New trans laws

[Wayward Son]

Political correctness, my @ss.  You are the sick puppy here, Crunch.

Let me explain in case you don't realize it.

The issue here is NOT what the particular individual did in the women's locker room.  The issue here, which YOU brought up, is whether this particular incident is showing how perverts will be able to use allowing trans people in women's bathrooms to display themselves, as the idiot Right has been preaching for years.  Or as you put it:

There was no imagination here, it happened. The trick now is that any pervert can whip it out in front of women and children as long as he puts on a quick dab of lipstick and says the magic words, "I identify as a woman."

... So scared, in fact, that you'll sign off on the sexual assault of children to avoid even the appearance of intolerance. Men forcing women and children to look at their penis is not something we should normalize.

The point here is no one was forced to look at this.  This was a well-known spa for trans people.  Anyone who went in there with their daughters should have known that they may see someone with male genitals in the women's locker room.  Just like anyone going to a nudist colony would expect to see male genitals.  Like anyone going to a nude beach would expect to see male genitals.  No one forced them to go to that spa.  No one was compelled.  It was their choice.

Now if this guy is a known pervert, if this guy isn't living a trans lifestyle all the time, then yes, throw him in jail for indecent exposure.  I see no reason to protect such perverts.

But what was the result of this incident?  Did the woman who made it go viral ask for his arrest?  No, she asked for her money back.  Because she didn't like that trans people were using the facility.  She didn't like that people with male genitals were allowed in the women's locker room.  She didn't like what she knew what she might see.

And, as a result, there was a violent protest calling for the place to be closed down.  Because these people didn't like the idea that there was a place where trans people could use the facilities that corresponded with their preferred sex.

They were blaming trans people for this pervert.  And, by statement or implication, so were you.  Because you brought this up as an example of how allowing trans people to use the facilities of their choice would lead to perverts using it with impunity.

They can still arrest this guy for indecent exposure if they want to.  I have no problem with that.  But I do have a problem of calling it the fault of trans people or this facility.

If this is the proof you're using for how allowing trans people to use women's facilities will allow perverts to expose themselves, then you'd better start calling every nudist a person defending perverts, and every person who's ever gone to a nude beach a person defending perverts.  Because, believe it or not, your premise that a male just exposing his naked body is always a crime is WRONG.  It is NOT a crime.  And saying it is, just to pick on trans people, is a perversion of logic and morals.  It's bullying a persecuted minority mainly because you can.  And I HATE bullies like that.

So you can take your "political correctness" and shove it where the sun don't shine.  Because you're the one using prejudice and illogic to bring irrational hatred against a group that has never done you any harm.  If there's a pervert around here, it's YOU.

[Seriati]

The issue here is NOT what the particular individual did in the women's locker room.  The issue here, which YOU brought up, is whether this particular incident is showing how perverts will be able to use allowing trans people in women's bathrooms to display themselves...

To be fair they're both issues, there isn't just one "the issue," in this context.  Everything about trans rights is caught up in other rights with no easy answers.

On this point though, it seems ridiculous to argue that persons that are motivated by illegal and deviant sexuality are not going to use this kind of privilege to achieve their actual goals.  Such individuals already use every single institution of society, from religion, to schools, to volunteer situations, to helping families out to achieve their goals, why on earth would they not use this?  Seriously, if you get pleasure from exposing yourself to the opposite sex why wouldn't you use this as a "get out of jail free card"?

The fact that this individual was charged is pretty clear evidence that someone with actual knowledge of the situation thinks that there was something inappropriate going on. 

It's better to call out a fake transexual than to defend one as significant to trans rights.  What's the alternative, the no true Scotsman defense?   How'd that work out for Catholic Priests and Boy Scout Leaders?
 

..., as the idiot Right has been preaching for years.

More accurately, as the Right "preached years ago."  No one but the Left has been preaching for at least a decade, and their intolerance and hate is growing at an astronomical rate.

The point here is no one was forced to look at this.

Didn't you once claim that Say Anything was an example of sexual abuse?  How can it not be sexual abuse to expose yourself for sexual gratification in this context?  Arguing they don't have to look at someone whose sexual gratification depends on making them look is the very essence of blaming the victim.

This was a well-known spa for trans people.

Transpeople and Exhibitionists are not the same thing, why on Earth would you "go there"?  Seriously, take a step back, you've jumped the shark if you're serious about trans rights.  Consent to changing in a mixed trans locker room, is not consent to non-consensual visual sex acts.

Now if this guy is a known pervert, if this guy isn't living a trans lifestyle all the time, then yes, throw him in jail for indecent exposure.  I see no reason to protect such perverts.

Did you miss that Crunch was pointing out that the guy is in fact a known pervert with prior convictions?  Other articles from the same day certainly pointed out that he was charged in connection with this event.  Depending on the article you have several dozen criminal convictions, including priors for indecent exposure for sexual purposes, and the guy is a registered sex offender.

But what was the result of this incident?  Did the woman who made it go viral ask for his arrest?  No, she asked for her money back.  Because she didn't like that trans people were using the facility.  She didn't like that people with male genitals were allowed in the women's locker room.  She didn't like what she knew what she might see.

She didn't like a sexually aroused man using her and her daughters as his live porn.  Has nothing at all to do with sharing a locker room for the purpose of changing clothes.  I've never once been in a men's locker room where someone was sitting around staring at other men undressing and getting aroused.  It's just not done and it has nothing to do with who is straight and who is gay.

They were blaming trans people for this pervert.  And, by statement or implication, so were you.  Because you brought this up as an example of how allowing trans people to use the facilities of their choice would lead to perverts using it with impunity.

That seems to be exactly what was happening here.  Why do we have to turn it into a trans rights issue before the facts are known?

They can still arrest this guy for indecent exposure if they want to.  I have no problem with that.  But I do have a problem of calling it the fault of trans people or this facility.

Whose fault is it when someone reports a crime and the facility and the trans-community assume that it's not a crime but rather intolerance?  The idea you seem to be espousing is that those with a chip on their shoulders are entitled to abuse others without the facts and not be responsible.

If this is the proof you're using for how allowing trans people to use women's facilities will allow perverts to expose themselves, then you'd better start calling every nudist a person defending perverts, and every person who's ever gone to a nude beach a person defending perverts.

Neither example makes the least bit of sense.

Because, believe it or not, your premise that a male just exposing his naked body is always a crime is WRONG.  It is NOT a crime.  And saying it is, just to pick on trans people, is a perversion of logic and morals.  It's bullying a persecuted minority mainly because you can.  And I HATE bullies like that.

Do you see no irony in bullying someone yourself here?  If you had facts then you'd be entitled to be self-righteous, but in this circumstance?  Not so much.  Crunch found the pervert in the haystack and you want to chew him out as a matter of trans rights?  A pervert abusing the system is not the fault of the trans community or their allies, going off half cocked and defending a pervert actually is their fault.  It's like someone defending the sexually molesting catholic priest rather than other priests that are not molesters, but even worse because in this case you should have some doubt about this person actually being trans at all.   

So you can take your "political correctness" and shove it where the sun don't shine.  Because you're the one using prejudice and illogic to bring irrational hatred against a group that has never done you any harm.  If there's a pervert around here, it's YOU.

And see that's stunning.  You're literally defending a multiple felon, registered sex offender, because rather than listen to the victims as to why they reported him - you know for getting erect and staring at the changing females in the room - you jumped on the "facts don't matter band wagon" because this could have been about an actual trans phobic encounter, even though it actually wasn't.

[Wayward Son]

It's the jumbling of issues from which the transphobia comes from, Seriati.

The original "complaint" was that the woman couldn't get her money back because she saw a person with a penis in the women's locker room.  This caused protests against the spa.  Is that not correct?

AFAIK, there was no mention of an erect penis in the original complaint.  And it is a well-known trans-friendly spa, so how could she be surprised to see a penis in the women's locker room? 

I certainly don't remember Crunch mentioning an erect penis.  I do recall him saying that just walking naked in front of women is a felony, and anyone who would defend such a person is defending perverts.  And saying that was exactly what I was doing.

Furthermore, even if the penis was erect, why is this the spa fault?  The person who displayed his genital thusly is the one responsible for it, not the spa.  If the spa allows biological males in the women's locker room so long as they keep their junk in the normal condition, and everyone knows this can or will happen, how are they to enforce the status of that junk?   They can throw the person out afterwards, or hand them over to the police, but that's about it.

