Are you also sick of hearing about all the other battles that have been won through legal protections?
(Which was my first question, which you ignored. If I missed your answer, apologies)
Prove you deserve pie, and maybe I’ll share.
No, they really don’t. Is that what Cambridge says? “Precisely?”
I phrased this badly - I should have said something “can be defined including”
"I don’t recall saying anything to or about Leaffan. But frankly his kid going through this is no different than a “cis-gendered” kid that gets thumped on the daily for reasons they don’t understand.
Sympathy and empathy? Certainly. Special emotional status? Fuck no."
~Zeke
I didn’t say you did. Which, amazingly, was why I quoted someone else. Twice.
Further, if cis-gendered kids were being murdered for their “condition” :dubious:, then I suppose “special emotional status” (whatever the hell that is) should be equally applied. However, since that’s a completely false equivalence, I think I’ll stick to believing that my compassion and understanding are not something I need to guard jealousy because they’re in short supply.
Both false and invalid. The battle has not been won for transexual or transgender rights. Companies can still fire trans employees without any other reason.
And…logically, it doesn’t follow. The battle for, say, Irish rights has been won. Nobody gets fired for being Irish. But that doesn’t, in any way, suggest that all other battles have been won.
Factually incorrect, and logically flawed.
Correctually infact and flogically lawed
I don’t know why I had the impulse to type that but I thought it sounded cool.
No one read my own quote right above that statement, did they? Included in that post, I mean. Like, literally a few spaces above the line you responded to?
You are in no position to criticize in that regard. You do not understand transexuality, you do not understand gender, and you do not understand language. You have yet to post anything in this thread that wasn’t rooted in a fundamental ignorance of the subject you were attempting to discuss.
So, once again, you have provided a cite in support of your position, that does not actually support your position. Your cite describes things that are mutually incompatible. It gives, in the first sentence of your cite, a set of binary opposites: big and small, short and tall, precede and follow. While certainly, a thing can not be both big and small at the same time, there is still conceptual space in the universe for things we refer to as “medium:” things that are neither big nor small, things that are neither tall nor large, and things that neither precede nor follow. And, occupying that same conceptual space, we have people who are neither male, nor female, who are neither trans- nor cisgendered, who are neither gay nor straight.
No, you didn’t. You have one cite that starts with a dictionary definition, which includes, ‘Not transgender" as part of its definition, but nothing in the rest of the article supported it. The second cite not only failed to define “cisgender” as meaning the same as “nontransgender,” it doesn’t even define it as the opposite of transgender. Your last cite, similarly, says nothing about "cisgender’ meaning “nontransgender,” but does note it as the opposite of that term. But as we’ve all now learned, things can exist outside of binary opposites.
If you asked 99% of the English speaking world, "What’s the opposite of “black,” they would say “white.”
Most art teachers would disagree.
Two sources, actually. Your second source didn’t address opposites at all, except when discussing the relative positions of North America and Europe. And we all have a firm understanding of how wrong you are in your conception of how opposites work, so I won’t belabor that again.
Well, no, it’s not, because while I can’t come up with a third state between “visible” and “not visible,” I’m aware of more than one state between “cisgendered” and “transgendered.”
It’s not a semantic discussion. It’s a civil rights discussion, and there are, in fact, human beings who are not described by either “cisgender” or “transgender,” and I do, in fact, give a fuck about those people.
Yeah… bad news there. Turns out, none of your cites support your arguments. Just like they didn’t in the “literally” thread. Do you ever actually read these things before you post them?
Wow, a lot to unpack there. Your disdain for transpeople in general is noted. You’re arguing that “nobody knows what it means,” in a thread where everyone but you seems to know exactly what it means, you seem to think that there are words out there that aren’t “invented,” and you still don’t get how opposites work.
That’s just a fantastic little bundle of stupid, ignorant, and angry. You should go into politics. You’d go far.
It’s been pointed out before, but it bears repeating: you are fundamentally ignorant in the most basic functions of language, and you should really stop trying to pretend to some expertise there. If for no other reason, than because it’s terribly embarrassing to watch.
I don’t think that’s over-generous at all. I think for every person you’ve recognised as trans, there are probably quite a lot more that you haven’t. This includes not only people who have physically transitioned so well that you can’t even notice, but also those who haven’t physically transitioned at all (or, at least, not very much), and at most maybe give the impression of being a femme gay man or a butch lesbian.
Enough that they’ll be counted in this year’s census, apparently.
I think this is the problem with a number of causes. We are all unwilling draftees in the culture wars, and everyone from BLM to PETA wants us to pick a side. Many of these causes ARE important and worth discussing. The problem is that we live in a world where you aren’t allowed to say that you just don’t care about a certain issue without someone demonizing you for it.
How many child prostitutes do you know personally? Or married 12yr olds? Know any actual pedophiles? Serial killers? I’m willing to bet you still have pretty strong feelings about those victims of misuse.
