It is an adequate and dare I say, accurate term in and of itself, but its entire conception and usage has been, in my experience, only ever been used to attack. Often by somebody with such a sense of self-righteous smugness, you can't help but wonder how they haven't disappeared up their own arse.
Perhaps as its usage grows, that will change, or it'd be replaced with something less confrontational. Who knows.
Maybe you feel attacked because you’re uncomfortable with your ciscentric worldview being decentred. Are you familiar with the tone argument? Seems like you’re making it.
I’m a gay cis man and I’m deeply affected by heteronormativity. A less heteronormative society would have made my life much better.
Cisnormativity works similarly. Developing terminology that highlights that many people experience dissonance because of society’s gender expectations for their physical form helps those people; if the price is that cis people feel dejected because they’re losing their dominance, well… sorry/not sorry.
I'm porcelain white and physically male, but I gender-orient as who-the-fuck-cares, have a sexuality of I'm-glad-you're-interested-but-too-lazy, and my religious orientation is apatheist with a side of 'You really believe that to be factual truth? Really? Oooooookiedokie.' I could throw out my weirdo credentials 'til the cows come home, most of which I didn't even realize were abnormal until I was an adult. Apparently, guys aren't supposed to know about seam rippers? Go figure.
I realize that I was brushing up against that argument, but no, I don't find it offensive, I just find it a little silly. To understand why, spend some time on tumblr among the social-justice warriors there, and you'll see what I mean. Every time I see 'cis' used outside of a discussion about gender politics and hell, often within it, it is being used in the same dog-whistle manner as the term 'urban' among Republican congressmen. It's still very much a tribal word, and may very well remain so for some time.
I'd love a worldview where the idea of being outside the societal norm provided it's non-destructive is considered a-okay. My own life would've been a helluva lot easier. (You think it's easy being 6'3" at the age of 13?) But it's less cool when it's simply turned completely around and used as a weapon. "You're part of the majority. YOU ARE THE ENEMY." It shows a lack of understanding of one's own arguments.
I guess what I'm saying is that I need to read fewer trainwreck blogs.
What, did you see “die cis scum” a few too many times? It’s bizarre to me that you’d compare “urban” and “cis” as if racist white hegemony is at all similar to a marginalised community developing terminology to stake out a position. “tribal”? WTF.
“You’re part of the majority. YOU ARE THE ENEMY.” tends to be true.
Your argument seems to be “SJ people who use ‘cis’ have been mean, therefore it’s not a useful word.” No.
Nope. My argument is 'In my experience, cis is used primarily by social justice warriors who have nothing to say, but they're going say it as loud as they can. Ergo, it's likely going to be linked with that attitude.'
You've never heard of social tribal behavior? It's a word, phrase, or action used to identify 'I'm not an outsider, I'm one of you.' It's human nature; we all do it, often without realizing it. You can call it community or social group or whatever, but it's all the same concept. That's why I think it's unlikely to particularly catch on, though I don't really care if it does. Maybe then that term will stop being too... something to people.
And yes. I'm comparing its usage in a very narrow set of circumstances, between a group that is slowly being de-marginalized with a group that is rapidly becoming obsolete, in that it's being used as a dog whistle with deniability, and was the first thing that popped into my head. Would you prefer I used the example word 'libs'? Or hell, to put it on our own side, 'teabaggers'.
“You’re part of the majority. YOU ARE THE ENEMY.” tends to be true. So none of your friends are white, male, straight, christian, able-bodied, or neurotypical? Or are you agreeing with me? I've lost track. But seeking a confrontation is definitely very different from refusing to back down from one, and living your life with the immediate assumption that anyone not part of your group is immediately an enemy is, well, kind of a self-defeating attitude. It's also *extremely* draining.
Incidentally, yes, I do very occasionally browse the 'die cis scum' tag when I feel like slumming it. There was one person who's entire blog was one diatribe after another against everything that wasn't black, female, vegan, gay and/or muslim. They were a living, breathing, straw-everything. It was fascinating. And concerning. Mostly concerning.
But no, there's talking about it, and then there's living it. Talking is silly arguments like this about cis-this or 'check your privileges' that. Semantics that more often alienate than educate. And too often they end up like this, with somebody going huffy because somebody else thinks a word is silly. Nevermind that they're on the same damn side of the argument that actually *matters*.
“cis is used primarily by social justice warriors who have nothing to say” is incorrect, in my experience. Even if it were true it wouldn’t invalidate its usefulness.
“tends to be true” ≠ “none”
“living your life with the immediate assumption that anyone not part of your group is immediately an enemy is, well, kind of a self-defeating attitude” is easy for less-marginalised people to say
“somebody going huffy because somebody else thinks a word is silly” why is the “silly”-declarer not “huffy”? “The language you’ve developed is not useful!” is not calling something “silly”, it’s saying people don’t get to decide what terms to use to describe their world. It’s domination.
