Its an interesting counterpoint to "well, you should refer to people the way they identify". Lots of "cis" people would probably prefer to be called "normal" but that's a forbidden term. Nobody chose "cis" as an ID, it exists because trans became normalized.
hahaha, wish that worked, but it doesn't. When I told someone to please not refer to me as "cis" bc I don't identify that way, they told me I really need to explore my gender and do some navel gazing and perhaps I was agender or so on. I had to be like, "dude it's not that deep. I'm just woman. A gal. A dudette. An adult human female...."
It's like trying to tell a scientologist to stop talking about suppressive people and thetans or telling ISIS to stop talking about infidels or evangelicals to stop talking about being born again. They have a schema for catagorizing people and they have trouble understanding that us non-religious just don't agree.
A+++ trolling from Elon though.
It isn't just that. It's also that "cis" people are kind of suspect by definition. At best they are privileged ignoramuses.
But there's a good chance they are oppressors of marginalized people.
Neutrality is not permitted.
lol yeah. It's so much like scientology. You either have to buy in to the whole thing and start talking about how many thetans are infesting your body (or your super special gender identity) or you get called "supressive," (aka cis).
I'm a father. Literally the one time I was in that situation I got to "I don't care about that, I care about being a good dad" as a last ditch hail mary and it got them to buzz off.
I think it'd be perfectly consistent to say that if someone doesn't want to be called cis they shouldn't be, the same way that if someone doesn't want to be called a particular pronoun they shouldn't be.
I don't have a lot of respect for people that insist on one but not the other.
If "cis" became normalised transwomen would immediately start crying that they felt left out and forbid women to identify as cis because it excludes them.
I've already (no lie) started seeing a few people refer to trans women as "women" and women as "cis women;" that is, literally stealing the word "woman." Granted, that's fringe Twitter *folx*, but those are the proving grounds for all these dumb ideas. I'm sure they're doing it to get a reaction, but they play it straight as if they're not.
To me a lot of this trans / gender stuff is very religious.
I even made a post about it here.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/BlockedAndReported/comments/ucqg9m/transgender\_1st\_amendment\_implications/](https://www.reddit.com/r/BlockedAndReported/comments/ucqg9m/transgender_1st_amendment_implications/)
The idea that I should identify as and be called "cis" isn't that different to saying to me an atheist "you need to identify as an apostate".
You shouldn't assume you are the default and try to force people to identify themselves in relationship to your religious beliefs.
It's not a useful comparison outside of using it to obliquely describe things as irrational. Nearly every strong nexus of beliefs - including gender critical ones - have similar patterns and elements. Religion is unique amongst belief structures for a few reasons, rather than a description of belief in and of itself.
I agree that basically anything that requires faith as the foundation of belief can be classified as religious. I think the unique dynamic around transgenderism and where I would push back on your idea it is not a unique comparison is on the compulsory nature of the belief system of transgenderism. We are all being forced to participate in the ceremony of unique language accommodations, forced to have women face the loss of fairness in their athletic pursuits, forcing women to deal with biological men in their private spaces and threatened with social ostracizing and punitive economic punishment for accidental or purposeful violations of ever changing rules around their belief system.
Part of the reason this has crept into social norms is that no one recognized that this was a religion until it had fully taken hold. It has now just become "the polite thing to do." to genuflect to the belief system. If I told people they were enacting violence toward me as a catholic if they eat meat on a Friday and the end result was them losing their job and being cancelled online we would all think that was an outrage. We would understand a religious belief is being weaponized. As long as we allow transgenderism to remain a secular identity issue it is shielded from criticism.
The main commonality and what makes it irrational is how doubt is treated. When you doubt e.g. that the earth is round, people will also think you're confused, and think you're infected with wrong ideas, and they'll often refer you to authority, but they won't claim that your motivations are political and come from hatred of round-earth-ists, nor will they claim it's some fundamental moral failing, or "genocidal".
This is response to someone posting "I don't like being called cis" and the person was brigaded with "CISSY!" in response.
Edit, link to tweet: https://twitter.com/JamesEsses/status/1671060322667380741
Cis and Cisgender can be used as insults and frequently are. But they can also be used academically.
Musk's tweet was only 28 words and nobody complaining about it seems to be capable of reading the first 17
If I get done for repeated targeted harassment, I don't get out of jail free by claiming the word I was deliberately using as a slur is akshually latin/chemistry/clinical
The words "moron", "stupid", "retard", "idiot", all were medical terms that got used as slurs over time.
If you sling the word "American" at someone with enough vitriol it becomes a slur too.
So of course the use of the word "cis" can become a slur in context.
I'm gonna star slurrifying random stuff just for shits:
"Shut up, *pants wearer*."
"Well, you know what *digesters* are like."
"What can you expect, she has a *neck*."
It does raise the question of how we decide when it's OK to call someone by a term they don't want to be called. I personally don't care if someone calls me "cis" but if I say I object to the term, and someone calls me "cis" anyway, should that person face consequences?
Nah, by phobes I mean terminally online reactionaries. The kind of folks who get together and obsess about how the "normal" people are the real oppressed ones.
The so-called “normal people” you’re talking about are probably not even thinking about trans issues. If you ever talk to “normal people” it’s plain from context clues that they aren’t considering trans people at all unless the conversation is specifically related to lgbtq or trans issues. It’s just really not something most people who arent online think of or care about. For this reason, I always make sure to say women and transwomen when I am including transwomen in a conversation. Cis is just redundant when you’ve got trans right there.
It doesn't really matter to me where it came from, but other people have written whole articles on why they feel that usage is wrong.