So why were there protests against the spa?  Why blame them for allowing trans people to use the women's locker room?  And as I asked before, if this happened at a nudist colony, would there be right-wing protests calling for the closing of all nudist colonies because they allow exhibitionists to display themselves in front of girls? Do you somehow believe that that has never happened, that these perverts, who you believe are perfectly willing to dress and act like women all of the time, would pass up this easier opportunity?  If so, why haven't we seen such violent protests for the past 90 years or so?

The outrage is not because this was a spa where males were allowed to walk naked in front of females.  It's because this was a spa where trans people were allowed to walk naked in front of females.  That's the source of the outrage, for the protesters and for Crunch.

The guy's been charged.  He'll have his day in court.  He's being treated just as if he were a cis man walking into a women's locker room and showing his erect junk.  It could happen at any bathroom anywhere at any time.  So why is this somehow trans people's fault since it happened at a trans spa?

[Fenring]

The outrage is not because this was a spa where males were allowed to walk naked in front of females.  It's because this was a spa where trans people were allowed to walk naked in front of females.  That's the source of the outrage, for the protesters and for Crunch.

That's an awfully forward assumption. I don't see how you could be sure that the issue is whether the person is trans or not, versus, as you yourself put it, that there's a biological male being mixed in with biological females in a changing room. It seems really self-evident why there are people who protest against this sort of thing, and I find it odd that you don't immediately see the reason. Advocacy for trans people in women's changing rooms is going to sound identical to some people as saying just let men into women's changing rooms, like it or not. You can disagree with that designation, but making it about trans rights may be mistaking the matter.

[Seriati]

It's the jumbling of issues from which the transphobia comes from, Seriati.

The original "complaint" was that the woman couldn't get her money back because she saw a person with a penis in the women's locker room.  This caused protests against the spa.  Is that not correct?

No.  That's not correct.

I repeat, that is not correct.

That's how it was reported by certain people, which generated a controversy.

AFAIK, there was no mention of an erect penis in the original complaint.  And it is a well-known trans-friendly spa, so how could she be surprised to see a penis in the women's locker room? 

Why don't you read that again.  Why would someone at a trans-friendly spa be surprised to see a penis?  They wouldn't be.

They would be surprised to see a man with an erection staring at them while they're changing or partially nude.  Heck they might report something like that to management....

I certainly don't remember Crunch mentioning an erect penis.

And how much research exactly did YOU do on the point before you ASSUMED it was a transphobic attack?  It wasn't an obscure story, it was widely reported, but a large large number of the reports were silent on significant details - that's a big tip off that there's more there than the writer wants you to see.

Furthermore, even if the penis was erect, why is this the spa fault?  The person who displayed his genital thusly is the one responsible for it, not the spa.

Because it was reported to the spa and they decided to treat it as trasphobia rather than deal with a sexual predation.  That's exactly how the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts become "responsible" for the actions of predators in their ranks. 

Face it, it's human nature to explain away a situation where two people are telling contradictory stories (a classic he said, she said, for example) in the way that involves the least action on their own part.  They don't know what happened so they extend the benefit of the doubt to the person that they believe is more aligned with themselves.  It's not hard to see why a trans-friendly spa would choose to believe the person that they believe is trans rather than the person they believe is the bigot.

If the spa was aware that the individual was registered sex offender with multiple sex and non-sex related convictions would they have handled it the same way?  Very doubtful.

If the spa allows biological males in the women's locker room so long as they keep their junk in the normal condition, and everyone knows this can or will happen, how are they to enforce the status of that junk?   They can throw the person out afterwards, or hand them over to the police, but that's about it.

They should in fact remove the individual if the situation appears deliberate.  No one should be held accountable merely for getting an erection, but combine that with lewd looks and it takes on a different connotation. 

Here they could also have refunded the money to the person that was assaulted (that's just good business though).

So why were there protests against the spa?

Because like you, people on the other side assumed the situation and were offended.

Why blame them for allowing trans people to use the women's locker room?

Because that's the "but for" proximate cause of the issue.

 

And as I asked before, if this happened at a nudist colony, would there be right-wing protests calling for the closing of all nudist colonies because they allow exhibitionists to display themselves in front of girls?

Nudist colonies face legal problems all the time, and not just from the right.  Whether you get it or not people on the left are just as nasty about issues in their back yard.  They want nudist rights for people in other communities, or even other neighborhoods.  I've lived around elite leftists for decades and they are overwhelming virtue signally persons that are also racists, sexists and homophobes.  Everyone of them puts a sign in their yard supporting gay rights until their kid starts dating someone of the same sex, they pass any number of ordinances and restrictions to prevent any poor black or brown kids from being able to intermingle with their own kids and if those fail they pull their kids out of school and send them to private schools or private club activities and then they put a BLM poster in their yard to show their solidarity.

Do you somehow believe that that has never happened, that these perverts, who you believe are perfectly willing to dress and act like women all of the time, would pass up this easier opportunity?

First of all, it's only your delusion that requires they dress as women all the time.  Do you think the spa conducted a background interview of every person to confirm that their decision was a full time choice?  Again, you're mixing up trans people with predators.  Predators do what it takes, and yes they would dress full time if they had to in order to maintain access.

But more relevant, nudist colonies, Boy Scouts, even the Catholic Church are much harder targets specifically because they've been hit before and are on guard.  Every adult that spends time with a Boy Scout troop (even a parent that goes on a camping trip) has to go through training to spot and report harrasment. Effectively the Boy Scouts view every adult as a mandatory reporter.  Do you think any woke spa believes that's necessary? 

For the moment, trans-friendly policies implemented by the ideological are hampered by attitudes like you're expressing that to take precautions is somehow offensive to trans people.   But ask yourself why?  Why on earth would trans-people want to protect predators?  They don't.  They don't want to be falsely accused of being predators for living their lives, but that's actually a different issue.  Your overreaction is literally counterproductive.  The goal should be to create a trans-friendly environment WITHOUT opening the door to the level of abuse we've seen in other organizations that didn't believe they had to be on guard.  People on your team need to wake up and relax the ideology to accept that some people will abuse ANY situation and that implementing reasonable safeguards in advance will protect trans people and prevent backsliding counter reactions.

Or do you think that everyone still has exactly as much respect for the Catholic Church as they did before the scandals were revealed?   You already know the answer, some people will ALWAYS hate that church and even it's innocent members.  Is that really where you want to see transfriendly policies end up?

If so, why haven't we seen such violent protests for the past 90 years or so?

Because the point is nonsense and nudists have going out of their way to keep their activities private.

The outrage is not because this was a spa where males were allowed to walk naked in front of females.  It's because this was a spa where trans people were allowed to walk naked in front of females.  That's the source of the outrage, for the protesters and for Crunch.

So would you see  problem with a spa that advertised that women and children are nude and that men are permitted to watch them and masturbate?

Why are you reducing the issue to eliminate considering an uncomfortable problem?  Whether or not the "other" side has bad or good motives - and you really don't know - your defense is still wrong.  You're hurting trans people by refusing to accept that predators can be differentiated from them. 

The guy's been charged.  He'll have his day in court.  He's being treated just as if he were a cis man walking into a women's locker room and showing his erect junk.  It could happen at any bathroom anywhere at any time.  So why is this somehow trans people's fault since it happened at a trans spa?

I can't even fathom the pretzels you're working through in your mind to frame that question.  Maybe point out the "nudist" spa that allows men and female children to be in the same area and has no issue with the men having erections and staring?  Can you even find one outside of Thailand?

By the way "cis" is a nonsense word crafted to sound negative.  Maybe if you're going to hold to your ideals you should reconsider using it, unless you think other words that are negative that describe people's gender, race and sexuality are also okay to use?

[TheDrake]

I'm not sure why the risk to opposite sex kids is any different than the risk to same gender kids that already exists. We currently don't scrutinize men going into the men's locker room to make sure they won't expose themselves to little boys in an inappropriate way.

[Seriati]

I'm not sure why the risk to opposite sex kids is any different than the risk to same gender kids that already exists. We currently don't scrutinize men going into the men's locker room to make sure they won't expose themselves to little boys in an inappropriate way.

And I'm not calling for scrutinizing trans-people either.  I guarantee you though that a spa takes seriously any man who seems to be trying to arouse themselves in a men's locker room.  That's not a gay phobia position.  I mean honestly, if you know any gay men ask them how arousing them find an average men's locker room.  Usually the answer is not at all.