Your experience clearly differs from mine. That doesn't invalidate either. And you're still arguing against a point I never made. I did mention, repeatedly, that it could be a functional word, but has been co-opted.
Yes indeed, sounds easy, doesn't it? Except it isn't. Falling into that confrontational mindset is simply becoming the people you hate. And it's even harder when you have been victimized. Which believe it or not, I have. For not being 'normal'.
Because the "silly" declarer was answering a question. It's like somebody asking, "What's with Crocs?" I think they're hideous. I'm not going to lose sleep if I'm then immediately countered by somebody who has an entire closet full of them. If your entire identity is wrapped up in the word 'cis', then, well, that's all on you.
Yeah, that straw man's lookin' pretty rough. Hope you have a fun New Year's.
Let me see if I have this right: you're willing to believe other people's experiences can be valid, and that other people can't invalidate your experience, but somehow your experience of the use of the word is enough to say it's been co-opted and absolutely isn't functional (even if it "could" be)?
For the record: Having a word other than "normal" or "not-trans" (frequent subtext: not-weird (weird like trans people!), not-freaky (freaky like trans people!)) to describe cis people is no more "confrontational" than having a word other than "normal" or "not-gay-or-bi" to describe straight people.
Also for the record: I am trying to think of a case in which "falling into that confrontational mindset is simply becoming the people you hate" is not high-handed dismissive bullshit. It might not be HHDBS if the only difference is that the people you already hate assume you are their enemy, but never actually act on it, and the playing field is otherwise perfectly level.
If you can interpret the written symbol set used to communicate a language, you are literate. If you self-identify as being of the gender that society expects you to have because of the body you were born with, then you are cis. If you are sexually attracted to people of the opposite gender (a term which itself buys heavily into the idea of a strictly binary gender identity), then you are straight.
This is rarely about "all your identity" being wrapped up in being cis; as a side-effect of cis privilege (woot, I got it, and a bunch of others too[1]), I get to not think about how much a part of my identity it is. It's the given default. It's my free buy-in to part of the lowest difficulty setting package. You got it too. And you're claiming that because someone uses the word for this that doesn't automatically reinforce the assumption that you and I (and possibly they) are normal/good/not-a-freak, they're horribly alienating you and you're going to be driven away from them?
You're willing to be on the "good" side of the argument that transphobia is wrong, but only as long as no-one ever calls you anything except not-trans, or normal, or just leaves you as an unspoken, unchallenged, assumed and accepted defaut norm?
You have a fun holiday too. And hopefully you'll be better in the new year. --- [1] Did it forever shield me from abuse? No. Did I get victimized for certain things (including ones I didn't get to age out of)? Yes. Did I get to not think about the specific issue of being cis for years--for decades? Yep. Did it sting when I realized I was mansplaining[1] away someone's explanation of what it was like to be trans? Yes, and frankly the fact that it stung when I realized I was being a dismissive ass is not the important bit. (I mean come on,someone who is regularly and reasonably hurt by behaviour I am thoughtlessly engaging in called me on it, let's all bog down in how I start feeling shall we, look I invoke White Woman's Tears. No. Fucking no.)
That's a nice straw man you've made there. A shame what you've done with it.
No. My entire argument is based on the fact that its usage has almost exclusively been the realm of people eager to start a fight. Like here. And usually by people who are themselves cis and want to show just how inclusive they are. Again. Like here.
Yes, thank you for mansplaining the definition of a word that is already being discussed. Goodness knows, I sure was confused until just now.
Yes, I am damn well allowed to have an opinion on a silly word, and I feel about as strongly about it as I do people insisting on calling non-fandom members 'mundanes'. You keep on trying to exaggerate and twist my reaction, and you keep trying to force me into a position that I simply don't have. It's really not that complex or deep seated. It's simply, "This word has been used in this way. Therefore when I see it, I fully expect it to be used in that way again, and prepare my popcorn accordingly." That's it. That's all there is. Just "Oh look, here we go again." And lo and behold, here we went again!
I realize that I may not have the linguistic capabilities of more capable debaters, but I'd like to think I made myself pretty clear. Apparently not, or you wouldn't have your outrage-o-meter pegging so hard.
Perhaps you should spend less time being offended on behalf of others, and maybe find out if those who you are fighting for actually *care* about the topic. I actually did that earlier since I *have* a bunch of trans friends, but only one or two are particularly interested in activist politics. The majority reaction? "Cis? The hell is that? Really? Kind of a silly word." and then we went on to talk about New Years parties.
