"Mansplaining"

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**daedalus**

Ahtman wrote:
Manchu wrote:
We can agree what the term means but you refuse to discuss it because it is abused out of ignorance or bad faith. Absurd.

Absurdity is pretending original use is the common use. We agreed that there are different meanings and that the original use is less problematic, but not that the original is what is used most of the time. It is bad faith and ignorance to ignore actual context in the hopes in the hopes of negating it. I can pretend 'irregardless' isn't a word either but that doesn't change the fact that it is now a word, and that we can agree that 'cisgender' had a different use at one time doesn't change that it has been used more outside that context at this point than in it.

I was just going to let it go to be honest but it seems we are entertaining.

Well, to argue against that is to accept that I should be able to talk about the [see forum posting rules] of wood I carried in to burn in my fireplace.

I suppose, to be objective, all that remains is showing that the common use is the pejorative.

**Ahtman**

daedalus wrote:
Well, to argue against that is to accept that I should be able to talk about the [see forum posting rules] of wood I carried in to burn in my fireplace.

It sounds like you are trying to disagree with me, but you are actually proving my point that original intention doesn't change actual intention. What something used to mean doesn't mean much if it actually means something else now. Sometimes it is better for the change, sometimes it is worse, and others it is just a change with no good or bad. I'm arguing that the term 'cisgender' may have started out benign but at this point is such a loaded and conflicted word that it is no longer benign. Just because Manchu wants to continue using in a benign manner won't really change how the word is moving, if not moved, away from that start.

**daedalus**

Ahtman wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Well, to argue against that is to accept that I should be able to talk about the [see forum posting rules] of wood I carried in to burn in my fireplace.

It sounds like you are trying to disagree with me, but you are actually proving my point that original intention doesn't change actual intention. What something used to mean doesn't mean much if it actually means something else now. Sometimes it is better for the change, sometimes it is worse, and others it is just a change with no good or bad. I'm arguing that the term 'cisgender' may have started out benign but at this point is such a loaded and conflicted word that it is no longer benign. Just because Manchu wants to continue using in a benign manner won't really change how the word is moving, if not moved, away from that start.

I do agree with you, actually. I'd just like to try to argue against your point simply because I do agree with it. I find I cannot.

**Manchu**

Ahtman wrote:
Absurdity is pretending original use is the common use.

So how about the term mansplaining? Do you think it is a totally useless term because a lot of people abuse it?

And how does one prove "common use"?

daedalus wrote:
I suppose, to be objective, all that remains is showing that the common use is the pejorative.

Sure -- can Ahtman or anyone else show that cisgender and transgender are primarily used pejoratively?

I mean, the crux of Ahtman's argument is that basically no one actually uses those terms to indicate a non-binary perspective on gender. In my experience, that is severe hyperbole. I don't have a study backing it up -- yes, it's just anecdotal. But like I said, when we have anecdote against anecdote, isn't it best to just assume the actual definition rather than what amounts to a hypothetical misuse of the word?

This whole "not how it is actually used" angle seems like a very weak red herring to me.

**daedalus**

Manchu wrote:

I mean, the crux of Ahtman's argument is that basically no one actually uses those terms to indicate a non-binary perspective on gender. In my experience, that is severe hyperbole. I don't have a study backing it up -- yes, it's just anecdotal. But like I said, when we have anecdote against anecdote, isn't it best to just assume the actual definition rather than what amounts to a hypothetical misuse of the word?

Well, here's a gay man on the topic:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/j-nelson-aviance/i-am-not-cisgendered_b_5598113.html wrote:I am NOT "cisgendered." I reject that label. Why? From what I've read, "cisgendered" is a label that began in academic discourse as a way of describing people who weren't trans. But the meaning of it was akin to what we might call "normatively gendered." That means your gender identity is within a limited range of what society considers to be acceptably "normal." Normative is a word of negation and resistance. It rejects the boundaries delineated as "normal" by illustrating their discursive construction, i.e. not essential. However, while "cisgendered" operates within a broader language of gender as a means of description, it is also prescriptive and limiting. The reason I place it in quotations is because it sets up a binary that is antithetical to the purpose for which it is employed in popular discourse. If gender isn't binary, if it is fluid and can transgress boundaries, than a binary between cisgender and transgender cannot exist. If it does, then we must delineate what "real" transgender or "true" transgender means, and who is allowed to inhabit it.

If "cisgendered" means your gender identity matches the social construct attached to the sex you were assigned at birth, than there cannot be a male gender identity that acts outside those normative social boundaries. And if you say there is variation on gender identity, but "cis-" just means you were born with a penis and identify and live as a man, than you negate the many variations on what it means to "be a man" or even to "live as a man." You are imposing your concept of those things onto me, enforcing a binary that is paradoxical. Moreover, you are denying the gender fluidity of those who have a penis and identify as male, but prefer women's underwear or wear makeup or transgress norms in innumerable other ways. Adding more labels -- like "cisgendered male transvestite" -- in order to justify your act of aggression defeats the purpose of simplifying things with words like "cisgendered."

What is perhaps most disturbing in being called "cisgendered," is that it imposes an identity on me. Doing so invalidates my complicated experience of gender. Don't tell me that I am somehow normatively gendered for my body when my life experience has led me through periods of deep confusion about my gender identity and living as gender queer. How is living gender queer normative? How does that reconcile with the sex and gender roles society associates with having a penis? Moreover, you don't get to make a reductive statement about my gender identity or how I embody my gender while trying to argue for recognition of the diversity of other peoples' embodied genders. If you are going to argue for a less simplistic reading of others' embodied genders, than you have to do so with mine too. That includes recognizing that as a queer person, I'm automatically not inhabiting the normative roles society has constructed for those with a penis. My behavior, and sexual and romantic attachments aren't normative for "men." My intuitiveness isn't normative. My choices of profession haven't been normative. My mode of speech isn't normative.

