Bigoted reactionaries, like Elon and Jordan, want to make cis a slur so they can ban its usage and prevent inclusive vocabulary. They’re not actually offended by it.
Thats not what it means though, and I’m willing to wager most people upset about it know that. If someone is offended by how qn adjective sounds…I truthfully cant really say anything to that
The biggest thing I can think of is it sounds like sis. As in sissy.
Yeah. I can’t really control how a word sounds, though, and if you’re triggered because it sounds like “sissy”, that’s due to toxic masculinity, which is still a you problem. I’m not your therapist.
Not really, but there are some particularly crazy/militant/extreme people in the left and trans community who use it like it is.
Often not on it’s own, usually in phrases like “cishet white male”. Usually implying that the simple existence of this particular combination of uncontrollable personal traits is inherently problematic. Sometimes outright stating it. Sometimes literally calling for genocide or eugenics, or saying that it is entirely impossible to be a cishet white male and also be a good person.
It’s the type of behavior that young men see that drives them into shit like Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, etc.
I’d imagine the people saying these things think it is fair or payback for the sexists, racists, bigots, etc that call for the same for their group. Payback for the reprehensible behavior they have had to endure. Hearing similar things directed at them may have driven them into the arms of extremist shit stirrers on their side.
Makes for a shitty, shitty cycle of reciprocal attack on people defined as “other”.
Personally, I don’t think the target makes a difference. It’s reprehensible behavior either way. Go find a healthier output for your hurt. There are times where being the bigger person or taking the high road is not effective, but that should never be the assumed default or a situation to look forward to.
All that said, anyone arguing that those extremists are somehow leaders in the wider community is more interested in fanning the flames than anything else.
Because it can be used as an exclusionary term to minimize cis voices. Stay with me, this isn’t going where you think.
When trans folks engage in community discussions, it’s very typical for cis people to insert themselves into the conversation so they can tell trans people who they are and aren’t, what they should and shouldn’t do. This actually happens with a lot of minority groups hoping to have serious discussions in public. Black folks hear about all lives matter or black-on-black violence, atheists here from religious proselytizers, etc.
So when trans folks - very rightly - let cis people know not to talk over them in their own communities, bigots believe -very wrongly- that their rights are being abused. Therefore the conclusion that “cis” is “discriminatory.” See also “anti-white racism” “Men’s Rights,” etc.
All of these grievance perspectives are based on real-world difficulties, but provided without context. There are certain specific situations where it may be disadvantageous to be male, white, and cis. But those specific circumstances are not a part of systemic bias. If you don’t care about context, and you don’t care about systemic bias (particularly because it tends to benefit you), it’s easy to view these isolated situations as a cause for victimhood.
It was meant as an insult, sort of. It was meant to reverse the verbal power dynamic in calling someone trans.
It was meant to make the oppressor feel oppressed and learn from the experience.
But CIS bigots go full on victim mode without the “oh is this what it is like for you ?” empathy moment that some people can experience.
Republicans only can experience empathy for their children, and Republicans can only feel empathy if it happens in the open and their peers talk about it. Then all the sudden the Republican is heartfelt in their sorrow for their personal ratings dip.
It’s very simple. You have a word for somebody whose gender identity is different from what they were assigned at birth; so, you also need a word for the opposite of that (somebody whose gender identity is the same as what they were assigned at birth). And no, you can’t just call those people “normal”.
The word wasn’t created in order to reverse a power dynamic or make an oppressor feel oppressed. It was created because you needed a word there.
Backing up the “normal” part of your comment. What’s normal anyway? What’s deemed to be normal by society. So of course you need a term. Especially in an age where people are informed enough and primed to know about these subjects compared to 10ish years ago. Claiming that CIS is exclusionary is so silly
It never occurred to me that was the intention. It is quite funny when people get together to come up with some clever idea but forget to tell the target audience. I saw it, understood it meant “not trans,” and moved on. I also don’t get involved in a ton of gender discussions. There seems to be an over abundance of focus on it for reasons unclear to me.
Is the term ‘cis’ an insult now? Or am I not spending enough time reading people whining over politics?
Bigoted reactionaries, like Elon and Jordan, want to make cis a slur so they can ban its usage and prevent inclusive vocabulary. They’re not actually offended by it.
I’m not too sure about that. Some people just want something to be offended over and end up making stuff up so they can be upset.
Culture war nonsense. Try not to spend much time at all if you can.
They’ll pick anything to get more airtime. I remember them going after Jill Biden for using the prefix Dr but not in the medical sense.