I think most people could handle a uni-sex locker room without much risk.  You're not in the locker room for the purpose of seeking arousal, and you are not in there because you're consenting to other people using your body as a visual prop for arousal.

[oldbrian]

Seriati:

By the way "cis" is a nonsense word crafted to sound negative. 

This is the only time I have ever seen words appropriated from science where they are actually used correctly.  Or metaphorically correctly, at least.

Trans means crossed over or twisted, cis means straight.
Trans fats are such because the chemical bonds make them 'bent'.  Cis fats are straight.
 If anything, 'trans' is the word which is negative in connotation. 

The fact that you think 'cis' was made up just a few years ago, and never looked into where it came from is very ironic, since you are excoriating Wayward for not digging deeper into the story.

Crunch presented the story in the worst possible light, and that light was most definitely anti-trans.  (Whether the outrage was anti-trans or not, Crunch's presentation certainly was.)  I guarantee that if Crunch knew about the erection detail he would have included it.  Unless he was planning to do exactly what you did: get someone to argue against the anti-trans context, and then bring up the pervert aspect and pretend he (Wayward) was arguing on behalf of the man all along.

You used to be a much better interlocutor, Seriati. You were one of the posters I looked forward to hearing from, even though I disagreed with most of your positions.

[Fenring]

Trans means crossed over or twisted, cis means straight.
Trans fats are such because the chemical bonds make them 'bent'.  Cis fats are straight.
 If anything, 'trans' is the word which is negative in connotation. 

The fact that you think 'cis' was made up just a few years ago, and never looked into where it came from is very ironic, since you are excoriating Wayward for not digging deeper into the story.

I doubt Seriati meant that the word was literally made-up, as in not a real word, but rather that its syntactic usage has been made up in order to employ it as a negative-sounding prefix. Fwiw, I've never, ever heard it used in a way that sounded even neutral. The only purpose I've seen in its employment is to establish a position of privilege (or of ignorance), according to the theory.

[TheDeamon]

Seriati:

By the way "cis" is a nonsense word crafted to sound negative. 

This is the only time I have ever seen words appropriated from science where they are actually used correctly.  Or metaphorically correctly, at least.

Trans means crossed over or twisted, cis means straight.
Trans fats are such because the chemical bonds make them 'bent'.  Cis fats are straight.
 If anything, 'trans' is the word which is negative in connotation.

Then why not actually use the word that has been in use for decades? What's wrong with "Straight" itself? Oh right, they want "straight" in this context to just identify sexual preference, not-gender identity. While cis was to denote gender identity.

But then when they talk of "the cis-gendered," every context I've seen someone use that phrase in a "pro-trans writing" I've come across, they automatically assume "straight" for the sexuality.

Which means that while the specifics of Seriati's comment may have been off base, the sentiment was dead on as to how "the larger community" has adopted it in common usage. Cis is being used as a slur. The only exception is when they use it to reference themselves as "non-cis" in an attempt to avoid "abnormal," "non-normal", or "non-standard." Although going back to that previous point, why not just identify as "non-straight" in that context? That's basically how they're using cis in any case.

[NobleHunter]

Then why not actually use the word that has been in use for decades? What's wrong with "Straight" itself? Oh right, they want "straight" in this context to just identify sexual preference, not-gender identity. While cis was to denote gender identity.

But then when they talk of "the cis-gendered," every context I've seen someone use that phrase in a "pro-trans writing" I've come across, they automatically assume "straight" for the sexuality.

Which means that while the specifics of Seriati's comment may have been off base, the sentiment was dead on as to how "the larger community" has adopted it in common usage. Cis is being used as a slur. The only exception is when they use it to reference themselves as "non-cis" in an attempt to avoid "abnormal," "non-normal", or "non-standard." Although going back to that previous point, why not just identify as "non-straight" in that context? That's basically how they're using cis in any case.

If Cis implied straightness, the term cishet wouldn't exist. While cis gay might be used for clarity's sake, I've never seen cis used in isolation when the author means cishet. Straight has too many other meaning to be useful when you want to talk about non-trans people.

It may be used as a slur but so is gay, queer, and lesbian.  Given that every word queer people use to identify themselves gets turned into a slur eventually, whining about "cis" seems petty. It is really surprising that a word used by an oppressed (or at least a discriminated against) minority to refer to the majority can be imbued with negative meaning?

[Fenring]

It may be used as a slur but so is gay, queer, and lesbian.  Given that every word queer people use to identify themselves gets turned into a slur eventually, whining about "cis" seems petty. It is really surprising that a word used by an oppressed (or at least a discriminated against) minority to refer to the majority can be imbued with negative meaning?

It seems to me you may be confusing categories here, NH. I'm sure 'gay, queer, lesbian' and many other potentially neutral terms are used as slurs by certain social circles; probably those antagonistic to progressive-type people. Let's call them 'right wing' for short but that's a loaded term. But those terms are distinctly never used in a derogatory way by liberal people, whereas TheDeamon's point appears to be that it's left-wing people using the term 'cis' with a negative connotation. So let's not mix up apples and oranges here. One section of society should stick to its own principles and be consistent.

[NobleHunter]

Liberal people never use slurs against queer people? That would be nice.

I'd also assume that the only people who are using "cis" as a slur are trans people. So trying to generalize them to "left wing" is a stretch.

[Fenring]

Liberal people never use slurs against queer people? That would be nice.

Well you specifically said that "gay, queer, and lesbian" were the slurs being used, as a comparison to another supposedly neutral term, "cis". But to date I have heard these terms being used as slurs by liberal people so seldom that it's difficult to remember if I've really ever heard it at all. I didn't say that no one uses slurs at all, but we're specifically discussing whether these allegedly neutral terms in fact see play as slurs by the progressive left. I occasionally hear 'gay' used in the sense of "man that's so gay" as in bad, but in such cases I never really sense even a subtle jab at homosexual people in that kind of usage. I think West Coast bro slang uses the term like this sometimes. 'Queer' is totally out of the colloquial lexicon as far as I can tell, other than in direct reference to the queer community, and honestly the only people who ever use it are self-identified queer folk. As far as lesbian goes...you really hear people use the term as a slur by liberals? Seriously? And in Toronto of all places?

I'd also assume that the only people who are using "cis" as a slur are trans people. So trying to generalize them to "left wing" is a stretch.

I think you would find the opposite is true if it was possible to do a large data sampling; far more non-identifying people seem to make it their business to speak on behalf of those communities using inflammatory language than the actual communities seem to (in my experience, at least). I have some LGTB-community friends I've talked with on occasion about this, and it has been pointed out that it's often white knight crusaders who turn things ugly, so for instance if we examined things closely (which would take some exploratory investigation) I suspect we might well find that it's non-trans activists who are the most vehement and pugilistic, compared to the actual trans people they have taken it upon themselves to 'represent.'

[Seriati]

Seriati:

By the way "cis" is a nonsense word crafted to sound negative. 

The fact that you think 'cis' was made up just a few years ago, and never looked into where it came from is very ironic, since you are excoriating Wayward for not digging deeper into the story.

You used to be a much better interlocutor, Seriati. You were one of the posters I looked forward to hearing from, even though I disagreed with most of your positions.

Apologies for reordering your post.  You are right to call me out on how I said that, and I do apologize as I was aware that cis was a word when I made the post.  I was not aware that it had ever been used as a prefix prior to it being used in cisgender.  However, with further research it turns out it was used in the late 1800s to craft the word "cislunar" (cis fats appears to have been crafted after cisgender).  Cislunar actually refers to objects orbiting between the earth and the moon.   Still I should have said cisgender is a made up word (which is still less useful than it appears because all words are made up words), the beef is that it's a very recent word designed to label others.  Adopting the identity of being trans- is a choice of how one labels oneself, for others to label you as trans- can be insulting and inaccurate.  That's one of the more common uses for cis-gendered today, as a label to others and intended to be dismissive.

Literally it exists because certain people didn't like that we had a label to identify people who are transgendered because it made them appear to be different, atypical and not normal (all of which is objectively true just because of the comparative infrequency, but says nothing about it being negative).  The people that did that understood that the power of language is that a label inherently develops associations, many of which are negative, so they intentionally crafted a label to rename the default.  The correct words are male and female, or man and woman, when differentiation was needed, trans- and sometimes non-trans- were used. 

