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.

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

As a name, or as a classification of abstract state of being? Does it exist as a pronoun? Is it okay if I use it with protofrozz, or would you rather people floroform it?

 daedalus wrote:
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.

At the end of the day people who are transgender and those who deal with and discuss their issues with them need a term for those who aren't transgender, that also does not diminish their own identities.

You can't just call them "Male" or "Female" this either invalidates their own identities (those people are male/female, we actually aren't) or it just describes biology, which isn't useful enough.

You can't just assign them "Normal", it's too alienating.

Some of the other frameworks such as used such as those to describe transitions "Male to Female" are all somewhere between really clumsy at best, to running into the same invalidation problem at just using "Male", "Female" as seperate to transgender.

The term cleanly fills a useful niche when discussing transgender issues, or placing transgendered people in a broader context. That a few vitriolic teenagers on tumblr make a screaming mess of the discussion really isn't the best measure here. I won't argue it was the most elegantly coined term I'm not a linguist, but like I said useless semantic nitpicking.

To put it another way: How much have you actually sought and watched or engaged with discussions on gender identity? Or even related topics like sexual orientation, or the role gender plays in society? Have you looked into these issues at all beyond the silliest examples of virotic teenagers that make to /r/tumblrinaction ?

 Chongara wrote:


At the end of the day people who are transgender and those who deal with and discuss their issues with them need a term for those who aren't transgender, that also does not diminish their own identities.

I actually hadn't considered this. I still hate the phrase, but this does make me a bit more empathetic to it.

So...should I rename this thread "cismalesplaining" ?

That term contains the word "plain" and "plain" is similar to "normal" and that is offensive. OFFENSIIIIIVE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:


You can't just assign them "Normal", it's too alienating.

If you think that "normal" (or "not normal") has a negative connotation, then you need to rethink your attitude.

 Chongara wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
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.

At the end of the day people who are transgender and those who deal with and discuss their issues with them need a term for those who aren't transgender, that also does not diminish their own identities.

You can't just call them "Male" or "Female" this either invalidates their own identities (those people are male/female, we actually aren't) or it just describes biology, which isn't useful enough.

You can't just assign them "Normal", it's too alienating.

Some of the other frameworks such as used such as those to describe transitions "Male to Female" are all somewhere between really clumsy at best, to running into the same invalidation problem at just using "Male", "Female" as seperate to transgender.

Personally, I disagree. You need to use multiple forms of male/female to explain which of the myriad of types of transgender you are anyway, right? Even then, hell, even monogendered, implying that you only have one would make more sense.

After thinking about it a while, the problem here is I think is a philosophical divide. 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.

The term cleanly fills a useful niche when discussing transgender issues, or placing transgendered people in a broader context. That a few vitriolic teenagers on tumblr make a screaming mess of the discussion really isn't the best measure here. I won't argue it was the most elegantly coined term I'm not a linguist, but like I said useless semantic nitpicking.

To put it another way: How much have you actually sought and watched or engaged with discussions on gender identity? Or even related topics like sexual orientation, or the role gender plays in society? Have you looked into these issues at all beyond the silliest examples of virotic teenagers that make to /r/tumblrinaction ?

Not particularly much, to be honest. There was the thread I started here weeks ago to try to better understand it, which didn't go very far.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion that male and female are now mentally different and not social constructs, while society has screamed at me my entire life otherwise.

 Chongara wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
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.

At the end of the day people who are transgender and those who deal with and discuss their issues with them need a term for those who aren't transgender, that also does not diminish their own identities.

Perhaps, but cisgender wasn't created by them, it was popularized in the armpit of the internet as a way of differentiating in a negative. It isn't about understanding or inclusion, it is about distance and dislike. It is hard to get to a better place by creating a gap between yourself and the other 99.7%*. If I thought this would help people understand each other I'd be all for it, but it is a wedge more than anything else.


*The numbers I saw put transgender at roughly .3% of the population. I imagine it varies but probably not excessively.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I guess this thread has jumped the shark.

No, it Mansplained the shark.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I guess this thread has jumped the shark.

No, it Mansplained the shark.

