But you think trans people are abnormal and unnatural. Do you at least understand why I think that, since you consider trans peple abnormal and unnatural, you might be less than full-throated in your opposition to discrimination and oppression? Do you recognize that it is reasonably predictable that when you say “these people are normal, and those people are not,” many of those people – and many of their friends and supporters among these people – will understand you to be saying that those people are lesser in some way?
… yes? Because bigotry, at last in the form of treating a group of people as second-class citizens, frequently involves perceiving them as a deviation from a notional unmarked neutral state. Normal people and gays. Normal people and bisexuals. Normal people and disabled people. Normal people and black people. Normal people and Asians. Normal people and women. Normal people and trans people. All of those dichotomies are strongly associated with the idea that excluding or overlooking people in whichever group is being postulated as in opposition to “normal” is, if not desirable, at least acceptable.
In other words, the attitudes underlying bigotry are a lot easier to maintain when one doesn’t believe the characteristic in question applies to oneself.
Out of context? The context was me pointing out that not a single one of your cites actually said what you claimed they said. You ignored all of that, and responded with, “It doesn’t make a difference.” I think I’ve got the context pretty well nailed the fuck down in that exchange.
Incidentally, while I’ve got your attention. You were asked this, like, five times, and never answered: if someone uses the phrase “Die, black scum,” does that mean that “black” is a slur that nobody should ever use?
Again, there were more words after that phrase: *It doesnt make any difference. If even a few people use “cis” as a pejorative slur, and only a few people think being called one is insulting, then we shouldn’t use it."
*
At the risk of being insensitive, how wrong is it to use “normal” to describe non-transgender people?
Definition of normal
As per this site, there are 700,000 transgender individuals in the US.
This means that around 0.2% of the population are transgender, which means that cisgender is the “usual, average, or typical state” of gender identification in the US, thus the normal state of gender identification.
Because I don’t throw temper tantrums over clinical terminology, that’s why.
However, you are right. When a term has a pejorative sense and those so labelled object, it is right to avoid the term. Since neither condition applies to ‘cisgender’ the conclusion does not follow, though.
Well, by the very limited definitions of “normal” Polerius offers and in the very specific context of physical sexuality’s alignment with self-perceived gender, those two statements would be consistent.
Of course, “normal” is far more broadly used than the very limited definitions Polerius offers, so insistence on the term to the exclusion of any other term, even one as banal as “cis”, strikes me as unnecessary.
First, as it has been said 1000 times, we are not talking about clinical academic work. Second, your statement is not at all true. Please give me a specific, clinical term for someone without body integrity identity disorder or progeria or rabies?
Nonsense. Normalcy isn’t coercive because humans by and large do not dictate what is normal in terms of genetics. The above statement is utter nonsense.
I don’t think there is a real new normal for gays, and even if there were, there needs to be a basic threshold in terms of numbers before we collectively engage these processes. For example, if one guy thinks he was meant to be a catfish, should we all classify ourselves as non-catfish just for his sake?
I contend that such a thing generally didn’t happen as their was no established question. There is a difference between such distinctions arising due to a new question being asked (eg. sexual orientation) rather than redefining a term like gender specifically for a infinitesimal minority of the public. .
Okay explain what someone with ambiguous genitalia would classify as, and why the cisgender part would be illuminating?
Sure it can. They are not at all opposites. For example: black holes, relativity, jihad, etc.
I’ve (and others have) explained this multiple times.
None of those things are rare. Do you even read what you are responding to?
There are multiple diseases and illnesses that rapidly age people or make them age abnormally. The trans movement wishes to argue that the fact that trans people largely do not conform to normal gender identities means the concept as a whole is largely invalid or at least too inclusive to be a meaningful representation of our natural diversity. That is, that the terms male and female are not inclusive enough or illustrative of all we see before us.
Similarly, you can make argument that while age in years in a factual assertion based on the passage of time, the concept is partially invalid because the information we glean from that number can vary widely due to biological diversity. Just as the terms male and female are clear and inclusive terms for almost 99%+ of the population, so would an age in years be informative and elucidative for 99%+ of the population.
Additionally, you can argue that the term male is just as loaded and assumptive a term as it relates to trans people as an specific age would be as it related to people with progeria. However, no one would argue we need to mark our years with a specific reference to the fact that we don’t suffer from a rapid-aging illness despite the fact that such people suffer as trans people do, and because the normal language for how we discuss issues related to their plight have the means to render them invisible.
In short, why should I mark my gender identity to specifically state I am not suffering from a rare condition when I don’t have to do that for my age, height, or anything else?