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.

Prestor Jon wrote:
You just culturally appropriated the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon from the Germans. Check your imperialist cismale privilege.

I totally culturally appropriated this as my avatar on several places of the internet:

Because attempted political assassination with a freaking RPG.

Gosh, "cisgender. By people who are offended by the term "normal".

Prestor Jon wrote:
Check your imperialist cismale privilege.

Never!

 cincydooley wrote:
Also, I have to say I hate this "cisgender" nonsense.

It bothers me, though I think mostly because in Greek 'cis~' isn't the opposite, or anything really, of 'trans~'. If I recall they are opposites it is in chemisty, but that still means lopsided language as one comes from the language in general and the other from a specific term in chemistry. It is forced and much like 'mansplain' more often muddies any real issues through loaded language.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Gosh, "cisgender. By people who are offended by the term "normal".

What is the problem with cis-gender? I mean, you certainly cannot propose the term normal as an alternative. Because that would imply all cisgender people are normal, and deep down bellow, you know this is completely false.

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.

 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.

Pretty much this.

Really, when it comes to it, mansplaining is the same thing, only it attaches a gender to the made up term in order to be used as a derogatory.

I can't even imagine what the uproar would be if someone tried to use "femsplaining."

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Honestly I had never heard this term before and since the creation of this thread I have seen it twice. This is more proof that everything originates in Dakka's OT and radiates outward.

You just culturally appropriated the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon from the Germans. Check your imperialist cismale privilege.

The illusion in which a word, a name or other thing that has recently come to one's attention suddenly seems to appear with improbable frequency shortly afterwards (see also recency illusion).[37] Colloquially, this illusion is known as the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon.

Who knew we'd gain something pretty interesting from this thread?

I'm learnding!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Gosh, "cisgender. By people who are offended by the term "normal".

What is the problem with cis-gender? I mean, you certainly cannot propose the term normal as an alternative. Because that would imply all cisgender people are normal, and deep down bellow, you know this is completely false.

SIgnificant Statistic majority gender. Sis-gender.

 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 .

 cincydooley wrote:

I can't even imagine what the uproar would be if someone tried to use "femsplaining."

Uh.. isn't that "women" talk?

 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.

 Sigvatr wrote:
There's no need for any replacement word.

No problem with one either.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Normal fits perfectly in this case as (context) we're talking about gender.

Oh no, it does not. Some people are born with unusual mix of chromosomes and sexual organs. This is something completely different from someone deciding to change gender. And this is what I would understand if you spoke about someone being or not being normal. Cisgender allow for no confusion, is pretty clear, concise, neutral and not connoted as far as I can tell…

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/normal

If people are offended by being called "not normal" because they're part of less than 1% of the population, then the problem lies in those people.

Yeah, I just looked up the actual meaning of the prefix. I'm concerned that it appears to have no real relevance to the meaning applied to it. I guess then that this is finally the point in time where we're not even trying to bother with troubling ourselves with silly things like etymology, and we derive words from whatever feels good and apply them until they stick, with only context being the thing carrying true meaning.

I will heartily refer that people who think they're what they physically are as grape-gendered, whereas anyone else will become ceiling-tile-gendered. As an aspiring contra-automobile-thumbtack, I'm particularly cis-florescent about it.

 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. "Cisgender" is no less valid than "Heterosexual", "Sighted", "Literate" or "Healthy" just because the set of people that fit into that categorization is broader than the others.

Certainly the utility of it is probably limited in day-to-day conversation where people aren't discussing issues of gender and sexuality. However in conversations about those things it's appropriate. It describes a relationship between someones identity,feelings and their body. Just because that relationship is by far the most common one, doesn't mean it should be framed differently than others.

As I said, if you want to reject basic language and make up own words because of personal reasons, that's your freedom to do.

 Chongara wrote:

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.

Were tumblr the barometer of negative connotations we used to calibrate our instruments, I'd argue that being "normal" is far worse than not.

We need specific terms for specific things, whatever they may be. "Cisgender" is no less valid than "Heterosexual", "Sighted", "Literate" or "Healthy" just because the set of people that fit into that categorization is broader than the others.

Aside from the fact that those all mean what they define, yeah. Don't be all di-shoes about this.

I guess this thread has jumped the shark.

 Sigvatr wrote:
If people are offended by being called "not normal" because they're part of less than 1% of the population, then the problem lies in those people.