My entire argument is based on the fact that its usage has almost exclusively been the realm of people eager to start a fight
And that would be why, as we've pointed out, your argument is WRONG.
Like here.
Uh, go check those comments again. It was used in a perfectly sensible way originally, and then *you* started a fight over it.
Comment history: Easy to check, does not erase itself.
And usually by people who are themselves cis and want to show just how inclusive they are. Again. Like here.
Again, completely wrong. Not that I'd expect you to be able to tell one from another just based on the comments.
thank you for mansplaining
Coming from the guy who says "cis" should never be used because it's only used to pick a fight.
I'm sorry, my irony meter measures in decibles and it's STILL binging the little overload warning alarm.
Just "Oh look, here we go again." And lo and behold, here we went again!
"When I pick a fight in an ignorant way, a fight starts. I picked a fight here, and a fight started! It's the fault of THE THING I PICKED THE FIGHT OVER."
(Free clue: It is not "homosexuality" that causes the suicide rate among homosexuals to be way higher than among straight. Similarly, it is not the word "cis" that started people on this thread calling you ignorant.)
I'd like to think I made myself pretty clear.
Your position is clear, and it is also wrong.
Perhaps you should spend less time being offended on behalf of others
... says the person who picked a fight because he was offended on behalf of other people who shouldn't have to learn words.
I believe the words I'm looking for are something about motes and beams and things. You should try thinking carefully about that before you keep arguing this one.
And that would be why, as we've pointed out, your argument is WRONG.
So my experience is invalid because you used it correctly once here? Nope. Sorry. Doesn't work that way.
Coming from the guy who says "cis" should never be used because it's only used to pick a fight.
Quote me where I said it should never be used. Go ahead. Find out where I said that. Please. I'm waiting. Like you said, the whole comment history is here, so it's quite easy to peruse.
Your position is clear, and it is also wrong.
Evidently it is not clear, or you wouldn't be coming at me with all guns blazing, berating me for something I have not said. Reread what I said, but turn your kneejerk from the 'affronted' setting.
says the person who picked a fight because he was offended on behalf of other people who shouldn't have to learn words.
Again, nope. Try conversing with me instead of flailing at that straw man over there.
I'm sorry, my irony meter measures in decibles
That was the intent. "It's different when I do it, cuz I'm the good guy!" Nope. Sorry. That little comment was exactly mansplaining.
When I pick a fight in an ignorant way, a fight starts.
Well, I'm sorry about that fight you started. But I answered a question. It's too bad some people took such a personal offense to the answer.
Motes and beams indeed. I have a minor opinion on a silly word, and I'm treated like the sum of all evil. It's demanded that I hold the assumed experiences of complete strangers above my own, and discount mine as 'stupid'. You berate me, and then claim it is somehow valid argument. Hell, you do *exactly* what you're being huffy at me about.
In short, you're not helping (http://politicalmadness.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/yourenothelping.jpg).
Original commenter: "I cannot, I'm afraid, take people who use the term "cis" in regular writing and speech very seriously" and "I can't bring myself to say it".
He was asked why. Notably, right, there, the question is "why is this term unusable and why can't you take people seriously who use it?"
And in response to that question, you said: (http://theweaselking.livejournal.com/4351313.html?thread=28130385#t28130385) "Too self-righteous" and "its entire conception and usage has been [...] only ever been used to attack" and then that people who use it have "such a sense of self-righteous smugness, you can't help but wonder how they haven't disappeared up their own arse."
So yes, you fucking well DID say that.
So my experience is invalid because you used it correctly once here?
No, your argument that it is only ever use by smug self-righteous jackasses is wrong, because even IF, and it's a big if, you're not just digging deeper because you haven't realised you're at the bottom of a hole and you really *have* only ever seen it used by smug self-righteous jackasses? All the rest of us have pointed out that your experience is not universal and does not generalise. Which makes your "its entire conception and usage has been [...] only ever been used to attack" argument WRONG.
Well, I'm sorry about that fight you started.
You get exactly one chance to apologise for quotemining and context removal on that "bit" you responded to. You've been commenting here since 2006 and it would be a shame for that to end because you thought removing the context of a hyperbolic rephrasing and treating it as a genuine quote was okay.
This is entirely separate from the rest of our argument here, for the record.
I have a minor opinion on a silly word,
You said, in fact, that the term of choice to avoid erasing a marginalised group was "self-righteous" and "only ever used to attack" and that people who use it have their heads up their asses. You, in essence, said that every person who uses this word to describe "the group of people who are not trans" had those qualities.
That's not a "minor opinion".
And when told that your opinion was based on improperly generalising from your limited and demonstrably[1] incorrect recollection, you got huffy about it.
