Yesterday, after posting a Tweet saying that I reject the word ‘cis’ and don’t wish to be called it, I receive a slew of messages from trans activists calling me “cissy” and telling me that I am ‘cis’ “whether or not I like it”.
"Yesterday, after posting a Tweet saying that I reject the word ‘straight’ and don’t wish to be called it, I receive a slew of messages from gay activists calling me “straighty” and telling me that I am ‘straight’ “whether or not I like it”."
transgender implies a gender is present, which rubs some of us the wrong way.
same/across implies some kind of midpoint and there's plenty of room to be what we might eventually decide to call "cis NB", or since the midpoint is implied now we have three points and that implies a line and somebody might not be on that line at all so saying their gender is across from the one assigned at birth doesn't make sense either.
or it could just be a specificity thing. I'm from "north america" but there's basically never a reason to be so vague when we could just say a country or state/province and binary trans people don't have a more specific label to use or rally around.
“trans” just means that you don’t identify with your AGAB. In a society without genital-vibe-based gender assignment, there would likely still be gender categories, but “cis” and “trans” would not have one-to-one equivalents.
The whole reason they pretend to hate the word "cis" is because the next thing they'll say is that they can just be called men or women and that that should be enough because transness is fake. Nothing but fascist word games
I mean, the trans equivalent of "cissy" is a slur.
What we're seeing is folks bullying people with the term "cis," morphing that term into something that sounds harsher for greater bullying effect, then going at the reactionary response.
The reactionary response is not sincere, but is meant to appeal to ordinary people who aren't too invested in The Discourse. A lot of those people think "well it's not appropriate to call a trans person a _______, so it makes sense to not call cis people cissies." At best it's an uphill battle to explain our way out of that one, at worst it's an easy excuse for people to write off all the important stuff we have to say.
At some point we have to re-evaluate how effective bullying chuds actually is, or what kind of bullying we should be doing. I think we really overplay it at times, which is easy to do because it's fun and owning people feels like winning.
I agree that it will be an uphill battle to explain the difference between tone policing marginalized people with legitimate frustrations, and reactionaries effectively calling for them to be put in camps or social murdered, but we kind of have to make them take that pill.
Their conception of the world where there is no metagame to for example public discourse, only bad words and good words, needs to be corrected if they're going to be any use at all to us.
I lean toward walking into the "gotcha" and coming prepared to use it as a teaching opportunity. If we're picking our battles I genuinely think this one is a good choice because it's extremely relevant to just about every axis on the kyriarchy.
Guy he's replying to:
"Yesterday, after posting a Tweet saying that I reject the word ‘straight’ and don’t wish to be called it, I receive a slew of messages from gay activists calling me “straighty” and telling me that I am ‘straight’ “whether or not I like it”."
This was the discourse on Tumblr like 4 years ago. Catch up Twitter-heads.
Does he think trans people have a problem with being called trans?? Is there a single trans person that rejects the word "trans"???
Edit: FTM/MTF binary trans people at least
I do recall in the late 1990s / early 2000s some HBS-ers rejected the term transgender, but it's a pretty rare thing.
ETA: Some agender and NB folks prefer not to be called trans, but they also don't ID with the cis label so
transgender implies a gender is present, which rubs some of us the wrong way.
same/across implies some kind of midpoint and there's plenty of room to be what we might eventually decide to call "cis NB", or since the midpoint is implied now we have three points and that implies a line and somebody might not be on that line at all so saying their gender is across from the one assigned at birth doesn't make sense either.
or it could just be a specificity thing. I'm from "north america" but there's basically never a reason to be so vague when we could just say a country or state/province and binary trans people don't have a more specific label to use or rally around.
“trans” just means that you don’t identify with your AGAB. In a society without genital-vibe-based gender assignment, there would likely still be gender categories, but “cis” and “trans” would not have one-to-one equivalents.
The whole reason they pretend to hate the word "cis" is because the next thing they'll say is that they can just be called men or women and that that should be enough because transness is fake. Nothing but fascist word games
I mean, the trans equivalent of "cissy" is a slur.
What we're seeing is folks bullying people with the term "cis," morphing that term into something that sounds harsher for greater bullying effect, then going
at the reactionary response.
The reactionary response is not sincere, but is meant to appeal to ordinary people who aren't too invested in The Discourse. A lot of those people think "well it's not appropriate to call a trans person a _______, so it makes sense to not call cis people cissies." At best it's an uphill battle to explain our way out of that one, at worst it's an easy excuse for people to write off all the important stuff we have to say.
At some point we have to re-evaluate how effective bullying chuds actually is, or what kind of bullying we should be doing. I think we really overplay it at times, which is easy to do because it's fun and owning people feels like winning.
It's pretty simple. You just say it's not equivalent. Cis people don't have to worry about facing violence for being themselves or using a restroom.
It's the same facile BS like comparing gender dysphoria to schizophrenia.
"Well, what if this thing was actually this other thing." Well, it isn't.
I agree that it will be an uphill battle to explain the difference between tone policing marginalized people with legitimate frustrations, and reactionaries effectively calling for them to be put in camps or social murdered, but we kind of have to make them take that pill.
Their conception of the world where there is no metagame to for example public discourse, only bad words and good words, needs to be corrected if they're going to be any use at all to us.
I lean toward walking into the "gotcha" and coming prepared to use it as a teaching opportunity. If we're picking our battles I genuinely think this one is a good choice because it's extremely relevant to just about every axis on the kyriarchy.
Queer people are so much better at posting the c** people.