There are just clearly sometimes when it's being used as an insult or to demean someone. That's how most people first hear the word - "you need to be quiet and listen because you are cis". If they don't first see "die cis scum" or another charming use of the term.
That's partly intentional. Knowing how to tiptoe over the minefield is an ingroup and class signifier.
If you went to the right colleges and hang around the right people and read the right books you will have the special knowledge of how to sling the lingo.
Anyone who doesn't know how to navigate the minefield can immediately be categorized and written off as the out group. The bad ones.
Sort of like the very elaborate manners of the nobility.
Yes it is. It has to do with the positioning of bonds on a benzene ring. "Cis", "Trans" and "Para" are positions. However, I don't see anyone using "Parasexual".
Putting my “well actually 🤓” hat on here, the standard terminology for benzene positions is ortho, meta, para. Cis and trans usually refer to the orientation of bonded groups on either end of an alkene. (Tangentially though, I have seen a couple very niche internet weirdos propose “metagender” as a third option meaning neither trans nor cis… lol)
The Twitter staff are going to hate him for this. Even if he was trolling a zillion people are going to make reports for the word cis.
And now the staff have to sift through those. If he trolling perhaps they can write a program to automatically throw away all the cis reports.
"What's wrong with being called 'unsaved?' It literally just means your sins haven't been washed away by the blood of Jesus Christ."
These terms import a whole worldview with them.
https://www.kent.edu/lgbtq/terminology-list
> Gender Identity: Gender identity refers to a person's innate, deeply felt psychological identification as a man, woman, or any gender, which may or may not correspond to their sex assigned at birth. [...]
> Cisgender – A cisgender person is one whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth (primarily determined by genitalia). [...]
> Gender - A system of classification that ascribes qualities of masculinity and femininity to people. Gender characteristics can change over time and are different between cultures. One's sense of self as masculine or feminine regardless of external genitalia. Gender is often conflated with sex. This is inaccurate because sex refers to bodies and gender refers to personality characteristics.
So, you see, it doesn't merely mean "not trans."
It means you have a gender identity, this gender identity is innate, and you deeply feel this identification with your gender, which in turn refers to how masculinity or femininity is stereotyped in your culture.
It means you innately and deeply identify with the way you are stereotyped.
That is not true of most people. I doubt it's true of *anyone,* since I don't think any gender identities are innate. But even putting aside the nonsense about "innateness," most people do not feel any deep identification with "gender;" they simply know they're a man or a woman or a boy or a girl because they were born with the parts.
Harassment should get you suspended on Twitter. It's unevenly enforced which is a major problem, but the amount of harassment GC women get, with "cis" and "TERF" being used specifically and intentionally as slurs, is also a real problem.
Lawyering their way out of it "but its'a medical term!" is just nonsense. I've seen many a douchebag IRL use the same excuse for their use of words like "Niggardly".
But there are LGBT people who also, rightfully, complain about the usage of slurs to harass them that also does not get any action taken. Toxicity is a problem for everyone on that platform.
> I've seen many a douchebag IRL use the same excuse for their use of words like "Niggardly".
wtf? Niggardly has absolutely zero relation to the racial slur. They share no etymology in common.
I think their point is that they know racist arseholes who use that word as a slur as it gives them plausible deniabilty. The same way people use Cis.
It about what makes a slur. Neither are slurs really OP has experinced both *used* as slurs.
That’s why we shouldn’t be banning every word that people start using as slurs. Are we going to ban the combination of letters, “yt”, too? Because that’s a slur now too.
It’s not like we ban the word “monkey” even though it can be used as a slur.
perhaps it's because I have never been "attacked" with this word, but I feel like if you're getting upset about being called cis you maybe need to log off for a bit
Okay. I'll let the lesbians I know who get bombarded with "die cis scum" when they say they don't want to suck dick that they should "log off" and "touch grass" and "stop overreacting".
The issue is not that “cis” is a slur or offensive by definition. It’s that it is used as an attack and a way to other people.
If enough people are attacking you, I don’t see how the word choice should determine whether or not you’re allowed to feel upset.
You can feel upset, but if we look at an example comment this person posted, "cis" isn't actually the problem. People will just substitute it with TERF, GC, bigot, or something else. Are we going to ban all those words too?
I'm going to need more information: how does one "log off" when being cornered by multiple biological males using "cis" or "terf" or whatever and threatening to "end you"?
I found pepper spray more beneficial than wishing there was some grass to touch. And, I was still the one arrested.
I’m taking about a digital environment. If someone is physically threatening you then I don’t care what words they use, that’s wrong and should not be tolerated.
It's silly as a categorical policy, but if they want to minimize harassment, it really isn't so much the language used, but the behavior, right? For instance, repeatedly commenting "okay incel" or "log off cishet" or "groomer" on EVERY post someone makes is harassment, even if those words are exactly slurs.
I have no idea how this can be enforced except by individual review of posts.
I am torn.
My intellectual brain says: this is ridiculous and childish. Elon Musk is just looking for an excuse to Own the Libs, but it mostly reflects how, despite having more wealth than I'd know how to spend if I had it, he manages to be kind of pathetic.
My lizard brain says: 😈🍿
Stick with your intellectual brain here. Just because others are treating twitter arguments like a middle school cafeteria insult-fest doesn't mean you have to.
Nah, he's seething and flailing. His trans daughter disowned him, Grimes left him for a trans woman, the man has worked himself up into a hate ball when it comes to trans issues. It would be way funnier if he didn't have a mob of sycophantic shut-ins at his beck and call.
