I've been having to explain this a lot this week, since Westboro is in town for the firefighters shot on the 24th.
Westboro is not a political group. They are group of very profitable legal trolls. They probably do hate gay people and minorities, but that isn't what gets them out of bed in the morning. What gets them going, what keeps them in business, is the lawsuits that they file against federal and local governments for failing to give adequate protection during their dog-and-pony shows.
I'm not arguing with your point, just the details. It was two police officers (not firefighters) who were shot and killed in Topeka, KS. The firefighters shot were in upstate New York.
May I use that second paragraph of your comment? It is the most concise statement of the WBC's nature I have seen to date. I would like to have it handy to drop on folk that don't understand the WBC's MO.
I cannot, I'm afraid, take people who use the term "cis" in regular writing and speech very seriously (outside of specialized fields like trans-gender surgery, for example). I don't disagree with those using the term, quite the opposite; but if my refusal to use it means I fail a litmus test and cannot get into the Cool Kids Club, so be it. I'll stick with English, damn the consequences.
Dunno why. It just seems to ethereal a fad, like using "disrespect" as a verb without irony.
#1: I think it's a useful add-on to the set of infinitely-privileged groups, to point out yet another way one can be white, male, straight, christian, and still UNCLEAN in the eyes of JEEZUS.
#2: In this specific instance, he's just said "GLBT" and he's talking about GLBT issues. He could have said "not-GLBT", but he didn't, he said "straight, cis". And the "cis" is important in this specific context because he's just mentioned a category that includes trans people, and is now discussing the opposite of that category.
"Straight" is the opposite of "Gay, Lesbian, or Bi". It is not the opposite of trans. So when you want to say "the opposite of GLBT", or "all people not included in GLBT", you need cis.
Like I said, I hear the reasons. I just . . . I dunno, I just can't bring myself to say it. It's too . . . something.
Must be the first sign of getting old, as in "too" old. Perhaps it would help if I got a shot of me whittling on a rocker for a usepic, my big grey beard filled with whittle shavings? Perhaps a cheek full of chaw?
It is not a fad, it is merely addressing something that is a bit late to the game, as far as calling out discrimination and privilege.
Even deciding you have the right to have an opinion on the terminology is ... well, it's privileged, to say the least.
No one's forcing you to use the word, but ranting about it because it's not a *real* word, ostensibly because *you* don't feel the need for it, well ...
I freely admit sensing a curmugeonly attitude in myself with this admission, but I'm standing by it. ben_racoon I think nailed it.
For what it's worth, "cis" is not the only word/modifier with which I have this problem. "Education" is a big one (in certain contexts). "Social justice" too, "urban" definitely, "degenerate" absolutely, "honor" yep, "tony" in a big way, "conservation" (again, in very specific contexts), and especially "privilege."
Some call them "dog whistles." I think dog whistles are more appropriately reserved for calls to action, not description, so I demur on that definition. Perhaps "tribal identifiers" would be more accurate. Suffice to say, if I cannot use a word with every group with whom I interact, the problem is not with me but with the word.
I have no suggestions, other than not "cis." If a word emerges that is embraced by a wider spectrum of political/social belief adherents, I will happily embrace its use. Even if it later happens to be "cis."
English language should not be used as a weapon to deliniate political camps. I know it is, but I protest by not participating in such tribal language. (Thanks again to ben_racoon for the clarification of a hunch.)
I cannot, I'm afraid, take people who use the term "straight" in regular writing and speech very seriously (outside of specialized fields like same-sex relationship dynamics, for example). I don't disagree with those using the term, quite the opposite; but if my refusal to use it means I fail a litmus test and cannot get into the Cool Kids Club, so be it. I'll stick with English, damn the consequences.
Right. So you have more respect for people who don't bother to name the cultural default, and who choose to avoid saying "Oh, she's straight" (or "oh, he's cis", or "oh, she's white", or "oh, he's physically able") because that's just weird. And it's so much easier, or there's so much more precedent, for saying, "Oh, that person's not-strange-and-different" (thereby implying there's something weird and exotic and other-y about someone who's gay or bi or trans or a POC or disabled) or "Oh, that person's normal."
(And I will leave you to unpack all the baggage in that.)
And meanwhile, you're inherently dismissing people who deliberately make an effort to not perpetuate the idea that cis is the good normal one true default way?
I don't think that's the "Cool Kids Club" you're proudly staying out of, and I don't think it's English that's keeping you where you are.
So you have more respect for people who don't bother to name the cultural default. . . .
No, I have equal respect for people no matter what their position in the dominant cultural context. I just don't really care if they are gay, straight, trans, whatever. For example, when my cousin came out as gay, I didn't start introducing him or referring to him as "my gay cousin." He remained "my cousin."
Which can get me in some awkwardness. I was once lambasted when I referred to a coworker as simply "Steve," not "Steve with the fabulous hair and make-up and awaiting reassignment surgery." I was likewise lambasted for not alerting a friend about another friend's son, who has a minor birth defect. Yes, the shock of seeing that hand of his could have been lessened with a quick heads-up from me, but I just didn't think about it. I don't think such things are that important, even when they could be.
