Classic 3112 style question. Just classic.
I am certain that the reason you prefer the term “gender-typical” is because it implies that cisgendered people are the norm.
It’s not like you’ve given any other reason for your preference.
(For the record, I hate the word “cisgendered” on esthetic grounds, but I wouldn’t use “gender-typical” either, because to me it sounds like a bigoted attempt to call transgendered people abnormal freaks. And honestly they seem to have enough problems without me taking a dump on them.)
Hey, I forgot I made some of those posts, I was pretty drunk by that point 
One thing for sure, I am certain that I do not prefer the term “gender-typical” because it implies that cisgendered people are the norm. If I thought that, I would advocate for the use of of the term “gender-normal”
Yes, but transgender is NOT defined as “not cisgender”. I’m pretty sure it has an actually definition that doesn’t include the word “cisgender”
‘Normal’ is a synonym of ‘typical’, so you’re not really rebutting anything. As is exemplified by the fact you still haven’t given an alternate reason for preferring the term.
You’re right, it does! Just like how “on fire” has a specific meaning, something to do with flames and combustion, but “not on fire” has no meaning other than “on fire - not”. And, like with transgender and cisgender, there is nothing that is neither on fire nor not on fire.
That’s definitely one way of looking at it. And again, I wasn’t aware that I needed to provide reasons for why I prefer that people use a certain term when describing me? If someone said to you “Sorry, I know my name is Robert, but I prefer to be called Bob” would you continually call them Robert until they gave you a reason why they preferred “Bob” that you were satisfied with? I’m thinking no.
Ok that’s fine. If you can tell me if someone that identifies as gender fluid or gender queer is cisgender or transgender, and that one of those terms (cisgender or transgender) applies to anyone and everyone who is gender fluid or gender queer, then I will accept your answer.
The term “gender-typical” means “transgenders are deviant freaks”. (The “who should be hunted down and shot in the streets” is implied.)
Don’t get me wrong - I honestly don’t care who gets marginalized and shunned and hunted, as long as it isn’t me, because I’m a selfish asshole. But I do recognize when a term cuts down other people. And I recognize that being viewed as abnormal has been a serious problem for minorities, especially gay and transgender people specifically. One of the major weapons that has been wielded against them is that they are somehow ‘wrong’ - they’re abnormal, and thus should be ‘fixed’. It legitimizes them as targets for oppression and marginalization, to the degree that well-meaning people honestly believe that doing awful things to them is for their own good.
Now, perhaps when you use the term ‘typical’ to describe cisgender people you simply mean “There are numerically fewer of them and that’s totally okay and there’s nothing wrong with that.” But (as I understand it) this particular group has reason to be sensitive to the term regardless of what you think it means.
Or at least that’s the impression I get hearing about the situation from the outside - I freely confess I haven’t had much interaction with people who admit to being anything other than cisgender. But as one of those people who have historically been on the oppressing side (of, well, everything - I’m a white male too), I have learned that, which I don’t actually have to be helpful to anyone, it behooves me to avoid being unnecessarily provocative.
Based on quick googles, gender fluid or gender queer both seem to mean “I’m not anything in particular, and you can’t say otherwise, boo!”. Based on other quick googles, these people would fall under the definition of transgender and would not fall under the definition of cisgender.
Apologies to all, I didn’t mean to abandon this but sick kid and life intervened.
I don’t hint.
Oh well then if you’ve never felt it then case closed.
I would rather not have to defend myself constantly. Do you know how many times I’ve used the word nigger in relation to a specific black person? None. How many times I’ve referred to niggers? None.
I have said things like - in a conversation about a black kid with an iced-tea bottle getting shot to death, “Well, if he’d had the good sense not to be born a nigger he’d still be alive.”
The use of the word, in that context, is meant to underline and highlight the racist stupidity of the prick that murdered the kid. But merely using the word places me in the same camp as the shooter.
Further, as I’ve said before, a word is a word. It is a sound. To suggest that one group can use a sound and it is fine (and yes black people do use it as an insult to each other as well) but another group to do is so is inherently racist is racist.
Again, I don’t use the word and I’m not begging for the right to run around yelling “nigger, nigger, nigger.” I am saying that to empower a word so much that it’s mere utterance can completely shut down discussion is lunacy.
To me, virtue is a quality that is demonstrated through action and behaviour. It is not something to be trumpeted. For instance I applaud those who give money or time to charities - that is virtuous. I disdain those who do it conspicuously.
You will not believe me but I am not at all racist, homophobic, transphobic or any of the other buzzwords. But I don’t feel the need to announce it at the slightest opportunity in order to aggrandize myself.
You asked me and then answered. All? No. Most? No. Some? Yup. I’ve no idea the ratio - but I do believe that truly trans people are a vanishingly small minority of the population.
See, here is where we run into my problem.
You assume that because I do not embrace everyone who says “I’m trans” that I don’t accept the reality of it for some people and their very real and very very difficult struggle with it.
He is asking how often I’ve been “called” cisgengered in real life.
Never. But those of us who were born into the bodies our brains matched are regularly and more frequently referred to as such in various media. It bugs me. But this is close to the least of my concerns.
First off, the number of black people being shot by the cops divided into the number of black people not being shot by the cops is vanishingly small.
Second to say that “black lives matter” by definition suggests that black lives take precedence. They don’t.
Do you think Hispanics in the US and Natives in Canada aren’t subject to police brutality, intimidation, murder? What about poor white people?
I grew up upper-middle class white but I hung out with poor white kids and natives (in Canada at the time Native and poor were synonymous). I can tell you that the cops were vile to them- not to me because I was well spoken and white. I but I saw the bruises and casts.
In Saskatoon (maybe Regina) it was accepted practice to take Natives outside of town in the middle of winter and make them walk back without a coat, gloves or sometimes, shoes.
See, here’s the thing. Before I call bullshit on a claim I check to find out first.
Yeah, it’s a “thing.”
Again, see above.
So since I’ve ben gone this thread is 4 pages long - many I assume with multiple points. I can’t reply to each of you in detail. So I am going to pick and chose by necessity.
I will do my best to choose the ones that make the best and fairest points that encompass the ones that I don’t reply to. I will also likely pick some that piss me off just to put the person on blast.
Please don’t take this as a sign of bad faith but rather a sign of there is only one of me and hundreds of you.
Honestly with the way that you have structured your reply no.
The problem is systemic. A cop does something to someone that lacks the power to respond within the system and they get away with it because they are cops.
The problem is militaristic cops with a belief that they are largely extra judicial and a system that supports that. That is the problem that needs to be fixed not - specifically - cop on black brutality.
What makes you think you know better than the people who say they are trans, let alone the doctors, researchers, psychologists and other experts who agree with them?
Also, even if it is a vanishingly small minority - say, a tenth of a percent, that’s still millions of people worldwide.
This is in response to me saying that gays are hostile to trans people.
I was wrong - my very bad. I heard a trans person say that during an interview on the CBC about a year ago and I took it as gospel. I didn’t look it up.
I googled various wordings and I keep coming up with links to “quora” but if only one site keeps coming up then I assume it is not a widespread thing.
Ignorance fought. I unreservedly apologize.
Thank-you
I think we pretty much agree on the fundamentals. We disagree on emphasis and extent.
He fact is it is rich white males that made the system, they are “the man” they are the “patriarchy.” To suggest otherwise is to ignore the weight of North American history.
Unless you mean to suggest that, for instance, the Jim Crow laws were developed by a well integrated group of legislaters. The schools and hospitals and such were built by poor labourers of lots of colours - but the money came from rich white men (mainly) and the companies the workers worked for were owned by… rich white men.
The fact is that the “system” was built by and for rich white men. And thus when one attacks the “system”, the patriarchy", the “man” they are attacking rich white men implicitly.
And that is fine so long as the emphasis is on the “rich” part and it isn’t. The rich looked out for themselves and any benefit that trickled down to poor white people was collateral.
You’re absolutely right. A very few were responsible for the god and the bad. Yet we all get tarred.
Are you saying that “nigga” and “nigger” are different? If so I can produce multiple examples of the same - black - person using them interchangeably. And, if that is what you are saying, then it is a factually wrong deflection meant to distract from the underlying discussion.
The point is that if a word is “wrong” then it is “wrong.” Richard Pryor made essentially the same point 3 decades ago, Chris Rock made the same point 2 decades ago. Many people of all colours have made the same point for many years.
Should the word be eradicated? Nope - I believe in the expansion, rather than the contraction of language, I think it should be applied much more widely. Take the racial component out of it and apply it to circumstance. Is a black woman that heads a fortune 500 company a nigger? Nope, no more so than a white man that does.
Is a single mother that works for minimum wage and has to put up with being groped by her boss because she can’t afford to lose the job a nigger? Yup.
But to say that it is okay if one group says it but not if another does is racist and distracting and simplistic.
This coming from a well-educated, old white guy that has the position and comfort to sit in judgement of others and the culture in which they grew up. Unless culture and education are only mitigating circumstances in the case of minorities.
But I know that is not what you are saying because that would be patronizing, patriarchal and flatly racist.
Then don’t. Provide hard scientific evidence that my assertion that transgenderism comprises more than a vanishingly small portion of the population. I’m absolutely open to being corrected.
See above.
We both know that any side can find “experts” to back them up. Hard science I will trust. Experts I don’t - don’t forget that “pundits” are “experts” too.
Why? I’m a white male and you don’t trust me on what I’m saying. Just because hey are trans doesn’t make the, qualified to speak to the number in the population in any meaningful way. It is anecdote.
How not so? If someone says that they were born Asian but they have always felt and believed that they are Scandinavian who are you to say that they aren’t Scandinavian?
I’m not surmising someone just fucking around but someone that feels it to the core of their bones.
I’ve never disputed the existence of people like that. In fact I’ve known one for 25 or so years. I don’t like him but that’s nothing to do with him being trans it has to do with him being a bellend (but of course the real reason I don’t like him is that he is trans… right?)
I guess I’d ask you to define “big” 35000 out of 3500000 doesn’t seem big to me.
But you are going with the tac that I’m suggesting that people only self-identify as trans when they aren’t. I can give you two celebrated cases of people self-identifying as demonstrably different ethnic groups. Only two because they were high profile. I’ve no doubt that there are many (not huge numbers) of people that self-identify as something they are not.
This sounds like hard science coming up.
Look man, I’m willing to be educated. I hate being wrong. I like to be right and I can’t be right if I’m working from wrong information. Give me real science and I’ll accept it. But “H1 line or whatever” hardly qualifies.
It’s not intended to be snarky or rude or mocking. Cisgender is a useful term in discussing transgender issues. You don’t like it, and that’s fine, so I won’t use it for you. But I’m not going to stop using the term because one person doesn’t like it…
[/quote]
But it isn’t just one person. Here it is just one person on a message board. But there are lots of people that don’t like it. You just don’t hear them because to say so is to invite vitriol and most people will opt not to make an issue of it.
Now I ask you, if I’m in a conversation with a trans person and they use the word “cisgender” and I object that I dislike the term and I’d prefer they don’t use it what is the likely reaction from them and anyone listening?
a) oh, okay I’ll refrain; or
b) You’re transphobic
But they do vilify all cops effectively. Look to the cite I provided Snaulker.
And they seem to conveniently forget that black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
Is the crime because they are black? No! It is because they are poor. No matter where you look the single biggest predictor of criminality is poverty.
It would be better if they were “poor lives matter” or “police are to protect” or something that isn’t immediately divisive.
Google “BLM pride police.” See that is the problem. The neo-left is so wrapped up in being 100% virtuously right that they refuse to countenance the idea that sometimes their causes act wrongly. So certain are they that they discount and ridicule claims made what is perceived to be the “other side” that they never take the time to see if there is some basis.
But unless they subscribe to the neo-left ideology they are discounted and shunted off. Step out of lock step and age and race become the issues, not the thoughts behind them.
See, you come back to the idea that I somehow feel personally usurped. I don’t. In order to feel usurped you must first have power. I’ve never had power.
Your arguments seem predicated on the idea that I somehow want to preserve a place that I’ve not had since I was 15. I don’t.
I just think that arguing over words is a stupid distraction - the most virulently bigoted person I’ve ever heard speak never used a single word that was objectionable.
I think that by insisting that everyone be in 100% lock-step with the farthest of the new-left pushes people like me away and that by insisting on complete acceptance of the current orthodoxy a bunch of people get cut out.
Okay, so you tell me what defines “socially left” to you. I notice that you agree with everything I said about race, but the second it touched on gender or sexuality the claws emerged.
Here is my definition of socially left - A person who supports full and equal rights in society and before the law for everyone regardless of race etc.
A person who believes that so long as the system is stacked in favour of the wealthy the less wealthy need access to resources so that they can live above subsistence.
A person who believes that the wealthy ought to “subsidize” the poor in the hopes that someday the poor will no longer be with us.
A person that believes that property crime should be treated meaningfully differently than personal crime.
There is more but that will do for a start.
What is your definition?
This thread is unbelievable. Zeke doesn’t use the word “nigger” (except several times in this thread) because it sounds racist, so it’s unfair that niggers can use the word when speaking of each other. :smack: Zeke should be able to call niggers “niggers” (though of course he doesn’t), but those niggers better not call Zeke “cis.”
And white men won World War II, landed a man on the Moon, and developed the Snickers Almond candy bar, so all you trans-whatevers should shut up about white males.
Yes, it’s racism against white males that is the big issue. And niggers shouldn’t say “Niggers’ Lives matter.” It would be more inclusive to fit (better use a small font) “Black lives matter and so do yellow lives, Slavic lives, Armenian lives, Trumpist lives, giraffe lives, and, yes, especially white male lives” all onto the sign.
And on and on and on and on.
Hi, OP! Yes I’ve caricatured your views slightly, but only slightly. Frankly I’m wondering if the whole thread is some self-parody or even T***l. I wouldn’t presume to call OP pentally digitated, but it seems safe to say he’s mentally agitated.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It seems we have a new trend here.
We already have
Ask the asshole who voted Trump because he tells only lies
and
Ask the super-liberal prick who feels that racis against whites is the pressing problem
I’m planning y own thread:
Ask the idiot-savant asshole surprise to learn there are several asshole Dopers even more idiotic than I
You support equal treatment due to race but not sexuality. Or, at least, it seemed you did from your OP, not so sure now. You repeatedly show you don’t support equal treatment for others, especially trans people.
Yep. Something you clearly don’t support with regards to trans people.
That’s all economic left wing views. You’ve presented them in a way that seems obvious and uncontroversial but, as always, the devil will be in the detail.
The emphasis is on the system. Not all rich white men, not all white men, but the system that was created by a lot of dead people and continued on (often without realizing how bigoted and biased it is) by a lot of living people (of all races and genders and wealth-levels, even if the biggest culprits are probably rich white men). It’s the system that needs to be changed.
No you don’t, or at least not by the majority of the left. Maybe a few assholes on the fringe, but if you’re worried about a few assholes on the fringe, then you’ll always be worried. Assholes will always be there.
No, that’s not what I’m saying – I’m saying that there is a dialect in which the word (with various pronunciations) can be used in a non-racist or non-slur manner, but unless you’re 100% fluent in this dialect (meaning that you grew up speaking it with family who spoke it), you’re probably not going to understand the right context and usage. And so you’ll probably end up using it in ways that come across as racist to lots of people. There are a very small number of white people who grew up speaking that dialect, but they also probably learned to be very careful because it’s so unusual for white Americans to speak that dialect 100% fluently .