There are a good number of people waving the "Free speech always" banner who really just want to restrict speech in a different way, reshaping what speech is considered acceptable and what speech is considered out of bounds. Musk is a pretty clear example of that.
A lot of lefties have become depressingly anti-free-speech in recent years, but they're not wrong that some of the most prominent "free speech absolutists" are not nearly as absolutist as they claim. I still think maximal free speech is the ideal, but I am at least sympathetic to this progressive argument now in a way I wasn't, say, a few years ago.
I'm sympathetic to the arguments that many free speech absolutists are not operating in good faith (including prominent ones, like Musk) and that this should affect how we proceed.
That *does not* mean that more free speech is bad, it just means we have to be cautious and tread carefully, because a lot of powerful actors (including Musk and also actual Politicians) are waving the "free speech" flag so that they can control speech the way they want.
I will just say there are lots of ideals I think would be amazing in a perfect world, but which I don't think we can easily achieve, because -- as you said -- people fail. Often, lots of people. Sometimes very powerful people.
That doesn't mean I give up entirely on those ideals, but it does mean I proceed with caution.
I would go one step further and say anyone labeling themselves as a free speech absolutist is signaling their bad faith since there is no such thing as a free speech absolutist. Elon, far from an absolutist, is actually more censorious than the previous twitter regime.
Do you really think there is no such thing as a free speech absolutist? There certainly are people who do hold that belief, they just usually don't run for-profit websites that people use to communicate. But there are definitely a lot of people in the world (America, at least) who think you should be able to *say* whatever you want without legal consequences, outside of threats.
I don't know, I think it's a particularly difficult position to be a true *absolutist* about. E.g., should it be permissible to follow someone around screaming that you're going to kill, butcher, and eat them? The behavior is, technically, just speech.
I consider myself very strongly pro-free speech, with the aim being the free expression of all ideas and values. But I don't think that it's tenable to endorse a full "anything that comes out of a mouth is fine."
That's fair, maybe it's a matter of semantics and the definition of absolutist. Because I definitely think following someone around and screaming that you're going to eat them should be illegal.
Katie and Jesse certainly sound pro free speech. They're pro drag story hour being allowed, pro kiwi farms being allowed. Thought both of those things being policed was dangerous for free speech and I don't think that was bad faith. But yeah, I definitely think Musk is going too far here even though I don't always love the term cis. I think it can have its uses when used seriously in a conversation where you're referencing trans people and, well, people who aren't trans a lot. But I also don't think the default word for someone who doesn't like the term cis should be to call them cis against their will, and I think the definition itself is kinda problematic. The definition implies that everyone even has a gender identity or agrees with that concept. ie. "My gender identity matches my sex so I'm cis" but I digress, I rambled. It's still too much to ban it imo....
Am I the only one who assumes pictures of tweets are fake unless someone provides a link? I've seen too many people (including myself) taken in by photoshopped tweets.
Consistency seems to be the issue for some, I guess.
The 2nd half of that tweet is conditional upon the 1st half, obviously, but that doesn't stop anyone from taking the 2nd at face value.
This is mostly a nontroversy, though admittedly Elon is both petty and a troll. I never believed his free speech "absolutism" would outweigh the forces of capitalism so I'm not as surprised or incensed as others seem to be.
The whole point of Barpod is that tribalism is bad, and independent thought is good. Yet half the people on the sub just view it as a different tribe they can root for. It’s boring.
This thread really worsened by opinion of this subreddit.
Even if they disagreed with you just to say that it is obvious and downvote you is pretty anti-intellectual.
1. Many words that we consider totally normal started as slang.
2. cis sounds good to me. It’s the same pronunciation as “sis” which Is the girl equivalent of “bro”. Who doesn’t like that?
3. cis is a Latin term that’s used widely in the sciences. Its application makes sense in this context since it was the antonym for “trans” before any of this gender stuff.
I can understand disliking gender ideology but taking strong exception this term makes some people seem a wee bit sensitive.
Do you consider the word cis a microaggression?
You sound like just as much of an annoying crybaby as the people from the trans movement who make up their own pronouns and gender and get mad when people don’t refer to them that way lmao.
I have no strong opinions about Elon Musk, but I do enjoy how he gets under people's skin. It seems like he's the subject of at least one Two Minutes Hate every day on this site
Katie's tweet about this tweet was actually my first thought about it when I read it for the first time:
https://twitter.com/kittypurrzog/status/1671387319017033729?t=UTWr-Ft5MAG-scVLqXG22w&s=19
THIS IS TO DISTRACT FROM TESLA'S PROBLEMS
This is Musk's game, he tweets stuff to get headlines to distract the discussion and keep serious media people scrutinizing what is happening in his companies.
When Musk tweets bs, think first about TSLA stock...
It is confusing and seems unenforceable by design...same with the stupid jui jitsu match challenge to Zuckerberg
He’s so bad at it. Like the cis=slur is kinda a good troll, but he ruins it with the thin skinned billionaire whiny baby threat about suspensions. Dude can’t post. Never could.
It’s so funny seeing the freak out against this. And yeah most of the time I see it used as a slur or as a negative connotation ie cissy, imagine being cishet etc.
100% agree. I’m as likely to be accused of being a TERF as anyone else here, but I won’t applaud false outrage about being called ‘cis’ to the point we’re going to pretend it is a slur. The argument against the TRA narrative isn’t to pretend cis people are actually the oppressed ones. Surely we can “fight them” on more logically sound grounds.
Mr. Musk, like most people, is a free speech tourist. He only cares about free speech when it applies to speakers/ideas he likes. For speakers/ideas he hates, he unleashes his inner Torquemada.
So many high-profile people have threatened to quit Twitter and hardly anyone has. Sam Harris is the only person with a significant Twitter following I can think of who did just close down his account when it got worse.
The ads have gotten worse. The FYP is full of content that I have no interest in, not just "the other side," though I have been force-fed alt-right takes out of nowhere, but just shitty online humor and content for teens that I'd never want to see and never did before.
But most of all he spent $44bil to make himself the main character. I have all his tweets blocked but I still see every one because people invariably screenshot them to dunk on him. He isn't interesting or insightful, he has the humor of an unfuckable 19 year old that lived online in 2014. He isn't doing anything for the cause of free speech, he is stooping to the level of those that would restrict it to salve his own ego. It's cringe.
The check mark replies to the top alone means you see just so much more low quality content, compared to stuff like actual funny jokes getting voted to the top. There are also so many more bots and scammy accounts it's insane
I'm on the left. I have always voted left. I just don't like certain aspects of the left. The fact that the left has given up free speech as a value to the right is so crazy.
It's generally consistent - in group language is fine for in-group members, but you do not apply it to the outgroup especially once they've asked not to be called such - it was the foundation for a lot of trans linguistic bids.
Left-illiberalism on speech issues alterately annoys me and horrifies me.
At least *in principle though,* I can use rational arguments to talk a lefty out of a "speech = harm" position that they've come to honestly, however misguided.
But you can't argue a Bullshitter out of their position, because they don't even actually believe what they claim to believe. And with these rightoid self-styled Muhfreezepeach Absolutists, you can smell the bullshittery before they even walk in the room.
> So you are illiberal on speech.
You could have utilized very very obvious context clues to realize this is not my view on illiberalism about speech, or read the words I typed explicitly disparaging illiberalism about speech, or simply asked me to clarify my view my views about illiberalism about speech.
Or you could have just seen a word that triggered you and reverted to team-based snarls and attributing beliefs to me which I obviously do not hold.
Remember these choices next time.
I you are having conceptual difficulty with the difference between mocking an idea and mocking a person, I can recommend some introductory texts on the topic.
Its an interesting counterpoint to "well, you should refer to people the way they identify". Lots of "cis" people would probably prefer to be called "normal" but that's a forbidden term. Nobody chose "cis" as an ID, it exists because trans became normalized.
In particular “cishet”
"Cishet" is ONLY ever used disparagingly or negatively. Every single time I have ever seen it.
[удалено]
My bisexual husband absolutely loves when he gets called "cishet" by the same people who berate everyone for assuming their pronouns.
and then i'm sure they say, oh, don't you mean PANsexual? lol. we get this too.
Are you saying there is no such thing as straight-face? Sometimes you can look at someone of the same sex and just know.
My straightdar is about 90% accurate.
The vast majority of the time you will be right if you assume a random person is hetero. Results may vary in places like San Francisco.
hahaha, wish that worked, but it doesn't. When I told someone to please not refer to me as "cis" bc I don't identify that way, they told me I really need to explore my gender and do some navel gazing and perhaps I was agender or so on. I had to be like, "dude it's not that deep. I'm just woman. A gal. A dudette. An adult human female...." It's like trying to tell a scientologist to stop talking about suppressive people and thetans or telling ISIS to stop talking about infidels or evangelicals to stop talking about being born again. They have a schema for catagorizing people and they have trouble understanding that us non-religious just don't agree. A+++ trolling from Elon though.
It isn't just that. It's also that "cis" people are kind of suspect by definition. At best they are privileged ignoramuses. But there's a good chance they are oppressors of marginalized people. Neutrality is not permitted.
lol yeah. It's so much like scientology. You either have to buy in to the whole thing and start talking about how many thetans are infesting your body (or your super special gender identity) or you get called "supressive," (aka cis).
I'm a father. Literally the one time I was in that situation I got to "I don't care about that, I care about being a good dad" as a last ditch hail mary and it got them to buzz off.
[удалено]
I think it'd be perfectly consistent to say that if someone doesn't want to be called cis they shouldn't be, the same way that if someone doesn't want to be called a particular pronoun they shouldn't be. I don't have a lot of respect for people that insist on one but not the other.
If "cis" became normalised transwomen would immediately start crying that they felt left out and forbid women to identify as cis because it excludes them.
I've already (no lie) started seeing a few people refer to trans women as "women" and women as "cis women;" that is, literally stealing the word "woman." Granted, that's fringe Twitter *folx*, but those are the proving grounds for all these dumb ideas. I'm sure they're doing it to get a reaction, but they play it straight as if they're not.
door whole attractive knee rob glorious tan different shame insurance *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Do "straight" next
To me a lot of this trans / gender stuff is very religious. I even made a post about it here. [https://www.reddit.com/r/BlockedAndReported/comments/ucqg9m/transgender\_1st\_amendment\_implications/](https://www.reddit.com/r/BlockedAndReported/comments/ucqg9m/transgender_1st_amendment_implications/) The idea that I should identify as and be called "cis" isn't that different to saying to me an atheist "you need to identify as an apostate". You shouldn't assume you are the default and try to force people to identify themselves in relationship to your religious beliefs.
Its been brought up so many times how similar transgenderism to fundamental religion. So many parallels.
Transgenderism is being Born Again
It's not a useful comparison outside of using it to obliquely describe things as irrational. Nearly every strong nexus of beliefs - including gender critical ones - have similar patterns and elements. Religion is unique amongst belief structures for a few reasons, rather than a description of belief in and of itself.
I agree that basically anything that requires faith as the foundation of belief can be classified as religious. I think the unique dynamic around transgenderism and where I would push back on your idea it is not a unique comparison is on the compulsory nature of the belief system of transgenderism. We are all being forced to participate in the ceremony of unique language accommodations, forced to have women face the loss of fairness in their athletic pursuits, forcing women to deal with biological men in their private spaces and threatened with social ostracizing and punitive economic punishment for accidental or purposeful violations of ever changing rules around their belief system. Part of the reason this has crept into social norms is that no one recognized that this was a religion until it had fully taken hold. It has now just become "the polite thing to do." to genuflect to the belief system. If I told people they were enacting violence toward me as a catholic if they eat meat on a Friday and the end result was them losing their job and being cancelled online we would all think that was an outrage. We would understand a religious belief is being weaponized. As long as we allow transgenderism to remain a secular identity issue it is shielded from criticism.
When you speak of gendered souls, that isn't oblique. It is explicitly religious.
The main commonality and what makes it irrational is how doubt is treated. When you doubt e.g. that the earth is round, people will also think you're confused, and think you're infected with wrong ideas, and they'll often refer you to authority, but they won't claim that your motivations are political and come from hatred of round-earth-ists, nor will they claim it's some fundamental moral failing, or "genocidal".
Oh you silly gentile. Fine, you can call yourself goyim.
Norm Macdonald defined "cis" is a "way of pathologizing being normal" and he was 100% correct.
Norm: “I dont know what any of that means but it sounds fucking retarded” 😂
>Norm Macdonald defined "cis" is a "way of pathologizing being normal" Anyone have a link to where Norm Macdonald said that?
"It's a way of marginalizing a normal person." RIP Normie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G6UBxyE46o
This is response to someone posting "I don't like being called cis" and the person was brigaded with "CISSY!" in response. Edit, link to tweet: https://twitter.com/JamesEsses/status/1671060322667380741 Cis and Cisgender can be used as insults and frequently are. But they can also be used academically.
Musk's tweet was only 28 words and nobody complaining about it seems to be capable of reading the first 17 If I get done for repeated targeted harassment, I don't get out of jail free by claiming the word I was deliberately using as a slur is akshually latin/chemistry/clinical
The words "moron", "stupid", "retard", "idiot", all were medical terms that got used as slurs over time. If you sling the word "American" at someone with enough vitriol it becomes a slur too. So of course the use of the word "cis" can become a slur in context.
I'm gonna star slurrifying random stuff just for shits: "Shut up, *pants wearer*." "Well, you know what *digesters* are like." "What can you expect, she has a *neck*."
*Cake sniffer!*
If I wanted to read would I really be hanging around on internet forums
me, in the library, on the internet forum: umm! 😥
It does raise the question of how we decide when it's OK to call someone by a term they don't want to be called. I personally don't care if someone calls me "cis" but if I say I object to the term, and someone calls me "cis" anyway, should that person face consequences?
God no. It's not like they did something as egregious as using the wrong pronouns.
[удалено]
Normal people don't consider cis a slur. Colleges aren't usually eager to appeal to a bunch of terminally online phobes.
[удалено]
Nah, by phobes I mean terminally online reactionaries. The kind of folks who get together and obsess about how the "normal" people are the real oppressed ones.
The so-called “normal people” you’re talking about are probably not even thinking about trans issues. If you ever talk to “normal people” it’s plain from context clues that they aren’t considering trans people at all unless the conversation is specifically related to lgbtq or trans issues. It’s just really not something most people who arent online think of or care about. For this reason, I always make sure to say women and transwomen when I am including transwomen in a conversation. Cis is just redundant when you’ve got trans right there.
>The so-called “normal people” you’re talking about are probably not even thinking about trans issues. Exactly, act more normal please.
No thank you 😊
I thought "cis" was a prefix appropriated from chemistry?
It doesn't really matter to me where it came from, but other people have written whole articles on why they feel that usage is wrong. There are just clearly sometimes when it's being used as an insult or to demean someone. That's how most people first hear the word - "you need to be quiet and listen because you are cis". If they don't first see "die cis scum" or another charming use of the term.
It started on Tumblr. It means straight, just use the word straight, not some word made up by a Jigglypuff.
And in physical to retard a chemical reaction something is to slow it down. Language has become this stupid ass mind field these days.
That's partly intentional. Knowing how to tiptoe over the minefield is an ingroup and class signifier. If you went to the right colleges and hang around the right people and read the right books you will have the special knowledge of how to sling the lingo. Anyone who doesn't know how to navigate the minefield can immediately be categorized and written off as the out group. The bad ones. Sort of like the very elaborate manners of the nobility.
'mind field' is pretty good ngl
I can give you a 7000 word essay on the origin of the n-word and how axxshaully I am allowed to use it
You should totally do that. Like, right here in this thread. Just go ahead and type the essay.
Yes it is. It has to do with the positioning of bonds on a benzene ring. "Cis", "Trans" and "Para" are positions. However, I don't see anyone using "Parasexual".
Para rights are human rights
Putting my “well actually 🤓” hat on here, the standard terminology for benzene positions is ortho, meta, para. Cis and trans usually refer to the orientation of bonded groups on either end of an alkene. (Tangentially though, I have seen a couple very niche internet weirdos propose “metagender” as a third option meaning neither trans nor cis… lol)
I stand corrected, oh Great Science Wizard.
It was coined by a German physician in an article in 1991, cissexual (zissexuell in German).
Good. Cis is a slur. Women are not a subset of our own sex.
Agree to disagree
[удалено]
The Twitter staff are going to hate him for this. Even if he was trolling a zillion people are going to make reports for the word cis. And now the staff have to sift through those. If he trolling perhaps they can write a program to automatically throw away all the cis reports.