*cisplained

 Ahtman wrote:
It is hard to get to a better place by creating a gap between yourself and the other 99.7%

Do you mean, calling out the gap that already exists? I think 'cis-' is meant to point out that 'rans-' is just another (that is, among other) gender orientation and not a defect when measured up against normative gender identity.

 Sigvatr wrote:
*cisplained

That would probably be a pretty useful term, actually.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Chongara wrote:


At the end of the day people who are transgender and those who deal with and discuss their issues with them need a term for those who aren't transgender, that also does not diminish their own identities.

I actually hadn't considered this. I still hate the phrase, but this does make me a bit more empathetic to it.

So...should I rename this thread "cismalesplaining" ?

Empathy is good, as is understanding you may not have considered everything. In fact they're both good tools to approach just about anything involving other people with, the best even.

So if these folks and their issues need a term, what should it be? Why is this particular term so "Stupid"?

It can't really be that the term is "Made Up" all our words are made up, and meanings of words drift from the original ones and can become divorced from their roots, it's not coherent position unless you wish to decry everything that came after our species first whistles and clicks. It

Being pejorative would be fair but I think it takes more than a few disgruntled 14-year olds off tumblr to establish that as the norm - again if your only exposure is people picking out blog entries to highlight how absurd they are, consider that may not be the most informed perspective.


Now I'm going to speculate a bit and draw on my feelings as a-man-born-a-male-who-is-attracted-to-women-and-only-women-and-is-totally-OK-with-all-of-that*. I think what's so initially off putting about it is that its' a rather jarring change from what we're used to. 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.

Then somebody in a different box comes along and they wanna talk about how being in their box is different, what it means for them and how they relate to people in boxes unlike theirs. And suddenly it's like: Whoa! What'd you mean I'm in box? I'm not in a box, I'm just here like everyone else! Don't put me in a box, you're the one being in a tiny little box!.

The fact my identity kind of has a classification and isn't just the way things is, it's a bit off-putting at least initially.



*that was really clumsy and could benefit from some terminology to shorten it up, don't you think?

 Chongara wrote:


So if these folks and their issues need a term, what should it be? Why is this particular term so "Stupid"?

It's unnecessary. It reinforces being different when you already got a term for expressing that you're different. Feel free to use it, but it just clutters up a field that's swarmed by meaningless terms already.

You could argue (as Chongara has pointed out) that "cis-" is unnecessary to you because you gender identity is so common. But can you really argue that it isn't necessary to transgendered people? (This would probably be "cisplaining.") I would say, it serves a useful purpose for cisgendered people, too, inasmuch as the notion that there are people and then there are transgendered people leaves transgendered people on the outside. The concept of "cis-" evens the playing field in the sense of pointing out that being trans- is not some kind of deformity.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Chongara wrote:


So if these folks and their issues need a term, what should it be? Why is this particular term so "Stupid"?

It's unnecessary. It reinforces being different when you already got a term for expressing that you're different. Feel free to use it, but it just clutters up a field that's swarmed by meaningless terms already.

Ahhhhhhh. You got me hooked Siggy. I gotta know: What are all these meaningless terms? If an exhaustive list would be too much, would you just mind giving me a taste? Maybe a "Top 12 most useless terms according to Sigvatr."

1: "Headmates"

Last time I checked, there were more than 50 different terms for gender identification. And yes, that's overly excessive to say the least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
1: "Headmates"

http://headmates.de/

 Sigvatr wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
1: "Headmates"

http://headmates.de/

Oh man, I want to click, but my "don't look during work" alarm is going off. I'll save that one for later.

It's SFW.

That are headmates:

 daedalus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
1: "Headmates"

http://headmates.de/

Oh man, I want to click, but my "don't look during work" alarm is going off. I'll save that one for later.

It's just clothing. Not the sexy type either.

Hah. Totally not the direction I thought it was going. Might have to get a hat though.

 whembly wrote:
I'm deaf... (well, damn near deaf with two hearing aids blasting my eardrums... specially with Metallica/A7X blaring ).

I fething hate this crap. PC'ism at it's worst.