It's demanded that I hold the assumed experiences of complete strangers above my own
No, it's demanded that you accept that other people's experiences, especially those who have way MORE experience than yours, are valid.
You berate me, and then claim it is somehow valid argument.
Don't be silly. I berate you, AND ALSO include a valid argument.
[1]: Such as, for example, THE EXACT USAGE YOU WERE RESPONDING TO.
Perhaps you should spend less time being offended on behalf of others, and maybe find out if those who you are fighting for actually *care* about the topic.
Who do you think taught me to use it? Please, elaborate on your assumptions.
And yeah, you made yourself pretty clear. "Oh, my experience is X! You aren't behaving as if your experience matched mine! Therefore I will make a point of assuming that you're operating in ignorance, rather than from a different experience. And I will go on to unilaterally define words as silly, because I get to do that. But no, I'm all about how your experience can't invalidate miiiiiine."
You will note that the "here we went again" was the word being used neutrally in a perfectly descriptive sense, and you and Mr. "I JUST SEE PEOPLE" jumping in because the most important thing you absolutely had to get on the table in response to the post about the hate group was how awful the word "cis" was, and how you felt it was used to attack cis people, and how you couldn't respect people who used it, and how they were all self-righteous, and how the word was in your experience only ever used to attack. Including, apparently, in the initial post, which was part of your experience up to that point.
In short: word used not to attack but to describe. You jump in to explain OMG word always used to attack, supporting the guy who says language is meant to use to define and describe but he automagically can't respect people who try to do it when they're discussing people who aren't trans.
And yeah, you made yourself pretty clear. "Oh, my experience is X! You aren't behaving as if your experience matched mine! Therefore I will make a point of assuming that you're operating in ignorance, rather than from a different experience
Yes, thank you. That is exactly what you're doing. I'm glad we could make such a breakthrough! Congratulations on your first step to realizing that people who don't agree with you perfectly are still, shockingly, people!
Please, elaborate on your assumptions
Little bit of irony here, considering how much you assumed about me. And are continuing to assume.
Yes, in the majority of cases, I have seen it used as an attack, to marginalize a group. And like I clarified later, there have been use cases where it hasn't. This single example does not discount the dozens of counterpoints where I see it used alongside and in the same manner as 'breeders' and 'bloodmouths'. I'm sorry that I apparently missed a couple qualifiers in my initial post, but if you had read any of the followups, you would have noticed that I amended that. Repeatedly.
What else was there to say? It's the Westboro fucking Baptists. Seriously. Do I need to engage in the standard circlejerk about a bunch of litigious chucklefucks before I'm somehow "allowed" to answer an incidental question on a silly word? They're scum. It's established that they're scum. Those paths are old and worn. It's a dull and dead topic. Incidentally, is this the first time people have come to that conclusion? I remember reading pretty much the exact same hypothesis when they started protesting soldiers, and it's a pretty solid one.
In any case, life, choices, and opinions are not a binary thing. It isn't "the greatest thing ever and should be sung from the rooftops" or "the stupidest thing ever and should never appear again." It is "that's a silly word, and I have a harder time taking people seriously when they use it." That's the sum total of my position, which may change as the word either grows in usage or falls out of fashion. No hate. Promise. Cross my heart. Love and smoochies to all the alternative sexualities and major life choices, may they result in a life more free of pain than they started. Seriously. Don't care. Adds color to the world. Cookies and sunshine.
Anyways, this has continued on long enough, and I guess it's my turn to take the standard flounce and run, because quite frankly, this is going in circles. "You said this and that makes you bad!" "No I didn't, read it again." "You said this, and it makes you bad!" "No I didn't..." repeat ad nauseum.
Enjoy the last word. Or don't. It's all the same to me.
It's so... "cute"... the way you insist you weren't hating as if, should you do it long and loud enough, people will ignore the fact that you weren't accused of hatefulness.
(Thoughtlessness, high-handedness, condescension, ignorance, strawmanning, self-indulgence, self-righteousness, and a histrionic reluctance at the idea of ending up with a label instead of getting to be a nice normal default which you claim you'll give up on as soon as the world takes time out from everything else to address your personal concerns about the neutral labels you qualify for, but not hate.)
Sympathies if you believe you've addressed what was said. Relief that you're dropping it, either way, because the level of self-involved privilege you were displaying was getting gross. See ya.
It's a word, phrase, or action used to identify 'I'm not an outsider, I'm one of you.'
I think you nailed it. That's the phenomenon I smelled when I was referring to the "Cool Kids Club." The parallel with the less-progressively minded use of "urban" is likewise dead on.