When you play this game, the new word has to sound negative or be negative, and be incapable of being deemed to be "normal" or of holding the neutral connotation.  Why?  Because if it's neutral or positive, then it recreates the exact feeling of exclusion that caused it to be formed in the first place.  We can't refer to biological male, for example, because it implies that others are less, if you invented a new word like "gender positive" to describe those people it automatically makes those that don't identify that way feel bad.  The new word has to be less than neutral sounding or it becomes a positive.  Effectively, it becomes a weapon.  You're not the normal, I'm trans- and you are cis- and we're both normal.  Similarly it can't just be a trans "range," even though that's far more accurate, so trans- becomes the biggest group it can be (e.g., everyone who's not 100% identifying with their birth gender so that "cis-" can be the smallest and narrowest possible group (e.g., only those who are 100% identifying with their birth gender).  But that's actually incredibly repressive when you consider what gender actually means these days, are "tom boys" no longer part of "cis-" girls and now "trans-"?  Does it feel right to judge every activity against an imaginary list of "boy stuff" and "girl stuff"?  Didn't we just fight against that for decades?

Of course then you've taken something where there are a broad range of potential experiences and defined them as binary options.  Cisgendered and transgendered are both too small terms for what they cover, they can only have meaning if they are self referential, but they inherently require other labeling.  Cisgendered is frequently used as a term to apply to others rather than by a person to describe themselves.  That's a useful feature if you're trying to create sides and maintain sides, or if you want to shut down discussions, as is frequently the case anytime privilege comes into a conversation.  All of which is really short hand for inventing a word so that it can be used to attack.

Or to put it more bluntly, can you correctly label someone transgendered without being offensive if they reject that label for themselves?  I think you know the answer is that it would be wrong to do so.  Yet, labeling others as cisgendered is one of the primary ways it's actually used.  The only other way it can be used undermines the very idea that trans-people have they gender they identify with (i.e. that they are real boys and girls), in exactly the same way the words that they rejected and replaced did.

Crunch presented the story in the worst possible light, and that light was most definitely anti-trans.  (Whether the outrage was anti-trans or not, Crunch's presentation certainly was.)  I guarantee that if Crunch knew about the erection detail he would have included it.  Unless he was planning to do exactly what you did: get someone to argue against the anti-trans context, and then bring up the pervert aspect and pretend he (Wayward) was arguing on behalf of the man all along.

I don't have the issues that Crunch seems to have with trans-people in locker rooms.  You'll note I didn't jump in on this until the updated information was posted.  At that point it was clear that we were not talking about trans-rights but rather about separating out predators.  Wayward's post - which I commented on - was made after those additional facts had come out.  Even in Crunch's first post he expressed both issues, and in the update it was clear it was the second.

Take an honest look at those posts again.  Trying to argue about this specific circumstance (which Wayward was) and dismissing that it was a predator issue by doubling down on it being a trans-phobia issue is a bad form of argument.  The presence of this guy doesn't prove that Crunch is correct, but it does prove that ignoring the issue and jumping on every similar situation as "transphobic" without all the facts is a very bad plan.  Everyone should be happy a predator is caught, whether they're pretending to be trans- or even actually trans.  People strongly advocating for trans-rights need to do a better job of looking at what's actually occurring rather than committing to what they expect to see or fear is occurring, or else everyone's worst nightmares are going to become more likely.

[Aris Katsaris]

I've never once heard "cis" being used as a slur or an insult.

If the word "cis" is supposedly a slur or an insult, what would the non-slur,  non-insulting word be?

Let me guess, is that word supposed to be the word "normal"?

My current theory is that some people get upset at the word "cis", merely because they're upset at the sort of people who use the word "cis" -- namely people who wanted a word different than "normal" to indicate people whose gender assigned at birth matches their gender self-identitication.

[Fenring]

If the word "cis" is supposedly a slur or an insult, what would the non-slur,  non-insulting word be?

There is no non-insulting version of "entitled a-hole". I'm not saying this is the only way the term is ever used, but I've seen it plenty.

[cherrypoptart]

Let's remember that it's not the intentions of people using words that matter but most importantly what's determinative is if they are perceived as insults.

https://everydayfeminism.com/2013/07/intentions-dont-really-matter/

"After all, in the end, what does the intent of our action really matter if our actions have the impact of furthering the marginalization or oppression of those around us?

In some ways, this is a simple lesson of relationships.

If I say something that hurts my partner, it doesn’t much matter whether I intended the statement to mean something else – because my partner is hurting.

I need to listen to how my language hurt my partner. I need to apologize.

And then I need to reflect and empathize to the best of my ability so I don’t do it again."

------------------------------------------------------

If a word is perceived as an insult than it is an insult regardless of everything else. It's not up to the user to determine if it's an insult. It's up to the person who hears it.

[Aris Katsaris]

Let's remember that it's not the intentions of people using words that matter but most importantly what's determinative is if they are perceived as insults.

Certainly if a person perceives (in good faith) a word as an insult, I should attempt not to use it when discussing with them, in order to not be a jerk.

Some words that were not initially insults eventually started being treated as such, and became such, and so decent people stopped using them in order to not be jerks.

However, I'm cis (or cisgendered, if you like) and I currently don't find any insult in being called cis/cisgendered. Any more than I find it insulting to be called male or white or het/straight. I'm stating right here, that I do NOT find it insulting for people to refer to me as cis (or male, or white, or het), and I have never (before this forum page) seen a single person that found it insulting to be referred to as cis.

So, given my confusion at this occurrence, I should similarly, in good faith, be able to ask *why* you perceive "cis" as an insult, and what word you would prefer instead to refer to this aspect of yourself.

Can you answer, please, plainly?

[cherrypoptart]

I don't really have a dog in this fight. I'm just pointing out that according to the rules of political correctness it doesn't matter what a word actually means or how it's intended. The only thing that matters is how the person on the receiving end feels about it. I have no idea what people should be called instead of cis. Obviously you can't call them normal because that's insulting to everyone else. It's pretty much getting to the point where the only way not to offend someone is to not say anything. Oops, I almost forgot, silence is violence so we're now officially at the point where there is literally no way to not offend someone no matter what you say or don't say.

We're not the only ones thinking and talking about this either.

https://aninjusticemag.com/is-cisgender-a-slur-5eefe584e1bb

"I have seen the word “cisgender” used on social media with apparent intent to silence, marginalize, or isolate individuals deemed to be cisgender based solely on the evidence of their profile photo. (This happens to me every time I write about transgender-related topics on Medium. Every. Time.) Sometimes the audience for that usage understands that intent and resists it, thereby tacitly agreeing that “cisgender” is functioning as a “slur” in that context.

But I’ve also seen the word used in a sincere effort to neutrally describe the social reality of gender: some people’s gender identity corresponds to the sex and gender they were labelled at birth (i.e. they’re cisgender)."

[Aris Katsaris]

You don't have a "dog in this fight"? Do you personally find it insulting if I call you "cis", yes or no?

You're doing lots and lots of waffling about the issue. It seems that you don't actually find the word insulting, you're speaking that HYPOTHETICALLY other people might be insulted.

Here's the thing you don't get -- by the rules of "political correctness" (as you call them), we care about what hurts actual people. If silence hurts them, yes, silence is bad. If a word hurts them, yes, that's bad.

Why it's bad? Because of the consequences of it hurting people, each given time.

So, anyone here who actually feels hurt, injured, etc, when we refer to non-trans people as "cis"? Yes or no?

It's simple as that. An actual question, that demands an actual answer. No more whiny waffling please. Anyone reading this, please speak if you're honestly feeling hurt by the word, and then we can discuss possible alternatives.

There: I'm listening to your hurt. I'm asking what can be done to alleviate it. I don't know what else would you like me to do.

[cherrypoptart]

Nobody has ever really called me cis. I guess it just doesn't come up that much in casual conversation or even in my online conversations. If you're calling me cisgendered now then I guess it doesn't really bother me that much. Apparently it does bother some other people though like the writer of the last article I referenced who feels it's used as a shutdown. I have to be careful though not to just worry about whether something bothers me personally or not and be mindful of how everyone else feels about it.