My left eye, if I look at someone with it, is capable of discerning that there is a person in front of me, but that's about it. I can't make out even the features of their face. I know where their eyes, nose and mouth should be, I just can't specifically identify them. And this is after a cornea transplant operation. Thank God form my right eye.

And I'm not about to scream "abelist" at someone who uses the word 'blind', or phrases such as 'blind as a bat' in regular conversation. Why? Because I'm not a fething moron...

 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.

As I said, the entire concept of "abelism" was an unknown to me until a few months ago, but it's by far the most normal of all the stupid Internet-based extremist PC bull gak out there. "Headmates" is where the really crazy crap is. Look that up. Yikes...

 Sigvatr wrote:
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.

Thank you.

Normal isn't a bad word. Normal is just that: Normal. It represents the majority. A woman being a woman or a man being a man doesn't require any special titles, because the titles already exist - man and woman - and that's normal.

 Chongara wrote:
At the end of the day people who are transgender and those who deal with and discuss their issues with them need a term for those who aren't transgender, that also does not diminish their own identities.

Well you kinda just did that.

"... aren't transgender..."

There. That covers it.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Last time I checked, there were more than 50 different terms for gender identification. And yes, that's overly excessive to say the least.

Including baffling things like:

Male-to-Female and MtF. IIRC, this is someone transitioning from male to female (probably via a reassignment medical procedure). The opposite of these exist as well, but why have two that mean the same thing? And before someone says "It's just an acronym", well, I've seen forms that contain all the wonderful and wacky "genders" our convoluted culture of snowflakes has created (they usually come from college campuses - what a fething surprise!), and they list those two (and the FtM opposites) separately.

I want to see an argument between someone who identifies as Male-to-Female and someone who identifies as MtF, if only to watch a literal example of "pointlessness" take places before me.

Isn't MtF just an abbreviation of Male to Female?

 Chongara wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Chongara wrote:


So if these folks and their issues need a term, what should it be? Why is this particular term so "Stupid"?

It's unnecessary. It reinforces being different when you already got a term for expressing that you're different. Feel free to use it, but it just clutters up a field that's swarmed by meaningless terms already.

Ahhhhhhh. You got me hooked Siggy. I gotta know: What are all these meaningless terms? If an exhaustive list would be too much, would you just mind giving me a taste? Maybe a "Top 12 most useless terms according to Sigvatr."

Really the only reason I dislike "cisgender" is because the only time I've ever seen it is on Tumblr where the nutjobs rattle away with some maddening bile and twisted sense of egotistical fun. As per the word, only care for it is whether there is a better term for it as it isn't actually the opposite of trans.

As per mansplaining. Never heard of it before. It's stupid and has no point to have the man before. Simply put, it's just when somebody tries to explain something and the individual already knows it (so it comes off as not expecting the individual to understand the jargon, etc) with the extra caviat that the MAN is doing it. It's stupid and a blatantly loaded term.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Isn't MtF just an abbreviation of Male to Female?

You'd think that, but as I said, I've seen them specifically listed as different things even though that makes no sense.

 StarTrotter wrote:
it isn't actually the opposite of trans

Cis- is not supposed to be the opposite of trans-. It's not meant to define gender as being either this or that. It's trying to do the opposite of that -- to open gender up from "either normal or not normal."

 StarTrotter wrote:

Really the only reason I dislike "cisgender" is because the only time I've ever seen it is on Tumblr where the nutjobs rattle away with some maddening bile and twisted sense of egotistical fun. As per the word, only care for it is whether there is a better term for it as it isn't actually the opposite of trans.

Have you looked anywhere but tumblr? Heck have you even looked at tumblr to any meaningful degree?
Is your only exposure to these issues and the vocabulary around them threads like these, and folks posting screen caps/links of the zaniest "Kill all men" blogs?

If so, is it at all surprising that's the only place and context you've seen it in?

 Manchu wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
it isn't actually the opposite of trans

Cis- is not supposed to be the opposite of trans-. It's not meant to define gender as being either this or that. It's trying to do the opposite of that -- to open gender up from "either normal or not normal."