In fact, it gets worse. Those that tend to use the term more often also often have to trot out their Cool Kid Cred. It seems admitting you are a straight, white male is damning in some way. Smoothing this admission of "Enemy!" with "who grew up in an economically marginalized household" or "who experimented with non-standard sexual play" "who escaped a repressive fundamentalist religious upbringing" seems to be a cry for saying "I look like one of Them, but honestly, I ain't!"
And too often they end up like this, with somebody going huffy because somebody else thinks a word is silly. Nevermind that they're on the same damn side of the argument that actually *matters*.
...you do realise there are plenty of straight white males who also happen to be trans, right? You seem to be conflating some different factors in a totally weird way here.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 09:57 am (UTC)It is an adequate and dare I say, accurate term in and of itself, but its entire conception and usage has been, in my experience, only ever been used to attack. Often by somebody with such a sense of self-righteous smugness, you can't help but wonder how they haven't disappeared up their own arse.
Perhaps as its usage grows, that will change, or it'd be replaced with something less confrontational. Who knows.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 04:05 pm (UTC)I’m a gay cis man and I’m deeply affected by heteronormativity. A less heteronormative society would have made my life much better.
Cisnormativity works similarly. Developing terminology that highlights that many people experience dissonance because of society’s gender expectations for their physical form helps those people; if the price is that cis people feel dejected because they’re losing their dominance, well… sorry/not sorry.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 04:37 pm (UTC)I'm porcelain white and physically male, but I gender-orient as who-the-fuck-cares, have a sexuality of I'm-glad-you're-interested-but-too-lazy, and my religious orientation is apatheist with a side of 'You really believe that to be factual truth? Really? Oooooookiedokie.' I could throw out my weirdo credentials 'til the cows come home, most of which I didn't even realize were abnormal until I was an adult. Apparently, guys aren't supposed to know about seam rippers? Go figure.
I realize that I was brushing up against that argument, but no, I don't find it offensive, I just find it a little silly. To understand why, spend some time on tumblr among the social-justice warriors there, and you'll see what I mean. Every time I see 'cis' used outside of a discussion about gender politics and hell, often within it, it is being used in the same dog-whistle manner as the term 'urban' among Republican congressmen. It's still very much a tribal word, and may very well remain so for some time.
I'd love a worldview where the idea of being outside the societal norm provided it's non-destructive is considered a-okay. My own life would've been a helluva lot easier. (You think it's easy being 6'3" at the age of 13?) But it's less cool when it's simply turned completely around and used as a weapon. "You're part of the majority. YOU ARE THE ENEMY." It shows a lack of understanding of one's own arguments.
I guess what I'm saying is that I need to read fewer trainwreck blogs.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 04:56 pm (UTC)“You’re part of the majority. YOU ARE THE ENEMY.” tends to be true.
Your argument seems to be “SJ people who use ‘cis’ have been mean, therefore it’s not a useful word.” No.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 06:28 pm (UTC)You've never heard of social tribal behavior? It's a word, phrase, or action used to identify 'I'm not an outsider, I'm one of you.' It's human nature; we all do it, often without realizing it. You can call it community or social group or whatever, but it's all the same concept. That's why I think it's unlikely to particularly catch on, though I don't really care if it does. Maybe then that term will stop being too... something to people.
And yes. I'm comparing its usage in a very narrow set of circumstances, between a group that is slowly being de-marginalized with a group that is rapidly becoming obsolete, in that it's being used as a dog whistle with deniability, and was the first thing that popped into my head. Would you prefer I used the example word 'libs'? Or hell, to put it on our own side, 'teabaggers'.
“You’re part of the majority. YOU ARE THE ENEMY.” tends to be true. So none of your friends are white, male, straight, christian, able-bodied, or neurotypical? Or are you agreeing with me? I've lost track. But seeking a confrontation is definitely very different from refusing to back down from one, and living your life with the immediate assumption that anyone not part of your group is immediately an enemy is, well, kind of a self-defeating attitude. It's also *extremely* draining.
Incidentally, yes, I do very occasionally browse the 'die cis scum' tag when I feel like slumming it. There was one person who's entire blog was one diatribe after another against everything that wasn't black, female, vegan, gay and/or muslim. They were a living, breathing, straw-everything. It was fascinating. And concerning. Mostly concerning.