[Aris Katsaris]

Nobody has ever really called me cis. I guess it just doesn't come up that much in casual conversation or even in my online conversations. If you're calling me cisgendered now then I guess it doesn't really bother me that much. Apparently it does bother some other people though like the writer of the last article I referenced who feels it's used as a shutdown. I have to be careful though not to just worry about whether something bothers me personally or not and be mindful of how everyone else feels about it.

In some of these groups, "white" will also be used as a shutdown, and "straight" will also be used as a shutdown.

IIRC people have actually used the fact that I'm Greek as a shutdown, in other forums, when I'm discussing American politics.

People may hypothetically use the fact that I'm an atheist as a shutdown, if I try to discuss Christianity with them.

That's bad behavior, but it doesn't make the word "Greek" a slur, or the word "atheist", and it doesn't make "white", "straight" or "cis" slurs either.

[cherrypoptart]

Even just the fact that articles like this asking if cisgender is a slur exist proves that some people consider it a slur.

https://aninjusticemag.com/is-cisgender-a-slur-5eefe584e1bb

I don't consider it a slur if it's applied to me because I'm not very politically correct. It's a word with a definition and if the shoe fits then it gets worn. I can't think of a better word either because as noted "normal" doesn't work.

But I don't get to decide what's a slur and what isn't, not for others. No one person and no one group of people do, particularly the ones choosing to use the words. Only the people hearing the words get to decide if it's a slur or not, each one for themselves.

I guess my only point is that anyone here who thought it might be a slur isn't alone. I may not be with them (and I'm not against them either) but others think along the same lines.

[TheDeamon]

You don't have a "dog in this fight"? Do you personally find it insulting if I call you "cis", yes or no?

As the one who brought it up, I should point out my answer would range from "Not really, but it depends on he larger context."

You can call me cis all day long and I'll probably not care. I'm just observing that from some of what I've run across in other venues, there are people who are using it as a slur, or as part of the general process of "othering" people they disagree with.

I don't get the need for labels for every aspect of my life, and being a child of the 80's and 90's when the zeitgeist seemed to moving towards doing away with labels entirely(something I agree with), I find the entire thing to be a gigantic step backwards. But I can understand the desire of people "to have tribe" and identify with it, and for many of them, they probably do need that support mechanism. But where micro meets macro, that can become a serious problem when their "tribal identity" revolves heavily on applying labels to everyone else, and "othering" the people they disagree with rather than seek common cause.

You're doing lots and lots of waffling about the issue. It seems that you don't actually find the word insulting, you're speaking that HYPOTHETICALLY other people might be insulted.

Is "the n-word" insulting? Why do black rappers seem to constantly use it, if it is? Why do white supremacists like to use it?

A word can exist in multiple states at the same time. I guess we could call it the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Language if that makes it less unclear to you.   

Here's the thing you don't get -- by the rules of "political correctness" (as you call them), we care about what hurts actual people. If silence hurts them, yes, silence is bad. If a word hurts them, yes, that's bad.

Why it's bad? Because of the consequences of it hurting people, each given time.

You're not up to speed on "silence is violence" then. Being silent on an issue which doesn't even touch on your daily life, is also violence now. Because you're not acting to change the system to make things better for the oppressed persons you never notice(and possibly never even see) in most of your daily life.

So, anyone here who actually feels hurt, injured, etc, when we refer to non-trans people as "cis"? Yes or no?

See previous comment about the uncertainty principle as it relates to language.

It's simple as that. An actual question, that demands an actual answer. No more whiny waffling please. Anyone reading this, please speak if you're honestly feeling hurt by the word, and then we can discuss possible alternatives.

While it didn't "hurt me" as I have far thicker skin than that, I'm 100% certain I have seen "cis" and derivative terms from there being used as slurs by people who either identify as being trans, or otherwise believe they are advocating for the trans community.

[Aris Katsaris]

I don't get the need for labels for every aspect of my life, and being a child of the 80's and 90's when the zeitgeist seemed to moving towards doing away with labels entirely(something I agree with)

I'm also all in favour of doing away with labels. E.g. I look forward to the day when people won't need identify other people as 'men' or 'women' at all, because there'll probably be a dozen variations in body types with a choice of 0-to-many, for breasts, penises and tentacles.

And at some point in time people won't need to identify as trans or cis either, for the same reason that we don't have special labels for people who dye their hair, or people who apply makeup vs people who don't.

When changing one's gender is as uncontroversial as changing one's hair color, labels will be done away with as useless. Nobody really oppresses trans-haired people or violates their rights, so the trans-haired and the cis-haired don't need labels to talk about them and their plights.

You're not up to speed on "silence is violence" then.

I'm not interested in defending every stupid catchy slogan that comes out of the broken minds of idiots. Instead of people saying something sane like "Silence is Wrong", or "Silence is Complicity" they need to say something stupid like "Silence is Violence", because for some people conflation is everything, so if something's wrong it must somehow be "violence".

It's a *censored*ing stupid slogan, and I don't care for it.

[TheDeamon]

You're not up to speed on "silence is violence" then.

I'm not interested in defending every stupid catchy slogan that comes out of the broken minds of idiots. Instead of people saying something sane like "Silence is Wrong", or "Silence is Complicity" they need to say something stupid like "Silence is Violence", because for some people conflation is everything, so if something's wrong it must somehow be "violence".

It's a *censored*ing stupid slogan, and I don't care for it.

It's deeper than that, it's a justification for violence in response. But being silent, you're being violent, since you're "being violent," they're now "allowed" to destroy you.

[TheDrake]

Can a word exist in different states in different context?

Words are not inherently meaningful. They derive their meaning from four elements of language: the intent of the user, the understanding of the audience, the context in which they’re used, and the historical ‘baggage’ by a particular word.

I think this description is right. "You my N" said to a close friend is indeed quite different from "Shut up, N" said to a guy on the street.

Just like "a-hole" or "dick", etc.

Sometimes the same two people saying the same thing will be different because of the audience. Audience matters, and it includes everyone in earshot. Earshot including everyone who was there, saw a recording of the usage, or heard about it. Audience has grown exponentially, which is why most of these words are just better not used.

"cis-male" need not be pejorative, but it certainly can be. Especially when used in a group context, like "F all cis-males"

[msquared]

TheDrake,

Come on what are you talking about? Context? They don't need context.  Things are either one way or another. White or black.  No shades of grey. Either with us or against us.  Only Blue Lives matter (except when they are the Capitol Police and they they do not matter).

[Fenring]

TheDrake,

Come on what are you talking about? Context? They don't need context.  Things are either one way or another. White or black.  No shades of grey. Either with us or against us.  Only Blue Lives matter (except when they are the Capitol Police and they they do not matter).

You might choose to read TheDrake's example more carefully before thinking you're the voice of reason. The N-word was not particularly contextual in its original usage; it was simply negative. That it has to an extent been deliberately owned to subvert its negativity (assuming that's what happened) is an evolution of its usage. So now it can be contextual. But I doubt context mattered very much in 1840 in order to determine how to understand the word. A word like "cis" may be harder to track, because it's the inverse of the N-word in its origin; the N-word was widely used and commonly understood, whereas a niche usage emerged in the late 20th century altering its meaning. Where for "cis" it seems like it originated as a niche word that was not popularly in use, and was seemingly neutral in its original context, and has only recently entered a popular consciousness. The argument being made is that its new usage seems to be largely negative, or at least some of it is negative.

Your comment may sound to you like you're obviously being reasonable, so you may not even be aware of playing a motte and bailey language game of telling people their lying eyes don't see what they see. 'No, it doesn't really mean that, it's contextual.' Sometimes things really do mean that.

[Aris Katsaris]

Right now, I'm still waiting to hear a workable alternative to the word "cis", if people think that "cis" has acquired a slur-meaning.

If we're not given such, this discussion feels fundamentally dishonest at its root, because it feels that it's not that people want other people to use a different and better word to refer to the concept, it's that they don't want them to discuss the topic at all, or they want to find some excuse to attack them for it.

[Fenring]

Right now, I'm still waiting to hear a workable alternative to the word "cis", if people think that "cis" has acquired a slur-meaning.

The issue is deeper than that, because you're not even asking why a term like that is necessary in the first place. What term do you use to designate that you have the standard amount of arms and legs? "Able-bodied" generally means you're physically capable, but there are no common-use terms to specifically designate that one has the standard assortment of limbs, or organs, or any other characteristic. If people started calling you one of the "two-armed" it would be super-weird, even if technically true. You'd ask why they're even saying that, or at least if you had any sense you'd ask. I know all of this must be taken with a grain of salt when asking you specifically since you're a transhumanist, but just for now you should pretend you're not because we're discussing language among people who actually do believe in such a thing as normal.