Said it incorrectly. Anyways looked up latin for far too long and overall I don't really have a problem with the word being cis. Also wait whoa what about normal? All I know is about MtF and FtM but really I frankly just think that they are a male or female (depending on what they identify with). Then I'm done unless they have both genitals which is far more complicated. On a side note, it made me actually look up when heterosexual first was coined. First time was in 1900s but it seems to not have gained much speed until about the 1960s or something. Actually interesting to learn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

Really the only reason I dislike "cisgender" is because the only time I've ever seen it is on Tumblr where the nutjobs rattle away with some maddening bile and twisted sense of egotistical fun. As per the word, only care for it is whether there is a better term for it as it isn't actually the opposite of trans.

Have you looked anywhere but tumblr? Heck have you even looked at tumblr to any meaningful degree?
Is your only exposure to these issues and the vocabulary around them threads like these, and folks posting screen caps/links of the zaniest "Kill all men" blogs?

If so, is it at all surprising that's the only place and context you've seen it in?

No because I don't try to seek them out
tumblr is mostly a place where people just post about fanbases, artwork, or something else. The group at tumblr that's nuts is a very small subset. Only way I know about them is because they'll lash out sometimes. And issues as to what? I'm really confused on that. Are we talking like LGBT stuff? Are we talking the interwar within the very "united" force itself?

 StarTrotter wrote:
Also wait whoa what about normal?

"Normal" as in people who identify with the gender that is traditionally associated with their biological sex. The word "normal" denotes "usual" or "most common" but also connotes "correct" or (in the context of medicine, for example) "healthy" (see also "normative"). So understanding cisgendered as "normal" can and has fostered confusion/bigotry that people who are not cisgendered are deformed, sick, wrong (including morally wrong), etc. The word "normal" also implies a binary: there is normal and abnormal. The term "cis-" does not imply any binary.

 Manchu wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
Also wait whoa what about normal?

"Normal" as in people who identify with the gender that is traditionally associated with their biological sex. The word "normal" denotes "usual" or "most common" but also connotes "correct" or (in the context of medicine, for example) "healthy" (see also "normative"). So understanding cisgendered as "normal" can and has fostered confusion/bigotry that people who are not cisgendered are deformed, sick, wrong (including morally wrong), etc. The word "normal" also implies a binary: there is normal and abnormal. The term "cis-" does not imply any binary.

Alright, I can get that. I dunno I've just always considered everyone within LGBT to be, simply put, abnormal. Even in the most outrageous of surveys it has at best been a small minority and really, it's probably closer to the margin of 3% at most (and that's probably with some hardcore high margins). Simply put, it is abnormal. Not bad, just abnormal. You are right that the term abnormal is a word that nobody likes simply because usually one associates it with something bad. So yeah, I can see an attempt to make a name for the normal to be instead cisgender. It makes it so that people don't just think abnormal and since abnormal normally means something bad trans = bad.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Not bad, just abnormal. You are right that the term abnormal is a word that nobody likes simply because usually one associates it with something bad.

Sure, exactly. Not being straight or cis seems to be rarer than being those things. No argument. In fact, those things being rare contributes to non-straight or non-cis being comparatively vulnerable to prejudice. For people who are part of the majority in terms of gender, sexual orientation, race, etc, language is often no big deal -- and that's because language is often defined by the majority, at least in terms of its everyday use. But even so I know I would not want to be called abnormal.

 Manchu wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
Not bad, just abnormal. You are right that the term abnormal is a word that nobody likes simply because usually one associates it with something bad.

Sure, exactly. Not being straight or cis seems to be rarer than being those things. No argument. In fact, those things being rare contributes to non-straight or non-cis being comparatively vulnerable to prejudice. For people who are part of the majority in terms of gender, sexual orientation, race, etc, language is often no big deal -- and that's because language is often defined by the majority, at least in terms of its everyday use. But even so I know I would not want to be called abnormal.

And speaking for myself I accept that I am abnormal

Jokes aside, I getcha now. It'll be interesting to see what will happen in the next fifty years on this terminology for sure. Will this become more common or perhaps something else entirely. Anyways, it's rather off topic so apologies for that. I'll stop conversing with this post.