But no, there's talking about it, and then there's living it. Talking is silly arguments like this about cis-this or 'check your privileges' that. Semantics that more often alienate than educate. And too often they end up like this, with somebody going huffy because somebody else thinks a word is silly. Nevermind that they're on the same damn side of the argument that actually *matters*.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 07:47 pm (UTC)“tends to be true” ≠ “none”
“living your life with the immediate assumption that anyone not part of your group is immediately an enemy is, well, kind of a self-defeating attitude” is easy for less-marginalised people to say
“somebody going huffy because somebody else thinks a word is silly” why is the “silly”-declarer not “huffy”? “The language you’ve developed is not useful!” is not calling something “silly”, it’s saying people don’t get to decide what terms to use to describe their world. It’s domination.
meh, I’m over this subthread.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 08:07 pm (UTC)Yes indeed, sounds easy, doesn't it? Except it isn't. Falling into that confrontational mindset is simply becoming the people you hate. And it's even harder when you have been victimized. Which believe it or not, I have. For not being 'normal'.
Because the "silly" declarer was answering a question. It's like somebody asking, "What's with Crocs?" I think they're hideous. I'm not going to lose sleep if I'm then immediately countered by somebody who has an entire closet full of them. If your entire identity is wrapped up in the word 'cis', then, well, that's all on you.
Yeah, that straw man's lookin' pretty rough. Hope you have a fun New Year's.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 09:12 pm (UTC)For the record: Having a word other than "normal" or "not-trans" (frequent subtext: not-weird (weird like trans people!), not-freaky (freaky like trans people!)) to describe cis people is no more "confrontational" than having a word other than "normal" or "not-gay-or-bi" to describe straight people.
Also for the record: I am trying to think of a case in which "falling into that confrontational mindset is simply becoming the people you hate" is not high-handed dismissive bullshit. It might not be HHDBS if the only difference is that the people you already hate assume you are their enemy, but never actually act on it, and the playing field is otherwise perfectly level.
If you can interpret the written symbol set used to communicate a language, you are literate. If you self-identify as being of the gender that society expects you to have because of the body you were born with, then you are cis. If you are sexually attracted to people of the opposite gender (a term which itself buys heavily into the idea of a strictly binary gender identity), then you are straight.
This is rarely about "all your identity" being wrapped up in being cis; as a side-effect of cis privilege (woot, I got it, and a bunch of others too[1]), I get to not think about how much a part of my identity it is. It's the given default. It's my free buy-in to part of the lowest difficulty setting package. You got it too. And you're claiming that because someone uses the word for this that doesn't automatically reinforce the assumption that you and I (and possibly they) are normal/good/not-a-freak, they're horribly alienating you and you're going to be driven away from them?
You're willing to be on the "good" side of the argument that transphobia is wrong, but only as long as no-one ever calls you anything except not-trans, or normal, or just leaves you as an unspoken, unchallenged, assumed and accepted defaut norm?
You have a fun holiday too. And hopefully you'll be better in the new year.
---
[1] Did it forever shield me from abuse? No. Did I get victimized for certain things (including ones I didn't get to age out of)? Yes. Did I get to not think about the specific issue of being cis for years--for decades? Yep. Did it sting when I realized I was mansplaining[1] away someone's explanation of what it was like to be trans? Yes, and frankly the fact that it stung when I realized I was being a dismissive ass is not the important bit. (I mean come on,someone who is regularly and reasonably hurt by behaviour I am thoughtlessly engaging in called me on it, let's all bog down in how I start feeling shall we, look I invoke White Woman's Tears. No. Fucking no.)
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-30 07:01 am (UTC)No. My entire argument is based on the fact that its usage has almost exclusively been the realm of people eager to start a fight. Like here. And usually by people who are themselves cis and want to show just how inclusive they are. Again. Like here.
Yes, thank you for mansplaining the definition of a word that is already being discussed. Goodness knows, I sure was confused until just now.
Yes, I am damn well allowed to have an opinion on a silly word, and I feel about as strongly about it as I do people insisting on calling non-fandom members 'mundanes'. You keep on trying to exaggerate and twist my reaction, and you keep trying to force me into a position that I simply don't have. It's really not that complex or deep seated. It's simply, "This word has been used in this way. Therefore when I see it, I fully expect it to be used in that way again, and prepare my popcorn accordingly." That's it. That's all there is. Just "Oh look, here we go again." And lo and behold, here we went again!
I realize that I may not have the linguistic capabilities of more capable debaters, but I'd like to think I made myself pretty clear. Apparently not, or you wouldn't have your outrage-o-meter pegging so hard.
Perhaps you should spend less time being offended on behalf of others, and maybe find out if those who you are fighting for actually *care* about the topic. I actually did that earlier since I *have* a bunch of trans friends, but only one or two are particularly interested in activist politics. The majority reaction? "Cis? The hell is that? Really? Kind of a silly word." and then we went on to talk about New Years parties.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-30 05:08 pm (UTC)And that would be why, as we've pointed out, your argument is WRONG.
Like here.
Uh, go check those comments again. It was used in a perfectly sensible way originally, and then *you* started a fight over it.
Comment history: Easy to check, does not erase itself.
