Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that it is a “not incorrect” way to refer to your car 
Precisely. Although it also upsets people-who-haven’t-given-it-much-thought-but-let-the-formerly-mentioned-haters-trick-them-with-sky-is-falling-stories-on-FOX-news
It’s not about sexual relationships.
Right. Do you think no one should mention race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation unless they are “different” in one of those ways, and it’s necessary to the post? Is it a good thing to assume all posters are white, cis, male, and straight unless they say otherwise?
Do you get that just as it’s important to you for people to know you are a woman and not a man, it is important for others to express that they are, say, Black, Cuban, non-binary, or gay?
Agree completely.
FTR I was actively editing the snip of mine that you quoted when you quoted it. You got version 1, and the final in my post is about version 5. My big-picture intent is the same, although obviously I prefer the detailed wording of my final version.
I mention it here now only so nobody later makes an accusation of you misquoting me. For ATMB this has been a decidedly ill-tempered thread.
…non-prejudicial is the way you refer to it? Makes sense to me!
Same way we talk about people being impartial, I guess. That’s how we often refer to things: not as what they are, but what they are not: lawyers with impeccable credentials sometimes talk things over with nonlawyers, sure as people sometimes use nonlethal force when seeking nonviolent solutions.
I’d go so far as to say it’s unobjectionable.
You will notice I’ve since reworded that sentence to remove that non-whatever formulation. For exactly the reason you articulate.
There are places where that formulation is useful. And there are certainly places where English has a great word for “condition or situation X”, but lacks a good antonym for the opposite condition or situation. That was the case with “non-prejudicial”
There are many places where non-whatever formulations are simply lazy majoritarianism. Or hostile majoritarianism. The latter is exactly what this whole ~300-post fiasco has been about
I mean, there are people out there with otherkin identities, but we’d be here all day if we got into that.
But why was it your initial go-to? I don’t think it was laziness on your part; I think it was an entirely useful way of relaying the exact point you had in mind. The ‘reason I articulate’ is that I figure that you figured it would in fact express the concept in question.
When I want to express this or that concept, I use a what-it-is word or a what-it-isn’t word based on — as you say — it being useful to do so. And, as far as I can tell, you do the same. And, as far as I can tell, that’s, uh, unremarkable.
Of course it is possible. Just because a language isn’t gendered doesn’t mean it can’t express gender-specific concepts as needed. Take Indonesian, for example: the pronouns for he/she are dia and ia, or if you want to be extra respectful, beliau. No gender is implied by any of those words. “Dia makan” can mean either “he eats” or “she eats.”
Also in Indonesian, there is no word for “brother” or “sister.” Instead the words used - kakak and adik - mean “older sibling” and “younger sibling.” If you want to refer to your older sister, you’ll have to call her either your kakak wanita (older female sibling) or adik wanita (younger female sibling).
None of this makes Indonesian incapable of expressing gender-related concepts. There are words for mother, father, male, female, penis, vagina, etc.
Yes, but while I may be putting my foot in my mouth here because I am not super familiar with those communities, they aren’t the same as “furries” (although there’s overlap), and while some of them might be transgendered, it’s really not the same thing at all.
I don’t typically refer to myself as a cis-male, but I don’t get upset or offended when someone slaps that label on me. But while I don’t find it particularly bothersome, it’s still a label imposed on me. i.e. Nobody asked me if this was okay. I can see why it would rankle some folks.
Actually, I’ve been told that it’s more appropriate to say “cis women”, like “Southern women” or “blonde woman”. It’s just an adjective. So is trans.
By the way, the reason we use “cis” as the alternative to “trans” is because those words were already around, if a little obscure. I learned them in organic chemistry, in college. I believe the “trans” in trans gender is the same as the “trans” in “trans fat”
There are cis fats, too. The adjective refers to whether the hydrogen atoms are on the same side of the carbon chain or on different sides. Cis fatty acid has both hydrogen atoms located on the same side. On the contrary, trans fatty acid has the two hydrogen atoms on opposite sides.
So i actually think the origin of the word is not about “change”, but about having a gender identity that is different (or opposite) from your sex assigned at birth.
I’ve heard right-wing cis people claim that “cis” is used as a slur, but I’ve never heard a trans person use it that way. And i hang out in circles where it comes up.
But, but, but we’re talking American here… /s
I spent most of my life never hearing or seeing the term “cis” or “cisgender”. Until someone called me it. Then I’m like, what in the hell did you call me?! And they explained what it meant. Then I said, oh, yeah okay that’s what I am, so fine.
Saying I’m a cis man is easier than saying I’m a non-trans man. And I don’t want to differentiate between a “trans man” and “just a man” because a trans man is a man.
Getting used to new terms can be confusing at first but they don’t exist to confuse people, rather the opposite.
I’ve been here for a while now, but for a long time I didn’t really have a sense of who different posters here were. Like, I couldn’t keep track of who was who. I’m starting to have more and more of that sense these days.
The point of that is, this and a similar compliment on a post of mine in another thread have really meant a lot to me. I value your opinion, and I appreciate that you expressed it.
To be marginally on topic, even if it did get a little bit heated, I so appreciate this board for having actual discussion even on hyper-sensitive topics like this as opposed to it immediately turning into a flame war.
I learned about the prefixes from history - Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul are the Roman provinces in northern Italy (Cisalpine) and beyond the Alps (Transalpine).
This is how I understood it too, and fits the example above - we have the near and far sides of the Alps.
And I really love the fact that posters such as yourself and others fluent in languages besides English take the time to post here (IIRC, either German is your first language or you are fully bilingual, is that right?)
Agreed. With the added challenge that there are a lot of people who desperately do not want to become unconfused. Their state of malicious ignorance is highly satisfying to them, and bringing clarity to them about that is most unwelcome.
Yes, German is my native language. English is just a kind of side project. 
(no, really, I love the English language just as much as the German)
I’ll be honest, I’m pretty bad at that too, until someone really stands out! It helps if they have a distinctive avatar (I’ve been messing with mine lately, which I realize would probably really confuse me if I was reading my own posts 
)
Absolutely! It really said what I was thinking better than I was managing to phrase it.
It isn’t about the virtue of the word, though. With categorizing people, the concept of defining one group as not-that-other-group creates conceptual problems. Linguistic problems may or may not arise. Marginalizing, othering, setting up what is the default, or what is abnormal with people – those are conceptual problems that will likely arise with that formulation.
*General Note: I’m posting on my phone, and it’s adding random letters to what I’m typing. Like, other side of the keyboard letters. I’m doing my best to correct them as I’m typing. I’m sorry if I wind up missing some.