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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(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.