And usually by people who are themselves cis and want to show just how inclusive they are. Again. Like here.
Again, completely wrong. Not that I'd expect you to be able to tell one from another just based on the comments.
thank you for mansplaining
Coming from the guy who says "cis" should never be used because it's only used to pick a fight.
I'm sorry, my irony meter measures in decibles and it's STILL binging the little overload warning alarm.
Just "Oh look, here we go again." And lo and behold, here we went again!
"When I pick a fight in an ignorant way, a fight starts. I picked a fight here, and a fight started! It's the fault of THE THING I PICKED THE FIGHT OVER."
(Free clue: It is not "homosexuality" that causes the suicide rate among homosexuals to be way higher than among straight. Similarly, it is not the word "cis" that started people on this thread calling you ignorant.)
I'd like to think I made myself pretty clear.
Your position is clear, and it is also wrong.
Perhaps you should spend less time being offended on behalf of others
... says the person who picked a fight because he was offended on behalf of other people who shouldn't have to learn words.
I believe the words I'm looking for are something about motes and beams and things. You should try thinking carefully about that before you keep arguing this one.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-30 07:54 pm (UTC)So my experience is invalid because you used it correctly once here? Nope. Sorry. Doesn't work that way.
Coming from the guy who says "cis" should never be used because it's only used to pick a fight.
Quote me where I said it should never be used. Go ahead. Find out where I said that. Please. I'm waiting. Like you said, the whole comment history is here, so it's quite easy to peruse.
Your position is clear, and it is also wrong.
Evidently it is not clear, or you wouldn't be coming at me with all guns blazing, berating me for something I have not said. Reread what I said, but turn your kneejerk from the 'affronted' setting.
says the person who picked a fight because he was offended on behalf of other people who shouldn't have to learn words.
Again, nope. Try conversing with me instead of flailing at that straw man over there.
I'm sorry, my irony meter measures in decibles
That was the intent. "It's different when I do it, cuz I'm the good guy!" Nope. Sorry. That little comment was exactly mansplaining.
When I pick a fight in an ignorant way, a fight starts.
Well, I'm sorry about that fight you started. But I answered a question. It's too bad some people took such a personal offense to the answer.
Motes and beams indeed. I have a minor opinion on a silly word, and I'm treated like the sum of all evil. It's demanded that I hold the assumed experiences of complete strangers above my own, and discount mine as 'stupid'. You berate me, and then claim it is somehow valid argument. Hell, you do *exactly* what you're being huffy at me about.
In short, you're not helping (http://politicalmadness.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/yourenothelping.jpg).
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-30 09:19 pm (UTC)Original commenter: "I cannot, I'm afraid, take people who use the term "cis" in regular writing and speech very seriously" and "I can't bring myself to say it".
He was asked why.
Notably, right, there, the question is "why is this term unusable and why can't you take people seriously who use it?"
And in response to that question, you said: (http://theweaselking.livejournal.com/4351313.html?thread=28130385#t28130385) "Too self-righteous" and "its entire conception and usage has been [...] only ever been used to attack" and then that people who use it have "such a sense of self-righteous smugness, you can't help but wonder how they haven't disappeared up their own arse."
So yes, you fucking well DID say that.
So my experience is invalid because you used it correctly once here?
No, your argument that it is only ever use by smug self-righteous jackasses is wrong, because even IF, and it's a big if, you're not just digging deeper because you haven't realised you're at the bottom of a hole and you really *have* only ever seen it used by smug self-righteous jackasses? All the rest of us have pointed out that your experience is not universal and does not generalise. Which makes your "its entire conception and usage has been [...] only ever been used to attack" argument WRONG.
Well, I'm sorry about that fight you started.
You get exactly one chance to apologise for quotemining and context removal on that "bit" you responded to. You've been commenting here since 2006 and it would be a shame for that to end because you thought removing the context of a hyperbolic rephrasing and treating it as a genuine quote was okay.
This is entirely separate from the rest of our argument here, for the record.
I have a minor opinion on a silly word,
You said, in fact, that the term of choice to avoid erasing a marginalised group was "self-righteous" and "only ever used to attack" and that people who use it have their heads up their asses. You, in essence, said that every person who uses this word to describe "the group of people who are not trans" had those qualities.
That's not a "minor opinion".
And when told that your opinion was based on improperly generalising from your limited and demonstrably[1] incorrect recollection, you got huffy about it.
It's demanded that I hold the assumed experiences of complete strangers above my own
No, it's demanded that you accept that other people's experiences, especially those who have way MORE experience than yours, are valid.
You berate me, and then claim it is somehow valid argument.
Don't be silly. I berate you, AND ALSO include a valid argument.
