I wouldn’t say that your argument is beneath contempt, it’s just absurdly strained. It’s clear that nothing I could possibly say would be persuasive to you.
Well, rest assured that your time is well-spent letting me know your inability to muster a persuasive counter-argument. 
If the requirement is that an argument be persuasive, you might have saved everybody some time and stopped posting a while ago. 
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I think the arguments that LHOD is making are a lot more persuasive than the arguments Colibri isn’t making.
So I’m seriously baffled; my best guess is that this is a weird gambit to entice me into sniping back at him, at which point he or another mod can close this thread as degenerating into pointless bickering. In order to avoid that outcome, I’ll say no more on that particular non-subject.
Ah, so just because it’s “useful” it can be used, despite the fact it’s offensive?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/the-new-c-word_b_5617913.html
"… *one key respect: The use of “cis” and “cisgender” should be carefully examined. There are people who strenuously object to these words being applied to them, even if the words come from an academic background. Just as my feelings on certain subjects should be respected, so should the feelings of people who dislike these labels.
It also needs to be asked what using the words gains us…When these words are used in focus groups that look at messaging on transgender issues, the responses are nearly universally negative. The conclusion of many organizations is that you should not use either “cisgender” or “cis” in any sort of public narrative.
Even inside the LGBT community the words have a very negative connotation. When someone is referred to as a “cisgender lesbian” or “cis gay man” by a transgender person, it is often in a negative way. The addition of “cis” or “cisgender” is used to imply a certain level of contempt and a desire that they leave discussions on transgender issues. It also implies that they don’t, can’t, or won’t ever understand transgender issues…However, using the word “cis” or “cisgender” is not necessary to do so. Just as no one ever called me “tranny” and meant it in a nice or affectionate way, many LGB people have never been called “cis” or “cisgender” in a way that wasn’t accusatory. Therefore we find common ground in disliking a word because its context has always been nasty and demeaning when applied to us personally…There are perfectly good substitutes as well. In public discussions I frequently use the term “non-transgender” instead of “cisgender.” The meaning is apparent without being specifically diminutive of any group. It also doesn’t carry the baggage of seeming like academese or being offensive to some.
Often the words don’t need to be used at all. When describing someone’s sexual orientation, do you really need to use “transgender” or “cisgender” as a prefix to it?
As a result, “cis” and “cisgender” should be used sparingly in public discourse."*
To emphasize a few quote here:
**“Just as my feelings on certain subjects should be respected, so should the feelings of people who dislike these labels.”
“It also needs to be asked what using the words gains us…”
Even inside the LGBT community the words have a very negative connotation.
“There are perfectly good substitutes as well.”**
and this:
The conclusion of many organizations is that you should not use either “cisgender” or “cis” in any sort of public narrative. The SDMB should join them.
As long as there’s no equally-precise, widely-known, less-offensive term to cover the concept, of course.
“There are perfectly good substitutes as well. In public discussions I frequently use the term “non-transgender” instead of “cisgender.” The meaning is apparent without being specifically diminutive of any group. It also doesn’t carry the baggage of seeming like academese or being offensive to some.”
Do you know who Brynn Tannehill is?
To the extent that there’s a widely-recognized alternative term for “cisgender,” your analogy falls apart. More than that–if the issued should be discussed as more than as an analogy–is probably more fruitfully addressed in a separate thread.
I’m perfectly fine with using “non-transgender” instead of “cisgender” to describe people who have indicated that they find “cisgender” offensive. I plan to continue to use “cisgender” for people who fit and who have not indicated this. From my experience and reading, virtually no one finds it offensive, but for those that do I am happy to use a different word.
So DrDeth, I’m fine with referring to you as “non-transgender”, while I will refer to myself and other cisgender people who haven’t indicated that they find it offensive as “cisgender”.
How nice of you to be so accommodating, to some… :rolleyes:
I choose not to be accommodating to racists… but you’ll notice that I very, very rarely (if ever) call any posters “racist”.
Are you fucking kidding me? You don’t know what “racial” means. I call bullshit. But even if you did not know, you know now. And of you don’t, what oh what would you guess it meant? The thing you slide under your car to lift it up? A color between teal and aquamarine? A deciduous tree? A type of monsoon? Please. And if you find yourself simply unable to assume it has something to do with race —in a thread about race, mind you (:smack:)—you could, you know, look it up.
And yet, you’re happy to use “cisgender”? Do you really think the meaning of that word is more readily understood than racist? YEESH!
Make that DOUBLE YEESH!!
So, you do want to hold onto the insulting part of the word. And all the other semantic bullshit is just that: bullshit.
The problem, since you seem unable to parse to for yourself, is that not everyone you disagree with on issues of race are necessarily racist, in the pejorative sense. But maybe you think that’s not true, and that anyone that has the temerity to disagree with you on a racial issue, is, by definition, racist.
Well aren’t you the Mighty Injustice Fighter!
Not really – I think I had an idea of what it meant before, but that was totally different than your definition, and it certainly wouldn’t be the best term to describe “black people are inherently less intelligent due to genetics”. There’s no way for that assertion to not be a racist one, as I understand it. If “racial” just means “referring to race”, then using that term here would be pointless and add no value whatsoever.
Then the way you seem to be using “racial”? Absolutely. I still don’t get it, or even see why “racial” is a useful term at all for anything.
You’ll notice that there are plenty of people who have disagreed with me on things related to race who I have not called “racist” – in fact, most or all people on this board who have disagreed with on things related to race have not been called “racist” by me. So this supposed problem you refer to doesn’t seem to apply to me at all.
I’ll ask again – if I think someone said something racist, I might say “what you just said is racist, in my view”… why is that a problem? Why should I not do that? I would definitely want people to say that to me if they thought I said something racist.
Blah, blah, fucking blah. You’ve come clean. You want to use the word because you know it is insulting, whether to the person or to a statement you’re describing. And if the people who utter what you deem are racist comments prefer you use another phrase, completely clear and accurate, well, you’ll have none of it by-golly. Why, because, you do not want to give the people you disagree with on race and deem racist, any quarter whatsoever.
Yet, as you’ve said on these boards numerous times, you like to defer to the people who are on the receiving end of language to dictate what language you use. Well, that seems like a crock of bullshit now, doesn’t it. Just like your claim that “racial” is unclear, but “cisgender”—clear as fucking crystal, huh?
Triple fucking bullshit-scented YEESH!!!
It’s not that I want to use it because it’s insulting… It’s that I don’t care. I don’t care if people find it insulting. If I think a post is racist, I will say so. Why do you have such a problem with that?
I was unaware that cisgender was considered pejorative by some. Thanks for the link. I’m not convinced though: I have not seen evidence that such feelings are widespread. Also, I would need some persuasion - probably in another thread - that the author is not squirrely.
Cisgender is a useful term, albeit with narrow applications. It would be a shame to lose it.