They don’t believe the words they’re saying and playing this fake intellectual debate to keep attacking the liberals.
Transphobes have been trying to turn it into one for a while, so they can play victim about it.
The biggest thing I can think of is it sounds like sis. As in sissy.
If you’re down voting my observation please do go ahead and explain why. Am I factually wrong in the way the word sounds?
Time to revert to the old Latin pronunciation of /kis/ and start calling Peterson specifically “keesgender”
Lol go for it.
Thats not what it means though, and I’m willing to wager most people upset about it know that. If someone is offended by how qn adjective sounds…I truthfully cant really say anything to that
Read it as cheese and you’ll insult the lactose intolerant.
Yeah. I can’t really control how a word sounds, though, and if you’re triggered because it sounds like “sissy”, that’s due to toxic masculinity, which is still a you problem. I’m not your therapist.
Not really, but there are some particularly crazy/militant/extreme people in the left and trans community who use it like it is.
Often not on it’s own, usually in phrases like “cishet white male”. Usually implying that the simple existence of this particular combination of uncontrollable personal traits is inherently problematic. Sometimes outright stating it. Sometimes literally calling for genocide or eugenics, or saying that it is entirely impossible to be a cishet white male and also be a good person.
It’s the type of behavior that young men see that drives them into shit like Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, etc.
I’d imagine the people saying these things think it is fair or payback for the sexists, racists, bigots, etc that call for the same for their group. Payback for the reprehensible behavior they have had to endure. Hearing similar things directed at them may have driven them into the arms of extremist shit stirrers on their side.
Makes for a shitty, shitty cycle of reciprocal attack on people defined as “other”.
Personally, I don’t think the target makes a difference. It’s reprehensible behavior either way. Go find a healthier output for your hurt. There are times where being the bigger person or taking the high road is not effective, but that should never be the assumed default or a situation to look forward to.
All that said, anyone arguing that those extremists are somehow leaders in the wider community is more interested in fanning the flames than anything else.
You see, “cis” implies the existence of “trans” and some people just really don’t like the fact that they exist. Despite the it being fact.
Because it can be used as an exclusionary term to minimize cis voices. Stay with me, this isn’t going where you think.
When trans folks engage in community discussions, it’s very typical for cis people to insert themselves into the conversation so they can tell trans people who they are and aren’t, what they should and shouldn’t do. This actually happens with a lot of minority groups hoping to have serious discussions in public. Black folks hear about all lives matter or black-on-black violence, atheists here from religious proselytizers, etc.
So when trans folks - very rightly - let cis people know not to talk over them in their own communities, bigots believe -very wrongly- that their rights are being abused. Therefore the conclusion that “cis” is “discriminatory.” See also “anti-white racism” “Men’s Rights,” etc.
All of these grievance perspectives are based on real-world difficulties, but provided without context. There are certain specific situations where it may be disadvantageous to be male, white, and cis. But those specific circumstances are not a part of systemic bias. If you don’t care about context, and you don’t care about systemic bias (particularly because it tends to benefit you), it’s easy to view these isolated situations as a cause for victimhood.
I have a penis.
Anything can be an insult in politics.
It was meant as an insult, sort of. It was meant to reverse the verbal power dynamic in calling someone trans.
It was meant to make the oppressor feel oppressed and learn from the experience.
But CIS bigots go full on victim mode without the “oh is this what it is like for you ?” empathy moment that some people can experience.
Republicans only can experience empathy for their children, and Republicans can only feel empathy if it happens in the open and their peers talk about it. Then all the sudden the Republican is heartfelt in their sorrow for their personal ratings dip.
No it wasn’t.
It’s very simple. You have a word for somebody whose gender identity is different from what they were assigned at birth; so, you also need a word for the opposite of that (somebody whose gender identity is the same as what they were assigned at birth). And no, you can’t just call those people “normal”.
The word wasn’t created in order to reverse a power dynamic or make an oppressor feel oppressed. It was created because you needed a word there.
Backing up the “normal” part of your comment. What’s normal anyway? What’s deemed to be normal by society. So of course you need a term. Especially in an age where people are informed enough and primed to know about these subjects compared to 10ish years ago. Claiming that CIS is exclusionary is so silly
It never occurred to me that was the intention. It is quite funny when people get together to come up with some clever idea but forget to tell the target audience. I saw it, understood it meant “not trans,” and moved on. I also don’t get involved in a ton of gender discussions. There seems to be an over abundance of focus on it for reasons unclear to me.