By imposing the label "cisgendered" onto me, you do me psychological and intellectual violence. You are saying that I am the same as all the people who do accept and inhabit the normative roles attached to the social construct of "men," "male," or "masculine." You are silencing my voice and rejecting my right to determine my own identity. You have put me into a binary that alienates me from gender discourse. You are telling me, "check your privilege," a phrase that has been weaponized and become popular to use in ways that are adolescent and regressive to the discourse. You are saying -- especially with the implication of that last phrase -- that I need to reexamine my privileged position. That assumes I am unaware of my privilege and how my privilege affects. It is a phrase that in this context has one purpose -- to invalidate the opinions and silence the voices of those who you disagree with. It is aggressive and hurtful language -- weaponized. The fact that some people may not see those connections, may want to disavow them and the weaponized nature of how these terms are currently used shows a lack of understanding of the nature of discourse and how it shapes our world. By imposing your label on me and then questioning why I'm offended by it, you are questioning and invalidating my right to feel. That further silences my voice.

This has happened to me several times in the past few months since I began blogging on The Huffington Post. It follows a trend of invalidating men's opinions and voices in gender discourse, as though we don't have gender or don't have worthwhile experiences of it. Meanwhile we have to sit and listen as society demands us to be strong and silent, but sensitive and intuitive to the needs of our partners; as news stories and the media identify all men as predators who enjoy and participate in rape culture; as our experiences of sexual abuse and sexual assault are made into jokes and not challenged by anyone -- as opposed to the uproar over rape humor with female victims. Men who cherish their children suffer exponentially and disproportionately in custody cases. Men who don't fit easily within a handful of archetypes are still forced to seek out alternative communities and cohorts, sometimes being alienated from fathers and family members.

The term "cis-" has also participated in an increasing hostility toward gay men, and in particular white gay men. Race is, of course, a complicated issue within the LGBTQIA community. But when did gay men become the enemy? I hold no rosy belief that our community's political power is spread out equally among all our groups. But the attacks within the community only erode our unified political force when that unity is required. Infighting begets enmity and isolation. Throwing angry and hateful rhetoric -- essentially demanding everyone acknowledge your pain by lashing out -- erases those voices who might otherwise make important contributions to our cause.

Yet, as a "cisgendered" man I'm not allowed an opinion, not allowed a voice, not allowed to disagree, not allowed to have a lived experience of embodying a gender identity that is diverse and varied and absolutely out of step with the norm I'm ascribed to by the word "cis-." Instead, I'm supposed to reflect on my privilege before I am allowed to interrupt the people whose opinions matter. I'm supposed to "check my privilege." I am a binary male within a binary "cisgendered" vs. transgendered paradigm. I'm the enemy because I'm afforded privilege by my family background, my skin color, my penis, and my "cis-"-ness. Somehow that fails to take into account the fact that I haven't been able to hold down a full-time job because of a mental illness that sometimes leaves me incapacitated. It ignores the fact that my experience of everything has been shaped by a lifetime of being large and marginalized within gay male and Western European cultures. If someone doesn't understand why I find the term "cisgendered" offensive, why I refuse to allow someone else to define me or inscribe their ideas onto my body, then perhaps I'm not the ignorant one. I'm just the evil white gay guy with too much privilege.

Offtopic to the offtopic, LGBTQIA? I feel like it grows more letters every time I turn my back on the term. I think I know what the first four mean, but I'm not sure if the remainder of it was a typo or what.

**Ahtman**

Manchu wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Absurdity is pretending original use is the common use.
So how about the term mansplaining? Do you think it is a totally useless term because a lot of people abuse it?

As I am fairly unfamiliar with it I have no opinion at this time. I'm not just going to make up an opinion to please you.

Manchu wrote:
I mean, the crux of Ahtman's argument is that basically no one actually uses those terms to indicate a non-binary perspective on gender.

That isn't even close to my argument, so either you don't really understand the argument* and we are talking past each other, or you are purposefully not understanding it. Either answer goes back to the point that this is really all a waste as neither is going to convince the other of the rightness of their perspective on the use.

Especially when you are still so wrong.

*For any number of reasons, not just an inability to understand. This isn't always the best medium for dialogue after all.

**Manchu**

If gender isn't binary, if it is fluid and can transgress boundaries, than a binary between cisgender and transgender cannot exist.

You can't do much with an argument like this because the premises are incorrect. The conclusion assumes cisgender and transgender are genders rather than relationships between the gender one identifies with and one's biological sex. If anything, the fact that there can be multiple relationships or orientation between sex and gender shows that gender is fluid. "Fluidity" after all is conceptually relative.

But the attacks within the community only erode our unified political force when that unity is required. Infighting begets enmity and isolation. Throwing angry and hateful rhetoric -- essentially demanding everyone acknowledge your pain by lashing out -- erases those voices who might otherwise make important contributions to our cause.

And I suspect this is an example of cisplaining.

Ahtman wrote:
I'm not just going to make up an opinion to please you.

Rhetorical nonsense. If you are ignorant about a topic, admitting as much is sufficient. There's no need to pretend I could force you to come to a message board and have a discussion.