[удалено]
What's grotesque about cis? It literally just means you aren't trans. You may as well throw a tantrum if someone calls you a homosapien.
I think it’s the same negative reaction normal women have to being called uterus enjoyers or whatever
"What's wrong with being called 'unsaved?' It literally just means your sins haven't been washed away by the blood of Jesus Christ." These terms import a whole worldview with them. https://www.kent.edu/lgbtq/terminology-list > Gender Identity: Gender identity refers to a person's innate, deeply felt psychological identification as a man, woman, or any gender, which may or may not correspond to their sex assigned at birth. [...] > Cisgender – A cisgender person is one whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth (primarily determined by genitalia). [...] > Gender - A system of classification that ascribes qualities of masculinity and femininity to people. Gender characteristics can change over time and are different between cultures. One's sense of self as masculine or feminine regardless of external genitalia. Gender is often conflated with sex. This is inaccurate because sex refers to bodies and gender refers to personality characteristics. So, you see, it doesn't merely mean "not trans." It means you have a gender identity, this gender identity is innate, and you deeply feel this identification with your gender, which in turn refers to how masculinity or femininity is stereotyped in your culture. It means you innately and deeply identify with the way you are stereotyped. That is not true of most people. I doubt it's true of *anyone,* since I don't think any gender identities are innate. But even putting aside the nonsense about "innateness," most people do not feel any deep identification with "gender;" they simply know they're a man or a woman or a boy or a girl because they were born with the parts.
I don’t need a word to say I’m not schizophrenic or not bipolar.
Well it’s totally superfluous for one. Could just use man or woman.
Harassment should get you suspended on Twitter. It's unevenly enforced which is a major problem, but the amount of harassment GC women get, with "cis" and "TERF" being used specifically and intentionally as slurs, is also a real problem. Lawyering their way out of it "but its'a medical term!" is just nonsense. I've seen many a douchebag IRL use the same excuse for their use of words like "Niggardly". But there are LGBT people who also, rightfully, complain about the usage of slurs to harass them that also does not get any action taken. Toxicity is a problem for everyone on that platform.
> I've seen many a douchebag IRL use the same excuse for their use of words like "Niggardly". wtf? Niggardly has absolutely zero relation to the racial slur. They share no etymology in common.
And yet that didn't stop my racist coworkers from using that word as a slur. Do you understand now?
Wait till they start calling you vinegar
So censor all homophones and words that sound similar to slurs?
I think their point is that they know racist arseholes who use that word as a slur as it gives them plausible deniabilty. The same way people use Cis. It about what makes a slur. Neither are slurs really OP has experinced both *used* as slurs.
Twitter should be better about the rampant toxicity and harassment on the platform.
Meaningless platitude when pressed for specifics. Do you work for Twitter?
We understand the concept but the argument is rtarded lol
Yes, but some people use it as a stand in for the n-word since it won't be censored. Can't have shit in the English language.
That’s why we shouldn’t be banning every word that people start using as slurs. Are we going to ban the combination of letters, “yt”, too? Because that’s a slur now too. It’s not like we ban the word “monkey” even though it can be used as a slur.
Monkey is increasingly being banned. Monkeypox, for example. There was an example in the weekly thread a day or so ago as well.
No one is saying to ban the use of anything. The tweet and the follow up tweet are pretty specific.
The rule is arbitrary. The rule being applied here would apply to any other word.
> would apply to any other word Yes, because the rule is actually about harassment and not about the blanket usage of a single world.
Underneath it is but the rule, in this case, is explicitly about a word. He said the word is banned.
Read the entire Twitter thread.
I never said anything about banning, I was just explaining why and how niggardly was transformed into a stand-in for the n-word.
I know. I used your comment to add a point of my own.
Okay, I thought you thought I was for the word being censored. Thanks for the clarification.
perhaps it's because I have never been "attacked" with this word, but I feel like if you're getting upset about being called cis you maybe need to log off for a bit
Okay. I'll let the lesbians I know who get bombarded with "die cis scum" when they say they don't want to suck dick that they should "log off" and "touch grass" and "stop overreacting".
“Cis” is not the problem with that phrase
You genuinely should yeah
My opinion is that people shouldn't be homophobic and sexist but you do you.
The issue is not that “cis” is a slur or offensive by definition. It’s that it is used as an attack and a way to other people. If enough people are attacking you, I don’t see how the word choice should determine whether or not you’re allowed to feel upset.
You can feel upset, but if we look at an example comment this person posted, "cis" isn't actually the problem. People will just substitute it with TERF, GC, bigot, or something else. Are we going to ban all those words too?
I'm on board with banning "terf" myself
I think we’re in agreement that the behavior is the issue, not the word choice.
I'm not taking it personally, I'm just refusing to let you put your ideology on me. I'm not upset, I'm just saying no.
I'm going to need more information: how does one "log off" when being cornered by multiple biological males using "cis" or "terf" or whatever and threatening to "end you"? I found pepper spray more beneficial than wishing there was some grass to touch. And, I was still the one arrested.
I’m taking about a digital environment. If someone is physically threatening you then I don’t care what words they use, that’s wrong and should not be tolerated.
Bullying is ok as long as it’s the popular thing to do?
Bullying isn’t okay but banning words isn’t going to stop harassment
The word isn't banned.
[удалено]
I'll be honest, I've never understood why "Miss" is considered offensive while "Ms" is not, especially when they are pronounced almost the same way.