. . . you're inherently dismissing people who deliberately make an effort to not perpetuate the idea that cis is the good normal one true default way?
Not what I said, not at all. Nothing in my initial comment indicates this. Noticing the awkwardness of a word is not to embrace a philosophical position. False dichotomy.
. . . I don't think it's English that's keeping you where you are.
Perhaps so. I do think it's my philosophy that English and other languages should be used to convey ideas and meaning, not to divide and deliniate people into Them and Us. Sadly, despite its perceived and genuine utility, "cis" is just such a word. If I can't use a word around a crowd without getting a glazed and befuddled expression as a response, the fault is not with them but with the word I use, and ultimately with me for using it.
theweaselking posts a link pointing out that things aren't taken seriously when they're not aimed at (straight and) cis people. Conversation is promptly derailed into how terminology impacts on cis people.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-28 09:03 pm (UTC)Westboro is not a political group. They are group of very profitable legal trolls. They probably do hate gay people and minorities, but that isn't what gets them out of bed in the morning. What gets them going, what keeps them in business, is the lawsuits that they file against federal and local governments for failing to give adequate protection during their dog-and-pony shows.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-28 11:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 07:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 02:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 07:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-28 11:03 pm (UTC)Dunno why. It just seems to ethereal a fad, like using "disrespect" as a verb without irony.
/rant.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 03:22 am (UTC)#2: In this specific instance, he's just said "GLBT" and he's talking about GLBT issues. He could have said "not-GLBT", but he didn't, he said "straight, cis". And the "cis" is important in this specific context because he's just mentioned a category that includes trans people, and is now discussing the opposite of that category.
"Straight" is the opposite of "Gay, Lesbian, or Bi". It is not the opposite of trans. So when you want to say "the opposite of GLBT", or "all people not included in GLBT", you need cis.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 03:35 am (UTC)Must be the first sign of getting old, as in "too" old. Perhaps it would help if I got a shot of me whittling on a rocker for a usepic, my big grey beard filled with whittle shavings? Perhaps a cheek full of chaw?
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 08:07 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 05:08 am (UTC)It is not a fad, it is merely addressing something that is a bit late to the game, as far as calling out discrimination and privilege.
Even deciding you have the right to have an opinion on the terminology is ... well, it's privileged, to say the least.
No one's forcing you to use the word, but ranting about it because it's not a *real* word, ostensibly because *you* don't feel the need for it, well ...
You seem clever enough to see how that appears.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 09:33 pm (UTC)For what it's worth, "cis" is not the only word/modifier with which I have this problem. "Education" is a big one (in certain contexts). "Social justice" too, "urban" definitely, "degenerate" absolutely, "honor" yep, "tony" in a big way, "conservation" (again, in very specific contexts), and especially "privilege."
Some call them "dog whistles." I think dog whistles are more appropriately reserved for calls to action, not description, so I demur on that definition. Perhaps "tribal identifiers" would be more accurate. Suffice to say, if I cannot use a word with every group with whom I interact, the problem is not with me but with the word.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 09:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 08:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 08:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 09:35 pm (UTC)English language should not be used as a weapon to deliniate political camps. I know it is, but I protest by not participating in such tribal language. (Thanks again to
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 10:17 pm (UTC)It's a good word.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 08:29 pm (UTC)(And I will leave you to unpack all the baggage in that.)
And meanwhile, you're inherently dismissing people who deliberately make an effort to not perpetuate the idea that cis is the good normal one true default way?
I don't think that's the "Cool Kids Club" you're proudly staying out of, and I don't think it's English that's keeping you where you are.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 10:15 pm (UTC)So you have more respect for people who don't bother to name the cultural default. . . .
No, I have equal respect for people no matter what their position in the dominant cultural context. I just don't really care if they are gay, straight, trans, whatever. For example, when my cousin came out as gay, I didn't start introducing him or referring to him as "my gay cousin." He remained "my cousin."
Which can get me in some awkwardness. I was once lambasted when I referred to a coworker as simply "Steve," not "Steve with the fabulous hair and make-up and awaiting reassignment surgery." I was likewise lambasted for not alerting a friend about another friend's son, who has a minor birth defect. Yes, the shock of seeing that hand of his could have been lessened with a quick heads-up from me, but I just didn't think about it. I don't think such things are that important, even when they could be.
. . . you're inherently dismissing people who deliberately make an effort to not perpetuate the idea that cis is the good normal one true default way?
Not what I said, not at all. Nothing in my initial comment indicates this. Noticing the awkwardness of a word is not to embrace a philosophical position. False dichotomy.
. . . I don't think it's English that's keeping you where you are.
Perhaps so. I do think it's my philosophy that English and other languages should be used to convey ideas and meaning, not to divide and deliniate people into Them and Us. Sadly, despite its perceived and genuine utility, "cis" is just such a word. If I can't use a word around a crowd without getting a glazed and befuddled expression as a response, the fault is not with them but with the word I use, and ultimately with me for using it.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 05:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-30 12:07 am (UTC)FUNNY THAT.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-30 12:11 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-31 04:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-30 12:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-30 12:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-30 03:16 pm (UTC)I'm just gonna stagger over there, holding my head like this: