 33 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,912
@564,909 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
As far as prominent social issues go, I'd say gay marriage equality in the western world is probably high.
People using cis as a slur and claiming trans rights to use it seems rather low.
As far as prominent social issues go, I'd say gay marriage equality in the western world is probably high.
People using cis as a slur and claiming trans rights to use it seems rather low.
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,913
@564,909 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
lol, that was actually pretty insulting the way you used it. hypocritical cis tears? so all cis are hypocrites now? what dies cis have to do with being a hypocrite.
lol. you probably don't even see it, that's fucking hilarious. thanks for proving cis is just an insult, vocalon.
lol, that was actually pretty insulting the way you used it. hypocritical cis tears? so all cis are hypocrites now? what dies cis have to do with being a hypocrite.
lol. you probably don't even see it, that's fucking hilarious. thanks for proving cis is just an insult, vocalon.
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 45 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,915
@previous (squeegee)
sigh.
this thread's a mess and i'm outta callie pics. y'all have fun circlejerkin' your hatewangs.
sigh.
this thread's a mess and i'm outta callie pics. y'all have fun circlejerkin' your hatewangs.
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,916
@previous (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
abandon thread! abandon thread!
can't handle the realization you just used cis as an insult, huh? it's like saying you people, isn't it. not directly an insult, it's all in how you use it.
stay and unintentionally use it as an insult some more, c'mon, that was hilarious.
abandon thread! abandon thread!
can't handle the realization you just used cis as an insult, huh? it's like saying you people, isn't it. not directly an insult, it's all in how you use it.
stay and unintentionally use it as an insult some more, c'mon, that was hilarious.
(Edited 35 seconds later.)
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,918
@previous (squeegee)
i don't feel like watching anons C & H and you circlejerk each other to the front page of /r/tumblrinaction
i don't feel like watching anons C & H and you circlejerk each other to the front page of /r/tumblrinaction
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 23 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,919
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,920
@previous (H)
thats a witty one-liner, is rodney dangerfield dead because you could replace him with how many shitty one-liners you stole from theamazingatheist or whatever you spew
thats a witty one-liner, is rodney dangerfield dead because you could replace him with how many shitty one-liners you stole from theamazingatheist or whatever you spew
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 17 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,921
@564,918 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
no, you just can't stop yourself from using cis as an insult and becuase i'm drilling you for it you're going to use a weak excuse to stop replying in this thread. you're not fooling anyone.
no, you just can't stop yourself from using cis as an insult and becuase i'm drilling you for it you're going to use a weak excuse to stop replying in this thread. you're not fooling anyone.
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,923
@previous (squeegee)
oh boy is it thread recap time again because i love doing this. tvguide hire me i can recap ANYTHING
anon c and i talked in circles about how cis is only offensive if you don't understand the sociopolitical implications of its existence, then you came in and started spraying buzzwords about hate and i was like "okay but you're using words you clearly dont know the meaning of" and then i called anon c hypocritical AND cis in the same sentence, but didn't imply any association between the two other than anon C was both, and you jumped on the "THEY SAID CIS AND AN INSULT IN THE SAME SENTENCE" train with anon c and i was like "yall are fucking retards have fun sucking each other's dick" and then you presented a wrong interpretation of this thread and now here i am writing this recap for you.
oh boy is it thread recap time again because i love doing this. tvguide hire me i can recap ANYTHING
anon c and i talked in circles about how cis is only offensive if you don't understand the sociopolitical implications of its existence, then you came in and started spraying buzzwords about hate and i was like "okay but you're using words you clearly dont know the meaning of" and then i called anon c hypocritical AND cis in the same sentence, but didn't imply any association between the two other than anon C was both, and you jumped on the "THEY SAID CIS AND AN INSULT IN THE SAME SENTENCE" train with anon c and i was like "yall are fucking retards have fun sucking each other's dick" and then you presented a wrong interpretation of this thread and now here i am writing this recap for you.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 27 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,924
Anonymous C double-posted this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,925
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 12 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,926
@564,923 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
nice mansplaining. you want to interpret all of minichan for us now, mr insulting?
nice mansplaining. you want to interpret all of minichan for us now, mr insulting?
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 13 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,927
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc double-posted this 11 years ago, 31 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,928
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 35 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,929
@564,902 (C)
Sure it has. Just skimming over this Wikipedia section, I'm seeing lots of openly transsexual celebrities/notable people emerging in the 2010s, as well as some important policy changes from organisations meant to increase trans-inclusiveness. It's something that's happening now, something that's still on the road to visibility and acceptance.
@564,901 (H)
It's not really as good. Firstly, it implies that anyone who isn't CIS/straight/whatever isn't "normal", but is instead an abnormality. Could make them feel excluded or like they were somehow wrong or bad. Secondly, it's just such an imprecise, generic term. It's far better to have precise terms so it's clearly exactly what attributes are being referred to.
@564,903 (squeegee)
You've used the term "heterosexual" before. Are you sure you're really against those words, or are you really just against CIS but okay with straight/heterosexual?
> like, "when having regular sex, it is normal to be straight and correct to act like it." that's what i propose in place of CIS
> straight
I need an answer to this: are you trying to redefine the word "straight"? Traditionally, it's only used to refer to sexuality, which transgender issues are seperate from. Yet you repeatedly bring it up in these conversations, as if the term somehow applies to trans stuff.
Sure it has. Just skimming over this Wikipedia section, I'm seeing lots of openly transsexual celebrities/notable people emerging in the 2010s, as well as some important policy changes from organisations meant to increase trans-inclusiveness. It's something that's happening now, something that's still on the road to visibility and acceptance.
@564,901 (H)
It's not really as good. Firstly, it implies that anyone who isn't CIS/straight/whatever isn't "normal", but is instead an abnormality. Could make them feel excluded or like they were somehow wrong or bad. Secondly, it's just such an imprecise, generic term. It's far better to have precise terms so it's clearly exactly what attributes are being referred to.
@564,903 (squeegee)
You've used the term "heterosexual" before. Are you sure you're really against those words, or are you really just against CIS but okay with straight/heterosexual?
> like, "when having regular sex, it is normal to be straight and correct to act like it." that's what i propose in place of CIS
> straight
I need an answer to this: are you trying to redefine the word "straight"? Traditionally, it's only used to refer to sexuality, which transgender issues are seperate from. Yet you repeatedly bring it up in these conversations, as if the term somehow applies to trans stuff.
(Edited 18 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,931
@564,927 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
If someone is hypocritical what does their sexuality and gender have to do with anything?
If someone is hypocritical what does their sexuality and gender have to do with anything?
Anonymous C double-posted this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,932
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 34 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,933
@564,931 (C)
well you're cis and most cis people have less experience with trans people than matt miller does with women. naturally, you've made that incredibly evident with this thread. using it as an identifier and using it as an insult are two distinct things.
well you're cis and most cis people have less experience with trans people than matt miller does with women. naturally, you've made that incredibly evident with this thread. using it as an identifier and using it as an insult are two distinct things.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,934
@564,932 (C)
No. A word being used to try and offend doesn't redefine its meaning.
Any word can sound like it's meant to be offensive if it's used with aggressive intent, surrounded by words of anger.
No. A word being used to try and offend doesn't redefine its meaning.
Any word can sound like it's meant to be offensive if it's used with aggressive intent, surrounded by words of anger.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 49 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,936
@564,933 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
How could you possibly know that about anyone from anonymous online posts? I think you were trying to be offensive with the term.
How could you possibly know that about anyone from anonymous online posts? I think you were trying to be offensive with the term.
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 16 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,937
@previous (C)
@564,879 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
> well that's your issue then. please seek a therapist to work past your victim complex.
@564,879 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
> well that's your issue then. please seek a therapist to work past your victim complex.
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 11 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,938
@564,929 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> It's not really as good. Firstly, it implies that anyone who isn't CIS/straight/whatever isn't "normal", but is instead an abnormality. Could make them feel excluded or like they were somehow wrong or bad. Secondly, it's just such an imprecise, generic term. It's far better to have precise terms so it's clearly exactly what attributes are being referred to.
That's precisely what it is, an "abnormality". You do realize if it was the other way around and LGBTXYZs were the norm that the human race would pretty much go extinct, right? Please tell me why this is something we should be promoting.
> It's not really as good. Firstly, it implies that anyone who isn't CIS/straight/whatever isn't "normal", but is instead an abnormality. Could make them feel excluded or like they were somehow wrong or bad. Secondly, it's just such an imprecise, generic term. It's far better to have precise terms so it's clearly exactly what attributes are being referred to.
That's precisely what it is, an "abnormality". You do realize if it was the other way around and LGBTXYZs were the norm that the human race would pretty much go extinct, right? Please tell me why this is something we should be promoting.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,939
@564,934 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
If someone is offended by a word used offensively, are they simply wrong, and somehow unoffended?
If someone is offended by a word used offensively, are they simply wrong, and somehow unoffended?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 30 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,940
@564,938 (H)Between this comment and your post celebrating LGBT sucides, I'm suddenly not inclined to take you seriously. Sorry.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,941
@564,937 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
I was not offended. I think you were trying to be offensive.
And how could you possibly know someones gender or sexuality from anonymous online posts?
I was not offended. I think you were trying to be offensive.
And how could you possibly know someones gender or sexuality from anonymous online posts?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 9 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,942
@564,939 (C)
They're wrong to conflate the intention and tone of that particular person with the word's meaning.
I feel like this debate has reached some meta level. We're now discussing hypothetical people who basically represent our own personal viewpoints.
They're wrong to conflate the intention and tone of that particular person with the word's meaning.
I feel like this debate has reached some meta level. We're now discussing hypothetical people who basically represent our own personal viewpoints.
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 38 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,943
@564,940 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I was trolling with that other post, but I very much meant this one. Why should we encourage this? Why should we not just help people with these conditions get treatment?
I was trolling with that other post, but I very much meant this one. Why should we encourage this? Why should we not just help people with these conditions get treatment?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 22 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,944
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,946
@564,941 (C)
do you think i am that edgy. i'm not here to offend, i'm here to teach. it just so happens people take offense at the existence of trans people.
@564,943 (H)
because it's not a medical condition and hasn't been since the DSM-5 was released.
do you think i am that edgy. i'm not here to offend, i'm here to teach. it just so happens people take offense at the existence of trans people.
@564,943 (H)
because it's not a medical condition and hasn't been since the DSM-5 was released.
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,948
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,950
@previous (H)
i dunno your posts in this thread have really lended credibility towards your knowledge of trans people, i believe you and i actually went to a conversion camp between now and my last posts. i'm a man now and would like to tell you about the greatness that is jesus christ our lord. thank you, anon h.
i dunno your posts in this thread have really lended credibility towards your knowledge of trans people, i believe you and i actually went to a conversion camp between now and my last posts. i'm a man now and would like to tell you about the greatness that is jesus christ our lord. thank you, anon h.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 12 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,951
@564,944 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
No I am not, actually.
And I don't think that you get to decide when, how, why, etc people are offended because you claim a prior meaning of a word negates it.
I have said all along I'm not offended personally by name calling. I do know what offensive name calling is though. Cis, as it is commonly used, like vocalon just demonstrated, is offensive. If I was a delicate petal I would have indeed been offended. Thanks
No I am not, actually.
And I don't think that you get to decide when, how, why, etc people are offended because you claim a prior meaning of a word negates it.
I have said all along I'm not offended personally by name calling. I do know what offensive name calling is though. Cis, as it is commonly used, like vocalon just demonstrated, is offensive. If I was a delicate petal I would have indeed been offended. Thanks
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,952
@564,950 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
You're welcome. I'm glad to have corrected your misunderstanding of this issue, my friend.
You're welcome. I'm glad to have corrected your misunderstanding of this issue, my friend.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,953
@564,946 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
People being offended by the existence of trans people is a completely different issue. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Some people are offended by the existence of war.
People being offended by the existence of trans people is a completely different issue. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Some people are offended by the existence of war.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,958
@564,951 (C)
Just becaus someone is offended by something doesn't mean they are right or justified in their offence.
And I've also provided examples of it being used non-offensively, in contexts beyond Internet blogs. But apparently blogs of angry Tumblr people are more important than anything academia or transsexual organisations might have to say.
Just becaus someone is offended by something doesn't mean they are right or justified in their offence.
And I've also provided examples of it being used non-offensively, in contexts beyond Internet blogs. But apparently blogs of angry Tumblr people are more important than anything academia or transsexual organisations might have to say.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 11 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,965
Oh, I've just found something very relevant. A liguistics student examined CIS as a term for her thesis:
http://triceratops.brynmawr.edu:8080/dspace/handle/10066/15359
In a nutshell, she's unsure whether it'll survive in the long run. She attributed this to the term mostly being used only by transsexuals, while CIS people weren't really aware of it in general or only saw it as another group labelling them, not as a neutral term.
I think it should survive, or at least a word like it should. As I said, transsexualism is quite a prominent, and still emerging social issue, and most people these days seem to be aware of transexualism. I can certainly see a practical need for the term, if only for use in academia or in discussing trans issues.
http://triceratops.brynmawr.edu:8080/dspace/handle/10066/15359
In a nutshell, she's unsure whether it'll survive in the long run. She attributed this to the term mostly being used only by transsexuals, while CIS people weren't really aware of it in general or only saw it as another group labelling them, not as a neutral term.
I think it should survive, or at least a word like it should. As I said, transsexualism is quite a prominent, and still emerging social issue, and most people these days seem to be aware of transexualism. I can certainly see a practical need for the term, if only for use in academia or in discussing trans issues.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,970
@564,958 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Well, I disagree. I think that an inoffensive word, when used offensively, is offensive.
I don't know if that means that the words meaning changes, or if it has added meaning, but I do not believe that a words meaning is static or fixed, and if common usage means that the word has changed somewhat from its original meaning... Then I will take its common usage over any historical meaning.
I think cis is offensive, because of context.
We might just have to disagree about this.
Well, I disagree. I think that an inoffensive word, when used offensively, is offensive.
I don't know if that means that the words meaning changes, or if it has added meaning, but I do not believe that a words meaning is static or fixed, and if common usage means that the word has changed somewhat from its original meaning... Then I will take its common usage over any historical meaning.
I think cis is offensive, because of context.
We might just have to disagree about this.
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 46 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,971
@previous (C)
i think that this word is offensive because i've chosen to only see offensive uses of the word.
i think that this word is offensive because i've chosen to only see offensive uses of the word.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,974
@previous (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
I do only see offensive uses though. Except this one paper from 94, and this one thesis. Both of which came from kl. The offensive usage from common language comes from you, and other sjws. It is much more prevalent, so that is how I form my opinions.
I do only see offensive uses though. Except this one paper from 94, and this one thesis. Both of which came from kl. The offensive usage from common language comes from you, and other sjws. It is much more prevalent, so that is how I form my opinions.
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,976
@previous (C)
again, you're only seeing offensive uses because that's all you want to see and when you present evidence otherwise, it's "not substantial enough". i didn't insult you by calling you cis. i insulted by calling you hypocritical. and you were triggered by it. that in and of itself is not me using cis offensively. it's you being offended by the term cis in general, as such you'll only see cis as an insult. this is basic critical theory and you're absolutely awful at it.
again, you're only seeing offensive uses because that's all you want to see and when you present evidence otherwise, it's "not substantial enough". i didn't insult you by calling you cis. i insulted by calling you hypocritical. and you were triggered by it. that in and of itself is not me using cis offensively. it's you being offended by the term cis in general, as such you'll only see cis as an insult. this is basic critical theory and you're absolutely awful at it.
kook !!mCVqftDha joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,977
kook !!mCVqftDha double-posted this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,978
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 15 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,984
there are four CIS-related topics on the front page right now
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,993
@564,976 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
I just read that thesis kl posted it seems reasonably well researched, it is really interested in the history of the word and its possible staying power in common usage.
It says cis is used in a mocking way. No surprises there.
That is how I would describe the way that you used the term. Many people do not like to be mocked. Some may take offense at being mocked.
I still don't know why you would call me a hypocritical cis, but I believe you were trying to mock me and therefore to be offensive.
I just read that thesis kl posted it seems reasonably well researched, it is really interested in the history of the word and its possible staying power in common usage.
It says cis is used in a mocking way. No surprises there.
That is how I would describe the way that you used the term. Many people do not like to be mocked. Some may take offense at being mocked.
I still don't know why you would call me a hypocritical cis, but I believe you were trying to mock me and therefore to be offensive.
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,994
@previous (C)yes, i am mocking you, thanks for recapping things without me, taking the work off of my back. however, there is no inherent mockery in the term cis. your line of thinking for the "aggression" or negativity or whatever in the term cis comes from your own preconcieved notions of the word and that makes it all circular logic. you see cis as an offensive term because you've seen it used offensively. you've seen it used offensively since you think it's an offensive term. and you think it's an offensive term because you've seen it used offensively, ad infinitum.
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,995
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 58 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,996
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,997
@previous (C)
Let me help you understand. The term is not inherently a mockery, just trans people only use it in a mean and aggressive way. Get it!
Let me help you understand. The term is not inherently a mockery, just trans people only use it in a mean and aggressive way. Get it!
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 26 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,998
@564,995 (kook !!mCVqftDha)
> He calls me cis even though he knows that I'm intersex.
That's because he is trying to offend you by using a hate word, but can claim it isnt. He is mocking you, and doing so in a very cowardly way because he believes he can claim the word is non offensive and get away with it.
> He calls me cis even though he knows that I'm intersex.
That's because he is trying to offend you by using a hate word, but can claim it isnt. He is mocking you, and doing so in a very cowardly way because he believes he can claim the word is non offensive and get away with it.
Anonymous C double-posted this 11 years ago, 46 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #564,999
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,002
@564,993 (C)
I should point out that the author concludes that its future is uncertain. Meaning that it might find greater acceptance, stay where it is now or just fall out of use. So, in that academic's opinion, there's a chance it could yet gain a more positive image.
@564,996 (C)
I don't think it actually says that. I am assuming that it said that it has been used offensively (we both already knew this anyway), which you took as the author saying that it was inherently offensive.
@564,997 (kook !!mCVqftDha)
> trans people only use it in a mean and aggressive way. Get it!
I cannot respect conclusion that relies on such a heavy generalisation. You're saying that it's exclusively used in aggression, that no trans person would ever use it in a neutral way. That is, frankly, ridiculous.
I posted an example earlier of an international trans-rights group using the term cisgendered in a friendly, non-threatening way. Despite what some would have us believe, angry Tumblrs aren't the only face of trans people.
I should point out that the author concludes that its future is uncertain. Meaning that it might find greater acceptance, stay where it is now or just fall out of use. So, in that academic's opinion, there's a chance it could yet gain a more positive image.
@564,996 (C)
I don't think it actually says that. I am assuming that it said that it has been used offensively (we both already knew this anyway), which you took as the author saying that it was inherently offensive.
@564,997 (kook !!mCVqftDha)
> trans people only use it in a mean and aggressive way. Get it!
I cannot respect conclusion that relies on such a heavy generalisation. You're saying that it's exclusively used in aggression, that no trans person would ever use it in a neutral way. That is, frankly, ridiculous.
I posted an example earlier of an international trans-rights group using the term cisgendered in a friendly, non-threatening way. Despite what some would have us believe, angry Tumblrs aren't the only face of trans people.
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,003
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,005
@565,002 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
It doesn't say offensively. It says it is used mockingly. Section 3 or 3.1 or something.
Most people take offense at being mocked is my take on it.
It doesn't say offensively. It says it is used mockingly. Section 3 or 3.1 or something.
Most people take offense at being mocked is my take on it.
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,013
@565,002 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Despite what some would have us believe, angry Tumblrs aren't the only face of trans people.
And despite what you'd have us believe, Tumblr is only the tip of the iceberg of crazy SJWs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfzSTx2peeo
> Despite what some would have us believe, angry Tumblrs aren't the only face of trans people.
And despite what you'd have us believe, Tumblr is only the tip of the iceberg of crazy SJWs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfzSTx2peeo
(Edited 34 seconds later.)
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,015
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 38 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,016
@previous (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
it's common but it's also common to go to college. it's not required but it's an option.
it's common but it's also common to go to college. it's not required but it's an option.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,017
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 26 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,018
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,020
@565,016 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
99% is not merely "common". Trans people are not normal. That isn't a bad thing in and of itself, it's just the fact of the matter. Something being normal doesn't mean that it is mandatory or the way things should be for everyone. Considering something to be normal doesn't demand that everybody conform to the norm.
99% is not merely "common". Trans people are not normal. That isn't a bad thing in and of itself, it's just the fact of the matter. Something being normal doesn't mean that it is mandatory or the way things should be for everyone. Considering something to be normal doesn't demand that everybody conform to the norm.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 26 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,022
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,023
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc double-posted this 11 years ago, 25 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,024
@565,020 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
okay i get you're trying to play up this "counter culture" thing but people are raped and murdered because it's seen as unnatural.
okay i get you're trying to play up this "counter culture" thing but people are raped and murdered because it's seen as unnatural.
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,025
@previous (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
I agree that people need to learn to be more accepting of things that aren't normal. You can't force it to be normal though, people are going to resist it and it just makes it so much worse. I honestly think that your methods are hurting Trans people and setting back their march for equality.
I agree that people need to learn to be more accepting of things that aren't normal. You can't force it to be normal though, people are going to resist it and it just makes it so much worse. I honestly think that your methods are hurting Trans people and setting back their march for equality.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,028
@565,003 (kook !!mCVqftDha)Next you're gonna say, I'm terrier-kin, you shitlord!
@565,005 (C)
I looked through section 3, and didn't see it referred to as being used mockingly. Though the author does later note that there has been some backlash against the term.
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,030
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,033
@565,025 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
I liked the take of the linguistics paper on the word. Basically, right now it's more of a "specialist word". It mostly just sees use in the trans community rather than the mainstream, which in turn can lead to people not learning about it or dismissing it.
So my thinking is that as transsexual issues become more prominent and discussed in society, which is steadily happening in the present, the word will have a better chance at finding mainstream use and acceptance.
I liked the take of the linguistics paper on the word. Basically, right now it's more of a "specialist word". It mostly just sees use in the trans community rather than the mainstream, which in turn can lead to people not learning about it or dismissing it.
So my thinking is that as transsexual issues become more prominent and discussed in society, which is steadily happening in the present, the word will have a better chance at finding mainstream use and acceptance.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,037
@565,028 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
It specifically mentions it being used mockingly. Twice, but in the same general terms. Near the bottom of page 11 and right at the top of page 12.
It specifically mentions it being used mockingly. Twice, but in the same general terms. Near the bottom of page 11 and right at the top of page 12.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,039
@previous (C)
Ah, I see it.
However, I should point out that the author also cites use by activists and the trans community as main usages.
Also, she says:
> These blog posts, though comprising only a small sample of the spoken and written instances of cis gender being used since it was coined...
So, according to this paper, the mocking blogs are a minority of the use...
Ah, I see it.
However, I should point out that the author also cites use by activists and the trans community as main usages.
Also, she says:
> These blog posts, though comprising only a small sample of the spoken and written instances of cis gender being used since it was coined...
So, according to this paper, the mocking blogs are a minority of the use...
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 30 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,062
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
From what I've seen and from this research, I'd say that the term is being used in an offensive, mocking, and derogatory manner.
Therefore its offensive when used that way.
Regardless of if you think the term itself has a neutral meaning.
From what I've seen and from this research, I'd say that the term is being used in an offensive, mocking, and derogatory manner.
Therefore its offensive when used that way.
Regardless of if you think the term itself has a neutral meaning.
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,068
If the word cis is not meant to be an insult then why does vocalon use it to try and insult me,
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,070
@previous (kook !!mCVqftDha)
because i know you're a petulant child and you'll react to any post i shit out
because i know you're a petulant child and you'll react to any post i shit out
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,071
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 15 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,072
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 32 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,073
@565,062 (C)
m8, m8, this was never in dispute. We both know there's a group on the Internet using it in an bad way. And obviously it is offensive when used in an offensive manner, I never disputed that either.
However, what this academic paper says is that this usage on the blogs, in fact, a minority of the world's overall use. So it obviously has much use beyond being an insult.
m8, m8, this was never in dispute. We both know there's a group on the Internet using it in an bad way. And obviously it is offensive when used in an offensive manner, I never disputed that either.
However, what this academic paper says is that this usage on the blogs, in fact, a minority of the world's overall use. So it obviously has much use beyond being an insult.
(Edited 51 seconds later.)
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 44 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,074
@565,072 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
Idiot. You just admitted to using that word as an insult. Thank you for proving my point.
Idiot. You just admitted to using that word as an insult. Thank you for proving my point.
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 46 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,075
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,076
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 58 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,077
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
He is. He's also being serious when he uses that word as an insult.
He is. He's also being serious when he uses that word as an insult.
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 24 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,078
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 44 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,079
@565,075 (vocalon !74TdoRkjCc)
Make a post on tumblr about how a white cishet reminded you that you'll never be a real woman.
Make a post on tumblr about how a white cishet reminded you that you'll never be a real woman.
vocalon !74TdoRkjCc replied with this 11 years ago, 44 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,081
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,085
Triptych !!/xkPL9myM joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,110
@564,938 (H)
We're overpopulated. Extinction isn't really an issue, and homosexuality is present amongst many animals.
We're overpopulated. Extinction isn't really an issue, and homosexuality is present amongst many animals.
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #565,156
fag means "cigarette"