Ahtman wrote:
you don't really understand the argument

Let's assume I don't. To be clear, here's what I think you are arguing -- Whatever cis- and trans- are intended to mean, the terms are used to set up an oppressive binary view of gender. If that is incorrect, can you please explain your actual argument?

**daedalus**

So my question is, if every argument about why the term is obnoxious or pejorative is wrong, why are so many people finding it obnoxious or pejorative?

**focusedfire**

Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:
Everything you have listed here is a rationalization. An excuse that a person would use to not be assertive. It is not the demagogues fault that the person sitting there is being passive/ passive aggressive. Being assertive is how mature people politely deal with such issues.

Sigh. It's like you didn't even read the post where I explained that there can be reasons why a person wouldn't be in a position to be assertive. Maybe you don't understand this because you've never been on the wrong end of one of those relationships (OH GOD HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE 'P' WORD), but you should try to see it from that perspective.

Oh, the delicious irony. You trying to throw out the perspective argument. You are so blinded by your own personal views that you have completely failed to notice that my entire argument has been one of perspective through time.

You seem to think that this entire concept is something new or revolutionary. As many youngsters do.

I have been trying to enlighten you as to the fact that this concept has been around for a while. You can trace it through the decades and centuries via the dictionary. That there are already words for such behaviour....and these words are not nearly as offensive.

As to assertiveness, everything you listed were "rationalizations", (excuses people make to not step up and be assertive).

You don't seem to understand that one "always has the right to be and is in the position to be assertive". It is not the fault of anyone else if that person chooses to not exercise that right.

Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:The practices of Intellectual Obscurantism, Elitism and Jargon have been noted as problems for the Feminist cause to struggle with f
since, at least, the late 1960's/early 1970's.

I have never heard of any of that. Not from actual feminists, and not even from "feminists say stupid stuff" trolls who would love to quote something so ridiculous. Could you provide some examples of actual feminist arguments about this, along with evidence that the people making them are part of mainstream feminism and not just a random person with a blog that nobody pays any attention to?

Ah, yes. If the mighty Peregrine has never heard of it then it must surely not have ever existed.

Dude, check your privilege.

As I have already mentioned. The concept itself has neen arround for quite a while. Second wave feminists brought the behaviour of men doing this into the cultural forefront.

In the 1980's there was a popular show that heavily satirized certain stereotypical male behaviours. One of the characters had the behaviour of being patronizing to women and everyone while spewing forth mountains of misinformation. The satire was so effective that to engage in such behave was to "be this characters name".

The show was "Cheers" and the character was Cliff Claven.

To this day, the terms "you've been Claven-ed" or "You're being a Claven" are still in use.

This phenomena was also brought up in the first season of "Home Improvement" and commented upon in the Rosanne tv show.

Sandra Bernhardt touched on this subject in some of her stand up as well as a few other notable feminist comedians of the 70's, 80's and 90's.

Please note that I normally would not use of mainstream media as reference material but in this case it seemed to fit your request.

Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:It is the struggle against these that have formed the foundation upon which the concept of "mansplaining" is based.

No it isn't. The concept of "mansplaining" comes from people (usually men) acting like the women they're explaining things to are ignorant children, even when the women likely know more about the subject than the man. In fact, you know this already because you've had at least one person explain it for you.

Haven't missed a thing, have only tried to inform you to the fact that this concept did not arise with the offensive term of "mansplaining".

That this concept has been around for quite a while and that I have seen it re-appear through the years with different names that were a lot less offensive.

Also, that each time it has come back into the forefront that there has always been a radical element that tries to use the concept to censor/suppress the right of an entire gender to speak.

Chongara wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Cisgender is a made-up term that serves no purpose. Transgender serves as a purpose for people who want to identify themselves from the normal.

So, you are arguing the usage of “non-transgender” as a replacement for “cisgender”. Is that really it? That… seems like a non-issue to me. If people want to use a shorter word, what is the problem with this?
Also, stop implying I am normal .

There's no need for any replacement word. Normal fits perfectly in this case as (context) we're talking about gender. Normal means male or female. People who identify differently are "transgender", "gay" or "bi"...or anything else they might want to come up with. In regards to gender, male or female are normal by the very definition of the word. You aren't normal if you identify yourself differently. This is without any positive or negative connotation, it's by the word's definition. Highly intelligent people aren't normal either.

Ignoring the fact that your assertion that not being normal doesn't have any negative connotations is so plainly absurd to the point of being laughable self-parody, it's just not terribly useful. We need specific terms for specific things, whatever they may be.

What's with the negative waves, Moriarity. You seem to ignore that not being normal can have positive connotations. Your entire point here seems to be that we replace an already serviceable terms like transgender and non-transgender (norms, mundanes, vanillas) with an easily misused and already abused term just because some transgenders are overly cynical or have a self-esteem problem .

Manchu wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Manchu wrote:
perhaps it would be best to stick with the actual meaning of the term.
Which we can't agree on whether it is actually in use by most or not
We can agree what the term means but you refuse to discuss it because it is abused out of ignorance or bad faith. Absurd.

Interesting. Would you make this same argument if the word in question was a common racial slur that originally only meant foolish?

**daedalus**

I... I honestly don't know if I want the answer to that question. Frankly, I'm still considering whether it's worth more of my time to try to understand the seemingly fantastic things I read on the internet, or if I should devote more time to technical matters. It's quickly becoming more clear to me as these kinds of things come up and I participate that I'm not really cut out for discussing societal matters, and it's probably less of a waste of time for everyone involved if I nod politely and smile, and then go back to making things. This may be a reasonable time to bow out.

