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.
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.