So the question is why one should have to create designations like "cisgender" to reference people who are of the standard disposition. There are many, many categories in which people can be of a standard disposition, and we don't seem to need special terms to refer to that. Rather, we resort to special terms to designate exceptions. Naturally, the greater the majority the easier it is to make this distinction. If 99.99% are of one sort, and 0.01% in a minority, it should suffice to create a term for the minority group. We don't need to 'name' the majority group because it's self-evidently the normal group. If the divide is more like 70/30 then it because much less obvious to just consider the 70% group 'standard', whereas in fact it's merely a majority. In that case it makes sense to see if there are proper terms to distinguish between them. But in the case of trans vs cis, the vast, vast majority are cis, and so it seems there should really not be a need for that group to be named. The question, again, is why name it, and why refer to it as commonly as I hear it referred to? I could go into examples of just how preposterous its use has become in some contexts, but I think it's enough to question its use in the first place. It's seemingly not a term that was needed in the lexicon for practical purposes, so that almost suggests that its use does fill a practical necessity, but I think one that divides rather than adds anything.

[NobleHunter]

You've got cisgender for the same reason you have words like able-bodied or heterosexual or right-handed or hearing or brown eyed, etc. It is useful to have a word that can take the place of not!minority.

It's worth noting in this case, the word exists to make it easier for the minority to discuss the majority. It's not surprising cis people are pushing back against it but I think you should ask yourself why you want it to be hard for trans people to talk about cis people.

[Aris Katsaris]

I know all of this must be taken with a grain of salt when asking you specifically since you're a transhumanist, but just for now you should pretend you're not because we're discussing language among people who actually do believe in such a thing as normal.

Perhaps I'm being uncharitable here, but I think that this effectively admits that the actual problem people have with the word "cis" is NOT that the word "cis" is denormalizing or otherizing or insulting people, but *just as I thought* that it actually has the opposite effect, by treating cis-ness as equivalent to trans-ness.

Is the *actual* problem, not that "cis" is somehow insulting, but that it tries to normalize the existence of trans people?

So the question is why one should have to create designations like "cisgender" to reference people
who are of the standard disposition.

Do you have the same issue with the words "heterosexual"/"straight"? Or are somehow the percentages in that case sufficient to merit the words?

Because of the internet bringing people together even though they may be physically apart, the world you inhabit is not the world that trans people inhabit. Trans people will know lots of other trans people and communicate much more with non-standard gender identities than an average person would. The point of "cis" is to have a simple way to refer to people with "standard" gender identities, without having to say "person with a typical gender identity" or something like that.

And no, "non-trans" wouldn't do, for a variety reasons, largely the same reasons that "non-gay" wouldn't work well as an alternative to "straight".

[TheDeamon]

So the question is why one should have to create designations like "cisgender" to reference people
who are of the standard disposition.

Do you have the same issue with the words "heterosexual"/"straight"? Or are somehow the percentages in that case sufficient to merit the words?

As someone who subscribes to the idea of the Kinsey spectrum for sexuality, that actually is a valid designation to subscribe to. Although it gets tricky when it comes down to where people perceive themselves on that spectrum.

But even as someone who subscribes to the idea of there being a spectrum of sexuality, I have to balk at the trying to treat it like the color spectrum and giving a name to each and every gradation of the (proverbial) colors running from infra-Red to ultra-Violet (plus white, black, and greys). That's taking both being OCD and creating tribes "just a bit" too far.

That's just the sexuality side of thing, that isn't even touching on the gender side of things. But from what I've seen, from interactions with my Niece's Husband (who was born female), and other interactions I've had with people in the larger trans community online, a LOT of what they're trying to turn into "Trans issues" strike my own sensibility as being "gender role" issues that have nothing to do with what happens to be between your legs. (And really, even what you prefer to wear can just as easily fall under "gender role" more-so than actual gender)

Outside of their conflating and greatly confusing the long-standing feminist issue of gender roles, they have legitimate and illegitimate issues that do need to be resolved. However, there are hard limits that they need to acknowledge. The entire issue has "shades of grey' all over the place, because of the matter of how individual rights interact with one another. Although so far as proverbial canaries in the coal mine go, that Trans-Rights activists are the ones causing a number of Gay and/or Lesbian bars in various major cities to close because of their lack of accommodation for trans-people also speaks to some wider issues brewing.

[Fenring]

Hetero/gay is already a problematic (and inaccurate) designation, but it serves at least because in the very practical situation when you're in the hookup scene, there's a large probability the guy you're hitting on is gay (large enough to matter). The inaccuracy should be obvious, however, so the terms are contrary to what "cis" achieves: they're muddy terms but needed to solve practical issues in both the dating scene as well as in matters of law. For cis/trans this doesn't seem much to be the case, again, due to the sheer numbers involved.

But the worst issue - definitionally - of trans is the idea that normal people are not in some sense a mishmash already. So by calling themselves 'trans' and others 'not-trans' there is already an inaccurate and likely pernicious assumption being made of people who for various reasons don't see fit to say they "are" a woman/man as the opposite of their biological sex. And the assumption then carries over into "and therefore you're not entitled to participating in this conversation because of your privilege." Well the starting point is bad in the first place, since everyone is a mix of masculine/feminine traits, and until now no one needed to quantify how much of each. The lack of desire to do so may be equivalent for many as the lack of diversity among those traits; it's really no one's business. So "cis" ends up being a term devoid of any real meaning, whilst simultaneously acting as a dividing line where the unworthy may not speak their mind. And this is only a surface level analysis, mind you, as the issues go deeper.

I'm all for finding out the ways in which we're different. As an artist the last thing I would do is to want to gloss over things that are special about each person. But a social movement can do things in all the wrong ways, often with false understandings. I'm not denouncing anything outright at this moment, but only mentioning a bit of background behind why I think it's pretty obvious why 'cis' is being used as a slur. That's not the same as me trashing the concept of trans people being given compassion and respect.

[Aris Katsaris]

Fenring, your argument goes all over the place and in contradictory directions.

(1) That the categories supposedly aren't meaningful because EVERYONE is a mismash, so everyone is trans/cis in some way
(2) That the label "trans" is okay to use, because they're an extreme minority, but the word "cis" isn't okay, because they're the vast majority.
-- But by your argument (1) how do you even count whether they're majority or minority, as you claimed that everyone is both & neither?
(3) And that the label "cis" is bad, because it's used to shut down people.
-- But that would make labels in general bad. Which yeah, they are bad, BUT THE LABEL "CIS" NOT MORE SO THAN ANY OTHER LABEL ANYWHERE, regardless of how fuzzy or clear, regardless of whether it's about a minority or a majority.

Hetero/gay is already a problematic (and inaccurate) designation, but it serves at least because in the very practical situation when you're in the hookup scene, there's a large probability the guy you're hitting on is gay (large enough to matter). The inaccuracy should be obvious, however, so the terms are contrary to what "cis" achieves: they're muddy terms but needed to solve practical issues in both the dating scene as well as in matters of law. For cis/trans this doesn't seem much to be the case, again, due to the sheer numbers involved.

"In matters of law"? I don't see any reason that the labels hetero/gay are needed in matters of law, or for that matter why trans/cis would be needed in matters of law either.

In regards to the "dating scene", both terms are useful, since many people likewise care about whether they'll be hitting on a trans woman or a cis woman, since they may have a strong preference for one particular type of genitalia in their sexual partners.

If you are making a dating app, you would want someone to be able to click a check box that indicates they're interested in cis women only but not trans women.

People encounter trans people so rare that it doesn't matter, you say effectively? Well, here's some news to you: from the point of view of trans people themselves, they *constantly* face people who encounters them, i.e. encounter a trans person. From the point of view of trans people, they're not an extreme minority rarely encountered, they're a minority that they have to deal with 100% of the time. Because it's them.

The distinction cis/trans is useful, practically, for the same reasons that the distinction man/woman matters.

And the assumption then carries over into "and therefore you're not entitled to participating in this conversation because of your privilege."

Again, an utterly irrelevant confusion with a *different* issue.