Did I, at any time, implied anything about anyone taking offense at anything?

 daedalus wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

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.

Were tumblr the barometer of negative connotations we used to calibrate our instruments, I'd argue that being "normal" is far worse than not.

We need specific terms for specific things, whatever they may be. "Cisgender" is no less valid than "Heterosexual", "Sighted", "Literate" or "Healthy" just because the set of people that fit into that categorization is broader than the others.

Aside from the fact that those all mean what they define, yeah. Don't be all di-shoes about this.

The term is used to describe something. Something that exists. If both parties understand what's communicated by the term, then the term serves its purpose just fine. Getting hung up the fact that whoever first coined the term didn't have all their etymological ducks on the row is semantic nitpicking of least productive kind.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If people are offended by being called "not normal" because they're part of less than 1% of the population, then the problem lies in those people.

Did I, at any time, implied anything about anyone taking offense at anything?

I did not intend to aim that at anyone in this thread

Cisgender is a stupid term. It's made up and serves no purpose. There's the normal. Then there's people who identify differently and consider themselves being different and then have their own titles to identify with. Now...what is the point of using a term that basically has no own semantic value and serves nothing but identifying the people using it?

Then how was it related to our discussion?

To be clear: I am not discussing anything here. The term is stupid and I laid out why. People using it want to be special among the special - and I can just sigh at that.

Well, I do not see any problem with the term and I am explaining why.

 Chongara wrote:
[
The term is used to describe something. Something that exists. If both parties understand what's communicated by the term, then the term serves its purpose just fine. Getting hung up the fact that whoever first coined the term didn't have all their etymological ducks on the row is semantic nitpicking of least productive kind.

If a person is uncomfortable with a term being applied to him or her (or it, or whatever), for any reason however "unproductive" or "nitpicky", is it still right to use it?

 daedalus wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
[
The term is used to describe something. Something that exists. If both parties understand what's communicated by the term, then the term serves its purpose just fine. Getting hung up the fact that whoever first coined the term didn't have all their etymological ducks on the row is semantic nitpicking of least productive kind.

If a person is uncomfortable with a term being applied to him or her (or it, or whatever), for any reason however "unproductive" or "nitpicky", is it still right to use it?

This depends on the nature of their objection. If they've a personal trauma with it or the term is broadly pejorative looking for alternative terms is probably a reasonable accommodation to ask of people. Whatever that term is will have to be similarly descriptive, minus whatever harmful consolations the original was carrying. If their complaint boils down to "I'm a dude that's OK with being a dude. The fact that's something that can be recognized and contrasted with dudes who aren't OK with being dudes...skeeves me out." they can go get bent.

 daedalus wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
[
The term is used to describe something. Something that exists. If both parties understand what's communicated by the term, then the term serves its purpose just fine. Getting hung up the fact that whoever first coined the term didn't have all their etymological ducks on the row is semantic nitpicking of least productive kind.

If a person is uncomfortable with a term being applied to him or her (or it, or whatever), for any reason however "unproductive" or "nitpicky", is it still right to use it?

that depends, are peoples feelings more important then everything else, up to and including reality?

does one persons feelings that they dont like being called cis over ride another persons feelings about being in a fringe/non normal group, being called out accuratly as not conforming to the norm?

using the term CIS can offend some people, using the term normal affects others, technically speaking, normal is a correct term whil CIS is not, so reality is the tie breaker here.


using CIS doesnt even make sense, you have males, females, hermaphrodites, and transgendered people... CIS is superfluous at best..

I mean, it doesn't offend me in anyway, really, other than the fact that I think it's stupid and unnecessary.

But then again, I'm sure it has something to do with my white privilege.

I've gotten to the point that I know, and begrudgingly accept, that because I'm a white middle class male I'm going to be told by multiple groups that my opinion doesn't count on all sorts of things.

Frankly, I feel the term is asinine and forced, and have generally only seen it applied seemingly as a pejorative (see: Tumblr). Beyond being the people who use it in such a way, the guys who think they're gals or vice versa don't really figure into my distaste for the term.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:

using CIS doesnt even make sense, you have males, females, hermaphrodites, and transgendered people... CIS is superfluous at best..

I mean, yeah. This is kind of how it makes sense to me. Males are male. Females are female. Cis is something I'm labeled as by angry people on blogs in the dark recesses of the Internet I marvel over during bouts of insomnia.

From here on out, I'd like to be referred to as "pickle-pantsed."