**Manchu**

daedalus wrote:
So my question is, if every argument about why the term is obnoxious or pejorative is wrong, why are so many people finding it obnoxious or pejorative?

I don't know about every argument. We've only seen two, well three if you count people ITT who have pretty much admitted they don't know what it means but still don't like it. As to the argument you posted, I think that essay boils down to the queer alliance breaking down as homosexuality finds more popular acceptance but other orientations remaining marginalized (that is, the interests of the gay community are turning out to be different from the interests of others) and so the issue he has with cisgender is really a matter of queer politics.

focusedfire wrote:
Manchu wrote:We can agree what the term means but you refuse to discuss it because it is abused out of ignorance or bad faith. Absurd.
Interesting. Would you make this same argument if the word in question was a common racial slur that originally only meant foolish?

Probably not, if/because the original meaning was effectively totally displaced by the pejorative meaning.

**daedalus**

Manchu wrote:
daedalus wrote:
So my question is, if every argument about why the term is obnoxious or pejorative is wrong, why are so many people finding it obnoxious or pejorative?
I don't know about every argument. We've only seen two, well three if you count people ITT who have pretty much admitted they don't know what it means but still don't like it. As to the argument you posted, I think that essay boils down to the queer alliance breaking down as homosexuality finds more popular acceptance but other orientations remaining marginalized (that is, the interests of the gay community are turning out to be different from the interests of others) and so the issue he has with cisgender is really a matter of queer politics.

My personal statement from about 2 or 3 pages ago:

I can't personally reconcile the notion of a separate gender of the psyche within myself, mostly because being a bland white male, I don't really associate any of those qualities with my psyche, except perhaps ironically. I am not a male in a male's body. I'm just a male, and that's not even really a strong vector of personal identity for me to begin with anyway. That's not to say that I expect other people to feel the same way, or that I'm demanding any special concessions out of anyone else. I just don't think I like the use of the term because when directed toward me, it implies a division of forms in myself that I cannot myself see. It's establishing a dotted line on my schematic where I see none to begin with.

**Manchu**

daedalus wrote:
That's not to say that I expect other people to feel the same way, or that I'm demanding any special concessions out of anyone else.

That's a great position to start any discussion like this. In all seriousness, it is really the best position.

daedalus wrote:
It's establishing a dotted line on my schematic where I see none to begin with.

I think the underlined part is really important. I have no doubt whatsoever that the term cisgendered would have very little meaning/relevance to your self-perception. As Chongara explained earlier:

Chongara wrote:
My way of being is so common, and commonly accepted that I have no need to categorize myself. I'm surrounded by people like me, by people who meet my expectations and people's whose expectations I meet. My identity is so obvious and seemingly self evident I almost can't even see it for what it it is. The box I'm in so big it's really not evident I'm even in one.

The term cisgendered is not really around to help people whose self-view as to gender creates (basically) no issues for them. The term is there to account for how someone else sees/experiences the world.

The same thing is true of "mansplaining." The fact that a lot of men don't think "mansplaining" is a thing based on having never experienced it is moot. The term is supposed to explain how people who are not men sometimes experience interactions with some men.

**focusedfire**

Manchu wrote:
The same thing is true of "mansplaining." The fact that a lot of men don't think "mansplaining" is a thing based on having never experienced it is moot. The term is supposed to explain how people who are not men sometimes experience interactions with some men.

Given that there are already words that do this job in a less offensive manner, "Can you understand why many find this term unnecessary?".
We already have the words "patronizing" and "condescending". As such, "What purpose is there for the term "mansplaining" other than a perjorative one?".

Later,
ff

**Manchu**

Are there other phrases that specifically call out what it is like for someone who is not a man to be condescended to by a man? That is to say, is there another phrase that specifically calls out the issue of gender in this kind of interaction?

The phrase undoubtedly implies an argument -- to (probably inadequately) sum it up, men are used to dominating non-men in many situations in our society and as a result sometimes do so whether they notice it or not. Is it that the term is pejorative or that you disagree with the premises and conclusions of this argument?

- men traditionally and in many ways still play dominant roles in society
- all other things being equal, men tend to act in accordance with that fact
- one way this manifests is by condescending to people who are not men

I may be missing some key points (open to any additions or clarifications) but I think that is the basic jist of the term. As far as I can tell, the term does not suggest men are bad/inferior or intend to be condescending or consciously patronize people who aren't men (or other men for that matter). If anything, the phrase tends to suggest that men can sometimes be prisoners to a man-centric point of view and act in a way that, if they saw it from a different perspective, they would regret/prefer to act differently.

**focusedfire**

Could this be why the word is "patronizing" instead of "matronizing" or "personizing"?

Later,
ff

**Peregrine**

focusedfire wrote:
You don't seem to understand that one "always has the right to be and is in the position to be assertive". It is not the fault of anyone else if that person chooses to not exercise that right.

Sigh. You really do have trouble understanding this "other people have different experiences thing". Let's consider a hypothetical situation: it's a bad economy and jobs are hard to get, but you have one that pays your bills. But here your boss is, being a condescending

to you. Do you exercise your right to be assertive and risk getting fired, or do you just accept the awkward conversation as the price of securing your paycheck?

Ah, yes. If the mighty Peregrine has never heard of it then it must surely not have ever existed.

{random historical anecdotes that have nothing to do with what I asked for proof of}

First of all yes, if I haven't heard of something despite participating in a lot of arguments like this it's probably a sign (though not absolute proof) that the view in question is probably held only by a small minority.

Second, your little story about Cheers has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. I asked for examples of feminists who actually make your supposed argument about how use of technical jargon (even in contexts where it is appropriate) is a man "lording his power and authority over women". And you responded with a story about how the concept known as "mansplaining" had a different name in the past. Do you see a problem here?

You seem to ignore that not being normal can have positive connotations.

It can, but you're talking about a context where "not normal" has been used as an insult. Can you imagine why it might be a problem to define everyone who isn't like you as "normal" in that situation?

Your entire point here seems to be that we replace an already serviceable terms like transgender and non-transgender (norms, mundanes, vanillas) with an easily misused and already abused term just because some transgenders are overly cynical or have a self-esteem problem .

I really fail to see how using the opposite of "trans-" as a prefix to mean "not transgender" is a term that is "easily misused and abused". Or did you think that "cis-" was a term invented by SJW feminazis just to annoy you instead of an existing prefix used in the appropriate manner?

**Manchu**

focusedfire wrote:
Could this be why the word is "patronizing" instead of "matronizing" or "personizing"?

I don't know the actual etymology. My guess is, it has to do with the meaning of "patron" -- which is someone who provides for a client and is usually the client's social superior. So "patronizing" could have developed as an ironic usage, meaning to act as if you are someone's superior. That's just my guess. As for why "patron" rather than "matron," I think that is because all of the languages in question (Latin, French (probably?), English) are products of patriarchal rather than matriarchal cultures to the point where even a woman who, for example, supports an artist is called that artist's patron while the word matron simply refers to an older woman (e.g., in contrast to maid[en]) or a (female) nurse. So in other words, I don't think the word "patronize" either (a) does call out anything about the gender of who is being condescending or being condescended to or (b) was ever intended to do so.

**lord_blackfang**

Manchu wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
whenever it is brought up
To avoid a battle of the anecdotes, perhaps it would be best to stick with the actual meaning of the term.

Oh, oh, oh, is this like when feminists hide behind the dictionary definition of the term so they can brush off all allegations of fascist and misandric currents in their movement?

**Cheesecat**

lord_blackfang wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
whenever it is brought up
To avoid a battle of the anecdotes, perhaps it would be best to stick with the actual meaning of the term.

Oh, oh, oh, is this like when feminists hide behind the dictionary definition of the term so they can brush off all allegations of fascist and misandric currents in their movement?

Wait, there is a subsection of feminism that is in support of authoritarianism in order to unify a nation though political violence, war, imperialism, extreme nationalism, etc as a means to achieve national rejuvenation and feels that stronger nations have the right to expand their territory by

displacing weaker nations?

**Yodhrin**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
I guess my real question is why is this vernacular acceptable?

It isn't. It's along the same lines as things like "tone policing" and other made-up words created specifically to shut down debate, shut people up, and push a specific ideology devoid of logic.

Falls into a similar category to things like "cultural appropriation" and "ableism", that is to say things that don't really exist, or, at the very least do but not quite to the same extreme as those that bang on about them would have us believe.

While I wouldn't use the word "ableism", because it's stupid, the idea there isn't a systemic and pronounced problem in developed nations regarding discrimination against those with physical and mental disorders, whether socially or professionally, is demonstrably false. Do you have any concept of what it's like to go through life never knowing whether the next person you meet is going to judge you as either totally incapable/defective, or a lying chancer just out for sympathy/welfare? Have you ever seen the expression on an interviewer's face in the moment they go from viewing you as a serious prospect for a job to a "don't call us..." as soon as they find out you have a disorder, even if it has no bearing on your ability to actually do the job you're applying for(and before anyone smartarses; some prospective employers require you to disclose any ongoing medical issues you have, whether they're relevant or not)? Do you go through life having to watch people use the medical term for your disorder as a casual insult, based in crude stereotypes? Is a group you belong to, not through choice and which you cannot leave, regularly demonised in the media?

Has it occurred to you that the reason people "bang on about [it]" is because there are still plenty of people like you floating around asserting that these issues "don't really exist"?

**Bromsy**

Yodhrin wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
I guess my real question is why is this vernacular acceptable?

It isn't. It's along the same lines as things like "tone policing" and other made-up words created specifically to shut down debate, shut people up, and push a specific ideology devoid of logic.

Falls into a similar category to things like "cultural appropriation" and "ableism", that is to say things that don't really exist, or, at the very least do but not quite to the same extreme as those that bang on about them would have us believe.

While I wouldn't use the word "ableism", because it's stupid, the idea there isn't a systemic and pronounced problem in developed nations regarding discrimination against those with physical and mental disorders, whether socially or professionally, is demonstrably false. Do you have any concept of what it's like to go through life never knowing whether the next person you meet is going to judge you as either totally incapable/defective, or a lying chancer just out for sympathy/welfare? Have you ever seen the expression on an interviewer's face in the moment they go from viewing you as a serious prospect for a job to a "don't call us..." as soon as they find out you have a disorder, even if it has no bearing on your ability to actually do the job you're applying for(and before anyone smartarses; some prospective employers require you to disclose any ongoing medical issues you have, whether they're relevant or not)? Do you go through life having to watch people use the medical term for your disorder as a casual insult, based in crude stereotypes? Is a group you belong to, not through choice and which you cannot leave, regularly demonised in the media?

Has it occurred to you that the reason people "bang on about [it]" is because there are still plenty of people like you floating around asserting that these issues "don't really exist"?