[1]: Such as, for example, THE EXACT USAGE YOU WERE RESPONDING TO.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-30 07:22 pm (UTC)Who do you think taught me to use it? Please, elaborate on your assumptions.
And yeah, you made yourself pretty clear. "Oh, my experience is X! You aren't behaving as if your experience matched mine! Therefore I will make a point of assuming that you're operating in ignorance, rather than from a different experience. And I will go on to unilaterally define words as silly, because I get to do that. But no, I'm all about how your experience can't invalidate miiiiiine."
You will note that the "here we went again" was the word being used neutrally in a perfectly descriptive sense, and you and Mr. "I JUST SEE PEOPLE" jumping in because the most important thing you absolutely had to get on the table in response to the post about the hate group was how awful the word "cis" was, and how you felt it was used to attack cis people, and how you couldn't respect people who used it, and how they were all self-righteous, and how the word was in your experience only ever used to attack. Including, apparently, in the initial post, which was part of your experience up to that point.
In short: word used not to attack but to describe. You jump in to explain OMG word always used to attack, supporting the guy who says language is meant to use to define and describe but he automagically can't respect people who try to do it when they're discussing people who aren't trans.
Y'all have fun with that.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-30 08:23 pm (UTC)Yes, thank you. That is exactly what you're doing. I'm glad we could make such a breakthrough! Congratulations on your first step to realizing that people who don't agree with you perfectly are still, shockingly, people!
Please, elaborate on your assumptions
Little bit of irony here, considering how much you assumed about me. And are continuing to assume.
Yes, in the majority of cases, I have seen it used as an attack, to marginalize a group. And like I clarified later, there have been use cases where it hasn't. This single example does not discount the dozens of counterpoints where I see it used alongside and in the same manner as 'breeders' and 'bloodmouths'. I'm sorry that I apparently missed a couple qualifiers in my initial post, but if you had read any of the followups, you would have noticed that I amended that. Repeatedly.
What else was there to say? It's the Westboro fucking Baptists. Seriously. Do I need to engage in the standard circlejerk about a bunch of litigious chucklefucks before I'm somehow "allowed" to answer an incidental question on a silly word? They're scum. It's established that they're scum. Those paths are old and worn. It's a dull and dead topic. Incidentally, is this the first time people have come to that conclusion? I remember reading pretty much the exact same hypothesis when they started protesting soldiers, and it's a pretty solid one.
In any case, life, choices, and opinions are not a binary thing. It isn't "the greatest thing ever and should be sung from the rooftops" or "the stupidest thing ever and should never appear again." It is "that's a silly word, and I have a harder time taking people seriously when they use it." That's the sum total of my position, which may change as the word either grows in usage or falls out of fashion. No hate. Promise. Cross my heart. Love and smoochies to all the alternative sexualities and major life choices, may they result in a life more free of pain than they started. Seriously. Don't care. Adds color to the world. Cookies and sunshine.
Anyways, this has continued on long enough, and I guess it's my turn to take the standard flounce and run, because quite frankly, this is going in circles. "You said this and that makes you bad!" "No I didn't, read it again." "You said this, and it makes you bad!" "No I didn't..." repeat ad nauseum.
Enjoy the last word. Or don't. It's all the same to me.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-31 05:25 am (UTC)(Thoughtlessness, high-handedness, condescension, ignorance, strawmanning, self-indulgence, self-righteousness, and a histrionic reluctance at the idea of ending up with a label instead of getting to be a nice normal default which you claim you'll give up on as soon as the world takes time out from everything else to address your personal concerns about the neutral labels you qualify for, but not hate.)
Sympathies if you believe you've addressed what was said. Relief that you're dropping it, either way, because the level of self-involved privilege you were displaying was getting gross. See ya.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 09:18 pm (UTC)FWIW, I think you did a smashing job staying in it as long as you did, and were quite well-spoken.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 10:23 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-29 09:21 pm (UTC)I think you nailed it. That's the phenomenon I smelled when I was referring to the "Cool Kids Club." The parallel with the less-progressively minded use of "urban" is likewise dead on.
In fact, it gets worse. Those that tend to use the term more often also often have to trot out their Cool Kid Cred. It seems admitting you are a straight, white male is damning in some way. Smoothing this admission of "Enemy!" with "who grew up in an economically marginalized household" or "who experimented with non-standard sexual play" "who escaped a repressive fundamentalist religious upbringing" seems to be a cry for saying "I look like one of Them, but honestly, I ain't!"
And too often they end up like this, with somebody going huffy because somebody else thinks a word is silly. Nevermind that they're on the same damn side of the argument that actually *matters*.
Exactly. Well observed.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-30 12:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-30 07:23 am (UTC)