That we shouldn't call cis people "cis", because then it will be used to argue they aren't entitled to participate in this conversation, is the same argument as e.g. not calling men (either trans or cis) "men", because then calling them men would mean they aren't entitled to participate to conversations about female issues, and not calling American people Americans because that'd be used to mean they aren't entitled to participate to discussions about other countries, and so forth.

Again, you conflate TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUES - (a) the badness of trying to shut down the participation of others in a discussion, and (b) the identification of a certain category of people itself.

If this was a general discussion about the badness of labels, FINE. But when you're just using all these general arguments to in the end focus just on the label "cis", that seems disingenuous.

[TheDeamon]

In regards to the "dating scene", both terms are useful, since many people likewise care about whether they'll be hitting on a trans woman or a cis woman, since they may have a strong preference for one particular type of genitalia in their sexual partners.

If you are making a dating app, you would want someone to be able to click a check box that indicates they're interested in cis women only but not trans women.

People encounter trans people so rare that it doesn't matter, you say effectively? Well, here's some news to you: from the point of view of trans people themselves, they *constantly* face people who encounters them, i.e. encounter a trans person. From the point of view of trans people, they're not an extreme minority rarely encountered, they're a minority that they have to deal with 100% of the time. Because it's them.

The distinction cis/trans is useful, practically, for the same reasons that the distinction man/woman matters.

And making that distinction gets you labeled as hateful by some "trans-rights" activists, with a great deal of uncertainty if those activists are themselves Trans, or somebody going "white knight" on their behalf.

But the previous allusion made to gay and lesbian bars shutting their doors after the trans community put pressure on them is an illustration of part of that issue. It seems lesbians in particular aren't too keen on hooking up with trans-women. Might have something to do with a penis being involved in those encounters. Likewise, gay men looking for a hookup don't seem to be taking well to finding out their hookup was a trans-man and discovering a vagina rather than a penis.

And of course, then there are the often very violent responses many trans-women in particular encounter when they "hook up" with a straight male, and their partner discovers they have a penis too. Where honestly, in those scenarios I want to mindful that I don't "victim blame" but by the same token, I'm honestly not sure who the victim is the above scenarios.

Responses violent enough to justify documentation are arguably not justified in any case. But on the flip side, I could see a legitimate basis for the person who thought they were meeting someone whose equipment matched their presented gender to claim they were potentially warding off what suddenly turned into a sexual assault in their eyes.

However, you hear it from some of the trans-rights advocates, they completely refuse to acknowledge that the person "on the other side" could be viewing that encounter as a sexual assault. After all, if someone identifies as a woman and is either going through transition, or transitioned as far as (legally and) medically possible, they "should be treated as exactly the same" by everybody. (I have encountered multiple people who hold to such views, even saw one get banned in another online venue I frequent after they refused to stop certain behaviors when they discovered people weren't going to knuckle under for them)

Trans-rights is a complicated mess on its own, but it has a contingent who want to declare that:
1) You cannot define their gender for them.
2) You cannot define their sexuality for them.
3) They get to define their gender for you.
4) Insofar as their gender definition overlaps your stated sexual preference, they get to define your sexuality for you.

If you're a lesbian, and they say they're female, you're a terrible person if you refuse to date/have sex with them and their penis.
If you're a gay male, and they say they're male, you're a terrible person if you refuse to date/have sex with them and their vagina.
If you're a straight female and they say they're male, you're a terrible person if you refuse to date/have sex with them.
If you're a straight male, and they say they're female, you're a terrible person if you refuse to date/have sex with them.

[oldbrian]

Seriati:

A lot has been posted in the meantime, so I will just say: thank you for the clarification and well thought out post.

[Fenring]

Fenring, your argument goes all over the place and in contradictory directions.

I suppose it may sound contradictory if you don't understand it...

(1) That the categories supposedly aren't meaningful because EVERYONE is a mismash, so everyone is trans/cis in some way

True, and this is likewise true for straight/gay, BUT because there's a real and quite common social scenario where one's sexual predilection comes up in a big hurry it is really necessary to have a rule of thumb about how to proceed. So the terms, while muddy, have a significant practical use. And again, this is largely because of the numbers involved (i.e. there are many gay people).

(2) That the label "trans" is okay to use, because they're an extreme minority, but the word "cis" isn't okay, because they're the vast majority.
-- But by your argument (1) how do you even count whether they're majority or minority, as you claimed that everyone is both & neither?

I never said anything about whether "trans" is ok to use. Presumably the people who would want to use such a term would be those people in question, not me, so I don't need to ok someone else using a self-descriptive term. What I said was that applying some special term to refer to the vast, vast majority is in most contexts strange and unnecessary. But the answer to your question is simple: *I* don't need to count them, because to the extent that certain people feel the need to specify they are trans, there's your count. They self-identify. What I'm saying is it remains inaccurate for them to apply a label to those who chose not to make that self-identification. And if you're trying to make this concordant with straight/gay, again, it's less about "are you straight in your inner self", and more about "are you here for guys or gals". The need is completely practical for the most part.

(3) And that the label "cis" is bad, because it's used to shut down people.

It's not quite that it's bad, per se, but it has been used badly. And I was at any rate questioning why its use is particularly required (at least to the extent it has been) in the first place.

-- But that would make labels in general bad. Which yeah, they are bad, BUT THE LABEL "CIS" NOT MORE SO THAN ANY OTHER LABEL ANYWHERE, regardless of how fuzzy or clear, regardless of whether it's about a minority or a majority.

I'm not thrilled with labels in general, no, but that's not the particular point I was making. And I think now you are confused about the points I've been making. I was saying both that "cis" has been used as a slur, and as a bit of evidence there is the fact that its use seems out of proportion to any practical utility, as contrasted with straight/gay for which there were many practical reasons one needed a distinction.

"In matters of law"? I don't see any reason that the labels hetero/gay are needed in matters of law, or for that matter why trans/cis would be needed in matters of law either.

Are you playing dumb to win an argument or something? You are really unaware that in many (and historically, most) places it was illegal to conduct oneself as a homosexual? Having labels to distinguish straight/gay certainly comes into play when discussing the people whom the law is either favoring or sidelining (or worse).

In regards to the "dating scene", both terms are useful, since many people likewise care about whether they'll be hitting on a trans woman or a cis woman, since they may have a strong preference for one particular type of genitalia in their sexual partners.

Again, the term is redundant if you want to be technical here. Either the person is trans, or they are not. There is no need to announce you're not when 99.999% of people are not, likewise it should not be the standard to go around announcing to people that I don't have Zika to put them at ease, notwithstanding the fact that there may be a few stray cases in Florida. Change the numbers and the logic changes; if it's covid, which is quite prevalent, or AIDS as it was in the 80's, and then it does become logical to announce you don't have it (or show your card as it was with AIDS). If you are part of a vast minority you can make yourself known as the case comes up, but a vast majority should not need a term to identify themselves with. If someone asks you can tell them, but there's no practical need for the most part to use the term in everyday life.

If you are making a dating app, you would want someone to be able to click a check box that indicates they're interested in cis women only but not trans women.

The discussion wasn't about whether there are any conceivable cases where "cis" is a term that could have legitimate play. The argument was that the method of its employment seems to be a slur sometimes, and my particular argument was that if it was only being used neutrally and for practical purposes it would see a lot less airtime than it does.

The distinction cis/trans is useful, practically, for the same reasons that the distinction man/woman matters.

Except that men and women are 50/50 on the planet. You're free to reject my numbers argument, but nothing you're saying is inconsistent with it.

And the assumption then carries over into "and therefore you're not entitled to participating in this conversation because of your privilege."

Again, an utterly irrelevant confusion with a *different* issue.

Maybe you missed the original point of this sub-thread: this *is* the issue.

That we shouldn't call cis people "cis", because then it will be used to argue they aren't entitled to participate in this conversation, is the same argument as e.g. not calling men (either trans or cis) "men", because then calling them men would mean they aren't entitled to participate to conversations about female issues, and not calling American people Americans because that'd be used to mean they aren't entitled to participate to discussions about other countries, and so forth.

It's not really like that at all. Part of the reason is that general use of the terms. "Men" and "American" predate any niche usage, which perhaps could still emerge from time to time. They're part of a popular lexicon. "Cis" was not, and has only come to be part of it in context of...what? That's the question, actually. You don't need to ask why people are referred to as "men" or "American", but asking why a newly minted term (in the popular parlance) is being used is an entirely valid question.