Yeah, no one is saying that doesn't suck; but you kind of took a sharp turn away from what HBMC was saying there. "Ableism" is a term and thought process dreamed up to take offense at any term that even mentions a theoretical disability. It isn't a guy not hiring you because you are in a wheelchair. That is discrimination based on disability status which is illegal in America, at the least. Ableism is some scarf wearing early twenty year old - usually without any of the conditions they are decrying the shaming of - freaking out in your general direction because you used common turns of phrase. It's saying that using terms like "That's lame" "That's crazy" "What are you, deaf?" "Are you nuts?" are offensive language that should be variously discouraged, banned or criminalized, depending on the ardor of the complaining individual.

**focusedfire**

Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:
You don't seem to understand that one "always has the right to be and is in the position to be assertive". It is not the fault of anyone else if that person chooses to not exercise that right.

Sigh. You really do have trouble understanding this "other people have different experiences thing". Let's consider a hypothetical situation: it's a bad economy and jobs are hard to get, but you have one that pays your bills. But here your boss is, being a condescending to you. Do you exercise your right to be assertive and risk getting fired, or do you just accept the awkward conversation as the price of securing your paycheck?

No problem understanding others points of view. Just very little empathy for those that won't help themselves.

In your hypothetical situation why is the woman not taking the issue to HR?
Why doesn't she use her smartphone to record the mans behaviour and then go talk to a lawyer?

The past 40+ years have shown a steady process in which protections for women and minorities have been enacted through legislation.
If someone won't try to stand up for themselves when they are able it is usually pointless to try and stand up for them.

In the end, the choice is hers to assert herself or not.

Yes, she could still lose her job, and have a court battle, but sometimes sacrifices have to be made to do the right thing.

(Edit to add)
Are you aware how ironic your hypothetical situation is here?

You chose to portray the woman as powerless. Maybe you hold some stereotypes that you are unaware of.

Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Ah, yes. If the mighty Peregrine has never heard of it then it must surely not have ever existed.

{random historical anecdotes that have nothing to do with what I asked for proof of}

First of all yes, if I haven't heard of something despite participating in a lot of arguments like this it's probably a sign (though not absolute proof) that the view in question is probably held only by a small minority.

Second, your little story about Cheers has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. I asked for examples of feminists who actually make your supposed argument about how use of technical jargon (even in contexts where it is appropriate) is a man "lording his power and authority over women". And you responded with a story about how the concept known as "mansplaining" had a different name in the past. Do you see a problem here?

First, don't alter my words (part in red)without noting such. Your doing such speaks volumes about who you are as a person.

Second, Your refusal to comprehend how such behaviour was being lampooned in the mainstream media also says a bit about your intentions in this discussion.

Third, I figured such a learned feminist as yourself was aware of the works of all the notable/published feminists.
......hmm, lets see. Ever heard of Gloria Jean Watkins also known by the nom de plum bell hooks ?
She authored the book Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, in which she comments on how "jargon" is used as a tool of oppression.

Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:You seem to ignore that not being normal can have positive connotations.

It can, but you're talking about a context where "not normal" has been used as an insult. Can you imagine why it might be a problem to define everyone who isn't like you as "normal" in that situation?

Yes, am aware of context. Also am aware that we as a people have the ability to create a positive context just as easily as a negative one.....if we are willing to be positive and do the work.

Take the word abnormal for instance. It does not have a purely negative/pejorative meaning. It can also mean exceptional....and was often used for such until the clinical diagnosis became commonly used.

Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Your entire point here seems to be that we replace an already serviceable terms like transgender and non-transgender (norms, mundanes, vanillas) with an easily misused and already abused term just because some transgenders are overly cynical or have a self-esteem problem .

I really fail to see how using the opposite of "trans-" as a prefix to mean "not transgender" is a term that is "easily misused and abused". Or did you think that "cis-" was a term invented by SJW feminazis just to annoy you instead of an existing prefix used in the appropriate manner?

The term has been around for about 20 years. Hence I know that it would be impossible for you to have invented it.

Seriously, go back and reread the post. It is very clear that I am referring to the term cisgender as the misused and abused term.

At this point I will bow out. Any continued discussion with you would seem to be pointless and futile. While I may be abnormal and a little crazy....I'm not far enough gone to keep doing this and expect a different result.

Later,
ff

Edit for spacing

**Yodhrin**

Bromsy wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
I guess my real question is why is this vernacular acceptable?

It isn't. It's along the same lines as things like "tone policing" and other made-up words created specifically to shut down debate, shut people up, and push a specific ideology devoid of logic.

Falls into a similar category to things like "cultural appropriation" and "ableism", that is to say things that don't really exist, or, at the very least do but not quite to the same extreme as those that bang on about them would have us believe.

While I wouldn't use the word "ableism", because it's stupid, the idea there isn't a systemic and pronounced problem in developed nations regarding discrimination against those with physical and mental disorders, whether socially or professionally, is demonstrably false. Do you have any concept of what it's like to go through life never knowing whether the next person you meet is going to judge you as either totally incapable/defective, or a lying chancer just out for sympathy/welfare? Have you ever seen the expression on an interviewer's face in the moment they go from viewing you as a serious prospect for a job to a "don't call us..." as soon as they find out you have a disorder, even if it has no bearing on your ability to actually do the job you're applying for(and before anyone smartarses; some prospective employers require you to disclose any ongoing medical issues you have, whether they're relevant or not)? Do you go through life having to watch people use the medical term for your disorder as a casual insult, based in crude stereotypes? Is a group you belong to, not through choice and which you cannot leave, regularly demonised in the media?

Has it occurred to you that the reason people "bang on about [it]" is because there are still plenty of people like you floating around asserting that these issues "don't really exist"?

Yeah, no one is saying that doesn't suck; but you kind of took a sharp turn away from what HBMC was saying there. "Ableism" is a term and thought process dreamed up to take offense at any term that even mentions a theoretical disability. It isn't a guy not hiring you because you are in a wheelchair. That is discrimination based on disability status which is illegal in America, at the least. Ableism is some scarf wearing early twenty year old - usually without any of the conditions they are decrying the shaming of - freaking out in your general direction because you used common turns of phrase. It's saying that using terms like "That's lame" "That's crazy" "What are you, deaf?" "Are you nuts?" are offensive language that should be variously discouraged, banned or criminalized, depending on the ardor of the complaining individual.

And just like most of the complaints about these terms in this thread, "what HBMC was saying there" is a gratuitous strawman, branding the most extreme and irrelevant(to serious discourse) examples of misuse of a term as representative of that term, and dismissing it out of hand on that basis.

I find some aspects of the idea behind "ableism" questionable, but it has valid aspects; casual, almost unconscious discrimination does exist, and language does play a part in that - it's not something you should club people over the head with unless they're being deliberately offensive gits, but in the context of seriously discussing the subject, debating where exactly the line is in terms of what language is appropriate in a given situation is a perfectly valid aspect of the discussion, and trying to shut that down with this faux-victimhood "oh-em-gee I'm a middle-aged white male, I'm so hard-done-by because some berk on a tumblr told me to check my privilege once, I better turn myself in because obvious being white and male must be illegal now, lulz" drek is getting seriously tiresome.

**H.B.M.C.**

Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, no one is saying that doesn't suck; but you kind of took a sharp turn away from what HBMC was saying there. "Ableism" is a term and thought process dreamed up to take offense at any term that even mentions a theoretical disability. It isn't a guy not hiring you because you are in a wheelchair. That is discrimination based on disability status which is illegal in America, at the least. Ableism is some scarf wearing early twenty year old - usually without any of the conditions they are decrying the shaming of - freaking out in your general direction because you used common turns of phrase. It's saying that using terms like "That's lame" "That's crazy" "What are you, deaf?" "Are you nuts?" are offensive language that should be variously discouraged, banned or criminalized, depending on the ardor of the complaining individual.

Thank you, Bromsy. That is exactly what I was getting at when I say "abelism isn't real", and when I refer to the discrimination of people with disabilities I say "the discrimination of people with disabilities". It's more accurate, and removes all the idiotic (abelism!) and bonkers (abelism!!!) notions from blind (abelism!!!) morons (abelism!!!!!!) who continue to go on about it.

**Peregrine**

focusedfire wrote:
{victim blaming}

Yeah, the real problem in this situation is clearly the person being condescended to not being assertive enough, not the other person being a condescending

...

First, don't alter my words without noting such. Your doing such speaks volumes about who you are as a person.

I didn't alter your words. In fact I literally copy/pasted "lording his power and authority over women" from your post. The fact that you try to blame me for "altering your words" speaks volumes about who you are as a person.

Second, Your refusal to comprehend how such behaviour was being lampooned in the mainstream media also says a bit about your intentions in this discussion.

I understood it perfectly well. Objecting to the fact that your "answer" to my question had nothing to do with that question does not mean that I somehow failed to understand what you said.

......hmm, lets see. Ever heard of Gloria Jean Watkins also known by yhe nom de plum bell hooks ?
She authored the book Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, in which she comments on how "jargon" is used as a tool of oppression.

Now we're getting somewhere. But can you explain this argument of hers in detail?

Seriously, go back and reread the post. It is very clear that I am referring to the term cisgender as the misused and abused term.

I know. And it is very clear that I'm pointing out your ignorance of what that term means. "Cisgender" isn't some SJW feminazi invention that exists just to annoy you, it's the inevitable opposite of "transgender". You know, because "cis-" and "trans-" are opposite prefixes.

**Ahtman**

Peregrine wrote:
You know, because "cis-" and "trans-" are opposite prefixes.

Except they aren't. The prefix trans means beyond, change, or through, thus transgender, transition, transportation, ect ect. Cis as a preface means nearby. Near and Change are not antonyms. Near and Far are opposites, and stagnant and change are also opposites. In chemistry they are the opposites, but transgender doesn't come for the chemistry use, yet to make them mean the opposites you have to use cis from chemistry. If it is the term that is going to be used so be it, but they aren't opposite prefixes in standard latin, except in technical use describing atoms.

**Goliath**

Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, no one is saying that doesn't suck; but you kind of took a sharp turn away from what HBMC was saying there. "Ableism" is a term and thought process dreamed up to take offense at any term that even mentions a theoretical disability. It isn't a guy not hiring you because you are in a wheelchair. That is discrimination based on disability status which is illegal in America, at the least. Ableism is some scarf wearing early twenty year old - usually without any of the conditions they are decrying the shaming of - freaking out in your general direction because you used common turns of phrase. It's saying that using terms like "That's lame" "That's crazy" "What are you, deaf?" "Are you nuts?" are offensive language that should be variously discouraged, banned or criminalized, depending on the ardor of the complaining individual.

No, ableism is a term to describe discrimination against people with disabilities. Yohdrin not being hired (entirely) because he's in a wheelchair is absolutely ableism; just because something is illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen. You wouldn't go up to someone that wasn't hired due to their race and say 'oh, "racism" is a term and thought process dreamed up to take offence at any term that even mentions race (I know so because I saw people on the internet using the term stupidly). It isn't a guy not hiring you because you're [insert race here]. That is discrimination based on race which is illegal in america, at the least.' That would be an idiotic argument, so why do you feel okay making such an argument now? Is it because you saw some screenshots of people on Tumblr misusing the term and then decided that that must be the only, and original use of the term? Because it's not.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Thank you, Bromsy. That is exactly what I was getting at when I say "abelism isn't real", and when I refer to the discrimination of people with disabilities I say "the discrimination of people with disabilities". It's more accurate, and removes all the idiotic (abelism!) and bonkers (abelism!!!) notions from blind (abelism!!!) morons (abelism!!!!!!) who continue to go on about it.

A) Seriously, it's spelt Ableism. Either you can't spell the word properly, or you've somehow made the exact same spelling mistake more than five times.

B) How often do you actually hear all these people in real life? I ask because it seems that every single argument you've made in this thread seems to be dismissing a word based on your perception of how a small section of Tumblr uses it, followed by arguing that their over the top usage is the main usage and so the term shouldn't be used.

Ableism is a useful word that describes an actual thing; just because you don't feel that you suffer from it doesn't mean that others don't either, it just means that you're lucky.
Also, I don't see you arguing that people should just use 'discrimination against people of another race' instead of racism, so why should ableism be any different? It's more accurate, and removes the stupid connotations associated with it, so why not just use it instead? I mean, it's almost like having an actual word for a phenomenon helps codify it as an actual thing.

Anyhow, on to 'cisgender'. For one thing, Cisgender doesn't mean 'not trans*', though that was how the actual word was chosen, because it means anyone who was born with their biological sex matching up to their gender identity. This means that my friend Bethany, who certainly isn't trans*, but doesn't consider herself to be entirely female, isn't Cisgender. This means that Ada, who doesn't consider themselves to be any gender, isn't Cisgender. This means that actually just going 'not transgender' isn't helpful, as their are far more gender identities than just transgender, so saying 'not-transgender' really isn't descriptive.

Anyhow, it Is a useful term, and just because you have seen some young teenagers on Tumblr being idiots doesn't mean that the rest of us don't find the term useful.

This thread seems to largely consist of people for whom these terms aren't useful, or the people the terms are used about, deciding that because they don't use them, and because they've seen people misusing them, that the terms aren't needed. Just because you don't use/need a term doesn't mean that it's useless, it just means that you don't use it. The ability for people non-cisgender identity identities to identify separately from those with cis identities is helpful; I tried to write that sentence without using the term Cisgender, and couldn't find a way that wasn't insulting, like 'normal or not', which bring me onto my final point.

People that are arguing in this thread about 'why not just use the word normal' have either never been a part of any discussion involving gender/sexuality, or they're just being wilfully mean. This is a conversation about gender/sexuality. At what point has any of you ever heard the term 'not normal' be used in a positive manner? For a stupid number of years, to be 'not normal' meant ridicule and discrimination, so why the feth do you think people that aren't Cisgender would identify as not normal? 'Oh, I guess I'm a freak' isn't exactly a sentence that people are likely to want to say, but that's the implication when you try to differentiate between normal and not. Seriously, the fact that people want to use the term normal describe straight white male is the whole reason this discussion exists in the first place!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yodhrin wrote:
And just like most of the complaints about these terms in this thread, "what HBMC was saying there" is a gratuitous strawman, branding the most extreme and irrelevant(to serious discourse) examples of misuse of a term as representative of that term, and dismissing it out of hand on that basis.

I find some aspects of the idea behind "ableism" questionable, but it has valid aspects; casual, almost unconscious discrimination does exist, and language does play a part in that - it's not something you should club people over the head with unless they're being deliberately offensive gits, but in the context of seriously discussing the subject, debating where exactly the line is in terms of what language is appropriate in a given situation is a perfectly valid aspect of the discussion, and trying to shut that down with this faux-victimhood "oh-em-gee I'm a middle-aged white male, I'm so hard-done-by because some berk on a tumblr told me to check my privilege once, I better turn myself in because obvious being white and male must be illegal now, lulz" drek is getting seriously tiresome.

This is a pretty succinct summary of my feelings on the matter.

**Sigvatr**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sining wrote:
It'll be interesting to see how long this back and forth goes on. Ahtman's made one attempt at saying 'hey, maybe we're just talking back and forth' and Manchu has firmly rebutted that. Who will win? Who will outlast the other? Who MUST have the last word?

My money's probably on Manchu

Well yeah, the pattern's pretty obvious by this point. We'll have a page or two of back and forth, and then he'll lock the thread.

You get ban-threatened first. Get your pattern right, son!

Someone do explain the "abelism" and "ableism" debate first - I am kinda confused as I can only find non-typo versions of "ableism" and it makes sense as it refers to "able". Can anyone enlighten me?

**cincydooley**

Goliath wrote:

A) Seriously it's spelt Ableism. Either you can't spell, or you've already decided the term is unimportant so you can misspell it because it doesn't matter, I'll leave the decision up to you, but please try and spell it correctly, you look like a buffoon.

"Seriously, (COMMA) it's SPELLED (the correct way to pretty much everyone NOT in the UK).....[run on sentence that's barely intelligible] you look like a buffoon"

Don't be a condescending douchenozzle about spelling and syntax if you can't get it right yourself.