If you don’t care that lots of people will find your usage racist, then carry on. But if you don’t want people to be offended, then why not just find another word to use? It costs you nothing.
Huh? I don’t understand what you’re saying here. It’s not racist to call someone lazy or an ignoramus because they’re using racial slurs in a thoughtless way.
Might as well be someone who lived in the woods for 50 years coming out of the woods and telling me about computers. I’m not interested in trying to convince you – you’re a random person with no data and no evidence saying things about a group of people (trans people) that you’ve let some pretty damn strong indications that you have negative feelings and distrust for. Data and science doesn’t convince people who pretty much pull opinions about other groups from the ether – at some point, if you want, you’ll actually consider that you have zero basis for any of the things you’ve said about trans people, so maybe you’ll want to actually learn from people who have done the science and research and lived the life of trans people (and I’ve done neither, but I’m wise enough to trust trans people and trans researchers on the subject of transgenderism, not random people who don’t like or distrust trans people).
“Don’t like it” doesn’t matter to me. If tons of people are genuinely hurt and offended, then I’d definitely consider their opinion. I’m actually cis, so I understand what it feels like to be a cis person and called cis, and it doesn’t bother me at all. So it’s not like I only have to take other people’s word for it (which I would for many other slurs – I’m not black, so I don’t know what it’s like to be called anti-black slurs, etc., so I can only take their word for it).
A few assholes do. BLM as a whole does not, and rejects any violent rhetoric. They can’t police every asshole who might show up to their rallies, but they’ve always been critical of violent rhetoric and disavowed it.
They don’t forget anything – that’s just not relevant to the issue that they’re concerned about – police mistreatment of black people. Not just murder, but all types of mistreatment:
Some polling:
http://www.apnorc.org/projects/Pages...0803-9759.aspx
50% of black people report that they have personally been mistreated by police. Another 15% report that they have not, but a family member has.
So that’s 65% of black people who have either been mistreated, or have had a family member mistreated.
In comparison: 28% of Hispanic people report being personally mistreated, with another 23% reporting family members having been mistreated. 3% of white people report being personally mistreated by police, with another 5% reporting that family members have been mistreated.
With these numbers, there doesn’t seem to be any chance whatsoever that most black people will see law enforcement as allies to trust or rely upon, and will be much more likely to see them as dangerous and untrustworthy enemies to be feared, quite reasonably.
They might have well have acted wrong – lots of left and liberals make mistakes sometimes.
Not in my experience. In my experience they might be challenged, but aren’t “discounted and shunted off” unless they go on and on with racist bullshit (in which case they should be discounted and shunted off).
To tell you the truth I honestly don’t even know what identity politics means. I hear the term lots but I have no real idea what it means.
No, not at all.
I’m a big fan of “you do you and I’ll do me.” If you are being fucked with I will absolutely do what I can to help and defend you.
But if that means that I must censor myself or knee-jerk adhere to everything that you espouse then I draw the line.
I’ve been called trans-phobic. You tell me if I sound trans-phobic.
I believe that there are some legitimately trans-gendered people. I also believe that thanks to Caytlin Jenner (sp?) the issue has gotten more prominence than it maybe should and some people are gonna latch onto it.
I know exactly one transgendered person. I’ve known him for 25 years. I knew him when he was gay and doing drag, I knew him when he decided to make the transition, I know him now that he has fully made it.
I guess I should say I know of him. I knew him and really didn’t like him. So we never hung out but I hung out with people that hung out with him.
I’m glad that he has transitioned and I’m glad that Canada is civilized enough that he didn’t have to mortgage his next 80 years to do it.
She can go to the bathroom wherever the fuck she wants. And she could have done it when she had a dick. In my humble opinion. The notion that prohibiting a trans-gendered person from taking a piss in the bathroom of their choice is either stupidly malicious or maliciously stupid.
Yearly I take my kids to the pride parade and we walk.
Do I sound trans-phobic to you?
Yes.
Yeah, whatever.
You still haven’t given a logical or reasonable explanation for your hang-up with your gender being described as “cisgendered”.