Again, you conflate TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUES - (a) the badness of trying to shut down the participation of others in a discussion, and (b) the identification of a certain category of people itself.

Don't see how I was conflating anything. These are non-contradictory claims, and neither are reliant on the other for my purposes anyhow.

If this was a general discussion about the badness of labels, FINE. But when you're just using all these general arguments to in the end focus just on the label "cis", that seems disingenuous.

I think it seems disingenuous because you haven't understood my argument yet. Maybe try again?

[TheDrake]

And making that distinction gets you labeled as hateful by some "trans-rights" activists,

Context again. If someone says they are male, and you ask if they are trans male, that's just bad. If you are talking about equality for trans males, no problem. If you are calling them trans males because you don't want them using the men's room, yeah they probably don't like that much.

[yossarian22c]

And making that distinction gets you labeled as hateful by some "trans-rights" activists,

Context again. If someone says they are male, and you ask if they are trans male, that's just bad. ...

Except in the context of dating. Outside of that context I don't really care how people dress or which bathroom they want to use.

[Aris Katsaris]

"In matters of law"? I don't see any reason that the labels hetero/gay are needed in matters of law, or for that matter why trans/cis would be needed in matters of law either.

Are you playing dumb to win an argument or something? You are really unaware that in many (and historically, most) places it was illegal to conduct oneself as a homosexual? Having labels to distinguish straight/gay certainly comes into play when discussing the people whom the law is either favoring or sidelining (or worse).

So when you said that the label "homosexual" (or gay) is needed to solve practical issues in both the dating scene as well as in matters of law, you meant that it's *needed* when the law is designed to solve the "practical isssue" of how to oppress gay people.

Well, excuse me, but I actually thought that you meant there was some matter of law where it's actually supposedly *good* and *useful* for the label to exist. That was the whole point of the paragraph, and since I couldn't think of one, I was reasonably confused when you spoke about the usefulness of the term in matters of law.

So, okay, I concede the point: It's useful for tyrannical evil regimes that want to oppress people, to use the term "homosexual" in matters of law.

That's pretty much the exact opposite of what your argument was supposed to be about, which was presumably about the terms gay/straight being useful, fullstop, not "useful to evil tyrants, and harmful to everyone else".

It's not really like that at all. Part of the reason is that general use of the terms. "Men" and "American" predate any niche usage, which perhaps could still emerge from time to time. They're part of a popular lexicon. "Cis" was not, and has only come to be part of it in context of...what?

Presumably has come to be part of it, in the context of the existence of trans people and becoming more commonly known and trans issues becoming more publicized, via internet, etc. whereas even 20 years ago they weren't remotely to this extent.

The term "straight" or "heterosexual" wasn't a part of popular lexicon either, a century ago, I think. Now it is. Presumably because the population, via television etc, knows about the existence of gay people a bit more than it did a century ago.

[Fenring]

"In matters of law"? I don't see any reason that the labels hetero/gay are needed in matters of law, or for that matter why trans/cis would be needed in matters of law either.

Are you playing dumb to win an argument or something? You are really unaware that in many (and historically, most) places it was illegal to conduct oneself as a homosexual? Having labels to distinguish straight/gay certainly comes into play when discussing the people whom the law is either favoring or sidelining (or worse).

So when you said that the label "homosexual" (or gay) is needed to solve practical issues in both the dating scene as well as in matters of law, you meant that it's *needed* when the law is designed to solve the "practical isssue" of how to oppress gay people.

Sorry, didn't bother reading beyond this. If you're not going to discuss in good faith then you're wasting my time.

[Aris Katsaris]

If you're a lesbian, and they say they're female, you're a terrible person if you refuse to date/have sex with them and their penis.
If you're a gay male, and they say they're male, you're a terrible person if you refuse to date/have sex with them and their vagina.
If you're a straight female and they say they're male, you're a terrible person if you refuse to date/have sex with them.
If you're a straight male, and they say they're female, you're a terrible person if you refuse to date/have sex with them.

TheDeamon,that's  lots of words to just say "some people will always be self-serving jerks and use supposed politics to pressure/guilt other people into doing what serves them".

People are allowed to date/have sex with whatever person (and whatever body type) pleases them. Even if you're a gay man, you may not be into bears but only into twinks. Even if you're a lesbian, you may be into butch and not into femme. Or vice versa. You can date short or tall, fat or thin, circumcised or uncircumcised, and you're definitely allowed to date people with penises or people without penises.

Responses violent enough to justify documentation are arguably not justified in any case. But on the flip side, I could see a legitimate basis for the person who thought they were meeting someone whose equipment matched their presented gender to claim they were potentially warding off what suddenly turned into a sexual assault in their eyes.

I wonder would you feel the same ("see a legitimate basis"), if a woman violently attacked a man, if the man they thought they were meeting was wearing a wig in all the photos' they sent but was in reality bald, and the woman suddenly so realizes the guy is bald?

That suddenly becomes a sexual assault (they were going on a date with someone they thought had a full set of fair), so by the same argument, so there's a "legitimate basis" to claim the woman was "potentially warding off what turned into sexual assault in her eyes"?

[Aris Katsaris]

Sorry, didn't bother reading beyond this. If you're not going to discuss in good faith then you're wasting my time.

You're the one not discussing in good faith.

I have been utterly HONEST, DIRECT, and HAVE DONE THE BEST I COULD TO UNDERSTAND YOU, AND TO NOT MISREPRESENT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

You have repeatedly waffled, and you have repeatedly refused to explain the meaning of your words, in that mess of contradiction, confusions, and inanities you present as a supposed argument while leaping from random point to random point and ending up not saying anything meaningful at all.

You are disingenuous and dishonest.

[NobleHunter]

Sodomy was illegal for centuries before the term "homosexual" was even invented. It's been argued that the idea of a Sodomite as a meaningful identity rather than just a person who engages in certain actions, was a result of 18th century anxieties over the self and masculinity. The idea that there needs to be a label for legal or dating purposes has no historical basis.

[yossarian22c]

...

That suddenly becomes a sexual assault (they were going on a date with someone they thought had a full set of fair), so by the same argument, so there's a "legitimate basis" to claim the woman was "potentially warding off what turned into sexual assault in her eyes"?

Are you really equating baldness with someone surprising someone with penetrating sexual equipment when they weren't signing up for such an experience? Is consent culture around sex dead?

[Fenring]

You're the one not discussing in good faith.

I have been utterly HONEST, DIRECT, and HAVE DONE THE BEST I COULD TO UNDERSTAND YOU, AND TO NOT MISREPRESENT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

No, and although I very rarely say this, you are lying now. You took a direct statement from me, and then wrote this about it:

So when you said that the label "homosexual" (or gay) is needed to solve practical issues in both the dating scene as well as in matters of law, you meant that it's *needed* when the law is designed to solve the "practical isssue" of how to oppress gay people.

You are literally telling me that what I said is that what I am arguing for is the need to oppress gay people. You didn't argue that it's an unintended conclusion of what I wrote, you're saying that I SAID IT. Since there is no conceivable way you could believe I wrote that, my only conclusion is you are lying about what I said in order to...to do what? I won't put up with it. I don't know why you're pretending that what I wrote is so hard to understand. I don't trust your motives any more. I'll avoid you for a while now, thanks.

[Aris Katsaris]

Are you really equating baldness with someone surprising someone with penetrating sexual equipment when they weren't signing up for such an experience? Is consent culture around sex dead?

I don't think we're envisioning the same sort of scenario.

Looking at actual court cases where the "trans panic" defense has been used on the part of defendants to justify violence, they've been cases that range from "I flirted with a woman in a bar, and then I realized they were actually a man, so I had to beat him to death with my buddies " to "this person gave me a blowjob, which I fully consented to at the time, but two days later I realized she had a penis and wasn't a 'real' woman', and I was so grossed out in hindsight that I had to murder him."

You're instead envisioning a case, where what? A trans woman ties a person to a bed, and then tries to rape them with her penis? Well, yes, that'd be rape and bad. It'd also be rape if a cis woman tried to rape a man with a dildo when he hadn't consented to such. Or in any other way. Penis not actually required.

I can certainly see a person slightly freaking out if their partner suddenly produces an unexpected dildo (or penis), if they're themselves not into that and the two haven't discussed it in advance. But no, I wouldn't justify immediately resorting to violence.