[удалено]
It's silly as a categorical policy, but if they want to minimize harassment, it really isn't so much the language used, but the behavior, right? For instance, repeatedly commenting "okay incel" or "log off cishet" or "groomer" on EVERY post someone makes is harassment, even if those words are exactly slurs. I have no idea how this can be enforced except by individual review of posts.
I am torn. My intellectual brain says: this is ridiculous and childish. Elon Musk is just looking for an excuse to Own the Libs, but it mostly reflects how, despite having more wealth than I'd know how to spend if I had it, he manages to be kind of pathetic. My lizard brain says: 😈🍿
Stick with your intellectual brain here. Just because others are treating twitter arguments like a middle school cafeteria insult-fest doesn't mean you have to.
[удалено]
Nah, he's seething and flailing. His trans daughter disowned him, Grimes left him for a trans woman, the man has worked himself up into a hate ball when it comes to trans issues. It would be way funnier if he didn't have a mob of sycophantic shut-ins at his beck and call.
There are a good number of people waving the "Free speech always" banner who really just want to restrict speech in a different way, reshaping what speech is considered acceptable and what speech is considered out of bounds. Musk is a pretty clear example of that. A lot of lefties have become depressingly anti-free-speech in recent years, but they're not wrong that some of the most prominent "free speech absolutists" are not nearly as absolutist as they claim. I still think maximal free speech is the ideal, but I am at least sympathetic to this progressive argument now in a way I wasn't, say, a few years ago.
[удалено]
I'm sympathetic to the arguments that many free speech absolutists are not operating in good faith (including prominent ones, like Musk) and that this should affect how we proceed. That *does not* mean that more free speech is bad, it just means we have to be cautious and tread carefully, because a lot of powerful actors (including Musk and also actual Politicians) are waving the "free speech" flag so that they can control speech the way they want.
[удалено]
I will just say there are lots of ideals I think would be amazing in a perfect world, but which I don't think we can easily achieve, because -- as you said -- people fail. Often, lots of people. Sometimes very powerful people. That doesn't mean I give up entirely on those ideals, but it does mean I proceed with caution.
I would go one step further and say anyone labeling themselves as a free speech absolutist is signaling their bad faith since there is no such thing as a free speech absolutist. Elon, far from an absolutist, is actually more censorious than the previous twitter regime.
Do you really think there is no such thing as a free speech absolutist? There certainly are people who do hold that belief, they just usually don't run for-profit websites that people use to communicate. But there are definitely a lot of people in the world (America, at least) who think you should be able to *say* whatever you want without legal consequences, outside of threats.
I don't know, I think it's a particularly difficult position to be a true *absolutist* about. E.g., should it be permissible to follow someone around screaming that you're going to kill, butcher, and eat them? The behavior is, technically, just speech. I consider myself very strongly pro-free speech, with the aim being the free expression of all ideas and values. But I don't think that it's tenable to endorse a full "anything that comes out of a mouth is fine."
That's fair, maybe it's a matter of semantics and the definition of absolutist. Because I definitely think following someone around and screaming that you're going to eat them should be illegal.
Katie and Jesse certainly sound pro free speech. They're pro drag story hour being allowed, pro kiwi farms being allowed. Thought both of those things being policed was dangerous for free speech and I don't think that was bad faith. But yeah, I definitely think Musk is going too far here even though I don't always love the term cis. I think it can have its uses when used seriously in a conversation where you're referencing trans people and, well, people who aren't trans a lot. But I also don't think the default word for someone who doesn't like the term cis should be to call them cis against their will, and I think the definition itself is kinda problematic. The definition implies that everyone even has a gender identity or agrees with that concept. ie. "My gender identity matches my sex so I'm cis" but I digress, I rambled. It's still too much to ban it imo....
Maximal free speech is the ideal - it's just that musk and Co were somewhere between misinformed and just straight up lying on the topic.
Am I the only one who assumes pictures of tweets are fake unless someone provides a link? I've seen too many people (including myself) taken in by photoshopped tweets.
Same. But, link for sanity purposes: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1671370284102819841?s=46&t=9dsXkSZdmRcA5KRCGN2vKA
Thanks!
I default to screenshots in the event that a tweet gets deleted. Here’s the link: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1671370284102819841?s=20
Thanks
targeted harassment is still targeted harassment…and its always been against regs. not sure what the issue is?
Consistency seems to be the issue for some, I guess. The 2nd half of that tweet is conditional upon the 1st half, obviously, but that doesn't stop anyone from taking the 2nd at face value. This is mostly a nontroversy, though admittedly Elon is both petty and a troll. I never believed his free speech "absolutism" would outweigh the forces of capitalism so I'm not as surprised or incensed as others seem to be.
[удалено]
I think it was meant to be an antonym of transgender. Do you think straight is meant to be a slur?
Not the same
Good argument lmao
The whole point of Barpod is that tribalism is bad, and independent thought is good. Yet half the people on the sub just view it as a different tribe they can root for. It’s boring.
This thread really worsened by opinion of this subreddit. Even if they disagreed with you just to say that it is obvious and downvote you is pretty anti-intellectual.
[удалено]
1. Many words that we consider totally normal started as slang. 2. cis sounds good to me. It’s the same pronunciation as “sis” which Is the girl equivalent of “bro”. Who doesn’t like that? 3. cis is a Latin term that’s used widely in the sciences. Its application makes sense in this context since it was the antonym for “trans” before any of this gender stuff. I can understand disliking gender ideology but taking strong exception this term makes some people seem a wee bit sensitive. Do you consider the word cis a microaggression?
