What is this, the newest variant on “why do black people get to say ‘nigger’ ?”
I think it’s an attempt to bolster arguments that all offense over words is arbitrary, therefore if someone says something offensive, why, you can’t complain, you user of the eeeevil “cisgender.”
Let’s face it, dominant groups have a tough time making an argument that there are ever really equivalent offensive terms. Ya gotta work hard to lay the foundation for this type of argument!
Not sure if it’s been posted here–even if I’ve posted it here–but there’s an excellent, offensive term for straight white dudes: douchebag. Fun article that makes a persuasive case.
Edit: and to forestall the inevitable objection, as a straight white dude, I’m allowed to say douchebag.
All I know is the first time I came across the word online I had no idea what it meant and couldn’t figure it out from context at all. I had to google it.
I don’t have any strong feelings about the word other than it being rather dysphonic (is this a word?). I also made a mental link with ‘cyst’ which lead my mind to pus. Which? Yuck.
There’s an important distinction between a word that is used in anger and a word that is used as a slur.
Suppose there’s a non-racist guy, Bob. He has two neighbors, Frank and Joe. Frank and Joe are both black. He likes Frank. He hates Joe.
You say to him “what can you tell me about your neighbor Frank? what does he look like?” and he says “he’s a big tall nice black guy, very friendly, always chats with me about sports”. You say to him “what can you tell me about your neighbor Joe”. He says “he’s a fat asshole black guy, always wears a stupid green hat, what a douchebag”.
Now, change the hypothetical so that Bob is racist (but not so racist that he’s unable to be friends with Frank). He says the same thing about Frank. But when describing Joe, he uses one of various slurs rather than the word “black”.
That’s why “cis” isn’t a slur even if someone says “die cis scum”. It’s not a word that you choose to use instead of other words specifically to imply dislike or insult. It’s a word that CAN be used as part of a hateful statement, but then, what word is that NOT true about?
no it hasn’t. I am close enough to the trans community to hear the term used non-ironically on a somewhat regular basis. I have never heard it used except as a neutral descriptive term. Most trans people have cis friends and relatives. Many date cis people. Few have a chip on their shoulder. Just because some dude said “die cis scum” on the internet doesn’t mean the word been hijacked. Anymore than some black-power type saying “die white scum” would hijack “white”.
it becomes less obscure all the time. It is already the common term among people who have a need to talk about the concept with frequency.
If putting it between “die” and “scum” turns a word into a slur, that means “die beautiful scum!” makes beautiful a pejorative. Or “die smart scum!”
It makes no sense at all. You can put any word in there.
Same here. I’ve only heard it used as a neutral descriptive term. Like you, I have some interactions with the trans community. (For example, I’ve been asked to blurb a book that contains writings by trans game designers.) I’ve never heard it used as a slur.
I don’t doubt that someone somewhere has used it as a slur. But people use lots of words as slurs. For example, should we refrain from using the word “liberal” because some conservatives treat it like a curse word?
My (trans) daughter has told me that there are some very angry trans teens on some obscure corner of Tumblr that say nasty things about cis-gender people.
That’s it for me. I never again refer to anything that pisses off teenagers.
Just so you guys know, DrDeth doesn’t believe there’s such a thing as bad logic.. So, I’m not sure there’s any point in trying to convince him of stuff, because he’s explicitly rejecting any valid method of weighing the value of an argument.
According to Profs. Pryor and Chase, the equivalent to “nigger” is “DEAD honky” but we get the point 
Right. Why let the people with a chip on their shoulder dictate our reaction?
And “die (cis/yuppie/onepercenter/hippie/hipster/commie/etc) scum” is a weak insult and an idiotic expression anyway when dealing with real social issues, it’s what you use when you can’t be bothered to make an argument.
Isn’t it just German for the cis scum?
You may laugh, but that is exactly how I read the first few times. It took at least the 3rd of 4th reading to realize it was English. Probably because it’s hard to imagine someone wanted all of us “cis” types to die.
Oh, I was under no illusions, trust me.
Well, no one who speaks German could be evil!
So you wouldn’t complain if someone said to or of you “you’re not normal”?
Probably not. After nearly 20 years, I’m used to Cecil’s readers saying they’re not offended by things most people – normal people, one might say – take offense to. It’s a weird badge of honor, but there you have it. Besides, it’s true; more than 8 billion people aren’t you, and only one person is.
But it takes an astonishing degree of naivete not to recognize that generally speaking, when someone says “you’re not normal,” it is not a neutral observation of statistical realities.
Why do you say “normal” rather than “common”? Or “ordinary,” also denotatively in the same general region if not precisely equivalent?
I don’t think this is a danger, since there’s also the issue of hedgemony. Neurotypical people are running the show, and developmentally and mentally disabled people are not. Cis people are running the show, and, outside Austin (I think), trans people are not. I don’t see “cis” jumping on the dysphemism treadmill, and certainly not nearly s fast as “retarded.”
I wonder why I’ve never seen this objection to “white.” I was going to say I’ve never seen this objection to “man,” but I have, and right here on this board; not that anyone objected to the word “man,” but not long ago (in SDMB years) someone started a thread about how he hates the restriction of “man” and male pronouns to male persons, when it should only be female persons – who aren’t normal – who need to be identified by gender.
(And yes, the “pro-trans political agenda” of believing people are what they say they are and not oppressing them for it.)
Well, Tumblr …
I mean, Tumblr is known throughout Activistia as a place where enthusiasm far exceeds diplomacy, strategy, or sense.
Which is weird, given there are more of us, and everyone starts out as a girl!
Sure, and so was “Negroid”. We dont use that word anymore, do we?
This is very odd. People take a label and stick on some other dudes. Those dudes object to that label. That objection means those dudes are called assholes and bigots.
:dubious:
It’s a label. You are sticking that label on me. I say I don’t like that label. Why am I in the wrong? Can you think of any other time a person or group has objected to a label like “Jap” or “Tranny” or whatever- but their objections have not only been ignored but derided?
I think that posters who are members of the LGBT community would be with me here. Do you like labels *other *people put on you? Do you not object? I know there’s one movement that sez to take back some of those terms, and that’s great- but not everyone likes those labels even so. I mean have you not fought long and hard to get people to stop using labels you object to? And, I am completely with you on this. I support you on this 100%.
Why am I not allowed to object to a label that I find offensive and a slur?
Well, we do if we are talking about specific technical areas of forensic anthropology.
We don’t use “Negroid” in more general contexts, any more than we use the similar terms “Caucasoid” or “Mongoloid”, because they’re old-fashioned terms from a simplistic scientific theory that’s largely been replaced by more complex models in genetics and anthropology.
But I don’t know of any reason to argue that the term “cisgender” is similarly inaccurate or obsolete from a scientific viewpoint. Do you?