I’m not equating them. Simply demonstrating that, “I just don’t actually know any!”, isn’t really a very valid defense for not giving a shit about someone being ill treated or denied their rights.
Wolfpup: I see where you are coming from, but you really are wrong here and Miller is right. It might help if we recognize that “cisgendered” is not really part of the vernacular at this point but remains more of a clinical term, a term of art, than anything else. I don’t think it makes sense to talk about how most people understand that term because I’d be surprised if 2 out of 100 random Americans would have any idea what the word means.
Many people who do use the term probably use it thinking it means “non-transgendered”, but as a term of art we need to recognize it’s precise meaning, which is to designate one group among several, not just two. There are people who are neither transgendered nor cisgendered. And it’s clear that you know that.
There’s lots of issues that other people are passionately involved in, which I just don’t care about. Nobody ever jumps my shit because of it, though. Because they don’t know I don’t care, because I don’t bother to tell them. Because I don’t care.
On the other hand, if a person, unprompted, writes a five-hundred word essay about how much they don’t care about a subject? I think they actually do care, a little, and their concern isn’t exactly friendly.
Put another way: somebody beats the shit out of you, and leaves you broken and bleeding in the street. While you’re lying there, some rando walks up and tells you, “I don’t care that you got your ass kicked,” then wanders off. Wouldn’t you think that guy’s just a bit of an asshole?
Actually, it isn’t that I don’t care. I do care and I feel for them. I’m just burned out about hearing about it.
Why should we care, at least compared to people actually still suffering oppression, if you feel burned out about it?
Sounds eerily similar to, “Garsh I don’t have anything against homosexuals, but sheesh why can’t they just keep quiet about it. I don’t want to hear about that!”
Which is on the ragged fringes of, “I liked it better when they were all in the closet!” Of course you did, it was easier, for you. You didn’t have to face uncomfortable truths about the fairness of your society for those other than yourselves.
Yeah, no one really believes this person is actually okay with homosexuals. At all.
You shouldn’t.
Were you born this fucking stupid or did it take practice? Traumatic brain injury perhaps?
Oh, I get it now. You figure that you have the right to hurl accusations of hatred and bigotry around because that’s what the cool kids do and you so desperately want to be one.
If you charge your clients anything counsellor you are gouging them.
Okay. Then I think you should quit whining. It reflects only negatively on you.
Wolfpup, I think the problem you’re having is that something can be the opposite of something else while not being exclusively opposite. And being an opposite does not have to encompass the full set of things that are not-something-else. We simply do not use “opposite” the way you seem to be insisting it is used.
Someone mentioned atheism, I think I that’s a great example.
You meet someone who is a devout Christian married to someone who is a confident atheist. I think most of us would say they are opposites. But this example only works in one direction. The opposite of a devout Christian is an atheist, but the opposite of an atheist could be a devout Muslim. In America, you might assume Christian, but if you wanted to be precise, you’d have to say.
Or you ask me if I know Terry Smith and I say “Terry Smith? The rich black woman?” and you say, “No, the opposite! This Terry Smith is a poor white man.”
Non-rich is not the same as poor. Non-poor is not the same as rich. Non-black is not the same as white. Non-white is not the same as black. Non-woman is not the same as man. Non-man is not the same as woman. But I think the vast majority of English speakers would accept “Rich black woman” and “Poor white man” as opposites without ruling out a “middle-class Asian child.”
So, “transgendered” and “non-transgendered” are sets. “Cisgendered” and “non-cisgendered” are sets. “Cisgendered” makes up a part of the “non-transgendered” set. “Transgendered” makes up a part of the “non-cisgendered” set.
In the same way “rich black woman” would be accepted as the opposite of “poor white man,” “transgendered” and “cisgendered” could be viewed as opposites.
And you could say that transgendered and cisgendered are as far apart as it’s possible to be, just as being a devout Christian and being an atheist are as far apart as it’s possible to be. That makes them opposites. But even so, you could also say that being agendered is just as far from cisgendered as transgendered is. And being agendered is just as far from transgendered as cisgendered is.
Frankly, I think there are really good reasons for using language carefully right now. We don’t want to have to fight the gender battle a million times, and that’s what happens when you insist on a binary. If our language suggests there are only “transgendered” folk and “non-transgendered” which people will assume are the specific type of non-transgendered folk who we would otherwise call cisgendered, then we are leaving people out of the conversation. Which means someone like the OP turning around in ten years whining that no one ever told them it was possible to be agendered and this is a new thing and special snowflake yadda yadda how dare you be in my news feed.
I’ve found that in disability work, one of the ways you get people to pay attention, to see that there is a great deal of diversity in a population, is to use very precise language that forces them to figure out which term applies.
Sorry, I must have taken a big hit of oxygen before I started typing to get so long-winded.