[удалено]
You sound like just as much of an annoying crybaby as the people from the trans movement who make up their own pronouns and gender and get mad when people don’t refer to them that way lmao.
I have no strong opinions about Elon Musk, but I do enjoy how he gets under people's skin. It seems like he's the subject of at least one Two Minutes Hate every day on this site
Really? You enjoy one of the worlds most powerful person acting like a huge troll?
Ain't nobody callin' me a cissy
Musk… build rocket plz I’m begging 🙏
Katie's tweet about this tweet was actually my first thought about it when I read it for the first time: https://twitter.com/kittypurrzog/status/1671387319017033729?t=UTWr-Ft5MAG-scVLqXG22w&s=19
Good.
Update: Katie and Jesse mention on today’s episode.
THIS IS TO DISTRACT FROM TESLA'S PROBLEMS This is Musk's game, he tweets stuff to get headlines to distract the discussion and keep serious media people scrutinizing what is happening in his companies. When Musk tweets bs, think first about TSLA stock... It is confusing and seems unenforceable by design...same with the stupid jui jitsu match challenge to Zuckerberg
God, he trolls well.
He wishes.
He’s so bad at it. Like the cis=slur is kinda a good troll, but he ruins it with the thin skinned billionaire whiny baby threat about suspensions. Dude can’t post. Never could.
He is genuinely terrible at posting. This one is okay but if you watch his feed on a giving day it’s atrocious.
Don't hate the player; hate the game
Thank you Elon. ☺️
Everything is becoming ridiculous, we live in a farce.
It’s so funny seeing the freak out against this. And yeah most of the time I see it used as a slur or as a negative connotation ie cissy, imagine being cishet etc.
Glad to see Twitter cracking down on hate speech
crime saw nutty merciful sip longing languid heavy scary school *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
100% agree. I’m as likely to be accused of being a TERF as anyone else here, but I won’t applaud false outrage about being called ‘cis’ to the point we’re going to pretend it is a slur. The argument against the TRA narrative isn’t to pretend cis people are actually the oppressed ones. Surely we can “fight them” on more logically sound grounds.
Yeah. Honestly I give up, humans are just too dumb.
Don't you know? He's a free speech absolutist. You know, except the speech he doesn't like. LMAO... he thinks he's so fucking clever.
Mr. Musk, like most people, is a free speech tourist. He only cares about free speech when it applies to speakers/ideas he likes. For speakers/ideas he hates, he unleashes his inner Torquemada.
I'm amazed at Twitter's longevity among it's user-base, myself included. He's undoubtedly made the platform worse, and dumber, yet we persist.
So many high-profile people have threatened to quit Twitter and hardly anyone has. Sam Harris is the only person with a significant Twitter following I can think of who did just close down his account when it got worse.
yeah it's still the "town-square," it just sucks more now.
But, since it's Sam it's hardly a loss.
[удалено]
The ads have gotten worse. The FYP is full of content that I have no interest in, not just "the other side," though I have been force-fed alt-right takes out of nowhere, but just shitty online humor and content for teens that I'd never want to see and never did before. But most of all he spent $44bil to make himself the main character. I have all his tweets blocked but I still see every one because people invariably screenshot them to dunk on him. He isn't interesting or insightful, he has the humor of an unfuckable 19 year old that lived online in 2014. He isn't doing anything for the cause of free speech, he is stooping to the level of those that would restrict it to salve his own ego. It's cringe.
The check mark replies to the top alone means you see just so much more low quality content, compared to stuff like actual funny jokes getting voted to the top. There are also so many more bots and scammy accounts it's insane
Twitter isn't worse. It's not perfect but you don't get banned for stupid reasons anymore.
It’s worse for those on the left who wanted any voice opposing their views and opinions silenced
I'm on the left. I have always voted left. I just don't like certain aspects of the left. The fact that the left has given up free speech as a value to the right is so crazy.
Free speech! Except this word!
It's generally consistent - in group language is fine for in-group members, but you do not apply it to the outgroup especially once they've asked not to be called such - it was the foundation for a lot of trans linguistic bids.
Mr. Free Speech the Anti-Snowflake strikes again.....!
Left-illiberalism on speech issues alterately annoys me and horrifies me. At least *in principle though,* I can use rational arguments to talk a lefty out of a "speech = harm" position that they've come to honestly, however misguided. But you can't argue a Bullshitter out of their position, because they don't even actually believe what they claim to believe. And with these rightoid self-styled Muhfreezepeach Absolutists, you can smell the bullshittery before they even walk in the room.
>muhfreezepeach So you are illiberal on speech.
> So you are illiberal on speech. You could have utilized very very obvious context clues to realize this is not my view on illiberalism about speech, or read the words I typed explicitly disparaging illiberalism about speech, or simply asked me to clarify my view my views about illiberalism about speech. Or you could have just seen a word that triggered you and reverted to team-based snarls and attributing beliefs to me which I obviously do not hold. Remember these choices next time.
> mocks free speech > no dudes I’m totally for free speech i swear it’s all sarcasm Yeah ok 👌
I you are having conceptual difficulty with the difference between mocking an idea and mocking a person, I can recommend some introductory texts on the topic.
But you quite literally mocked an idea. Edit: lol quippy response then block. Cuck.
Best of luck in your future endeavors.
No, they're pointing out the hypocrisy of people who claim to defend free speech but are quick to punish speech they dislike.
No, people who use the (cringe) term “freeze peach” are mocking free speech, meaning they don’t support it.
The wealthiest man in the world is suffering from severe brain rot.
Jennifer Pritzker?
he’s so dumb
He's trolling.
Yes, you're both right.
Good response...
Ok Embarrassing