Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
> Wait, what exactly do people think "cis" means? It's literally just "not trans" in this context. > > Are people equally offended by the existence of cis molecules?
Yes, I'm equally offended, because the level of offense = 0. 😉
In math and science, we tend to simplify terms. I don't know anyone else's experience, but it's been more than 30 years since I heard anyone refer to a human as Animalia-Chordata-Mammalia-Primates-Hominidae-Homo-sapiens-sapiens.
So, I'm not offended, but it is my position that people have the right to self-identify as "men" or "women" if they wish to use those simple terms.
Cis man is a subcategory of man. A trans man would select “man” if I didn’t differentiate. I wanted to differentiate because I wanted to know how many people are not cis, like myself.
Also looking at the op's user name he must be trolling.
Nope, I’m not cis and I’m not trolling. Ironic username that aged incredibly poorly lmao.
Ironic username that aged incredibly poorly lmao.
Given that you have over 17,000 favorites I guess I can see why you didn't just make a new one. Chainer could probably change it for you if you DM him.
The level of mental damage that it took to get to the point where we justify the cis label be placed in front of 'man' and 'woman' is offensive by itself to the silent majority of people, I would say. And less inflammatory topics have been locked around here before, why is this one being allowed to work its negativity? Clearly that's what's happening with it.
It's weird to me when that group (not the GWM mods, I'm speaking about the ___a-istas) try to gaslight people for deciding for themselves that they're cool with being "men" or "women" without other modifiers. Others choosing to other themselves have an absolute right to do so. But their decision to self-other does not place any obligations upon anyone else to do the same.
I can't speak for them, but maybe the mods think this is an interesting survey or an interesting study in human behavior, or maybe they're just busy with more important matters. But even if OP claims he/she/they is/are not seeking to be inflammatory, the post does have the aroma of "agenda-driven", the primary goal being to soak up the majority of oxygen in the room due to having untreated Main Character Syndrome.
Note: user was banned for this comment -chainer
The level of mental damage that it takes to get in your feelings over legitimate terminology like "cisgender" is just hilarious to me. If you think there are only two genders, you're a fucking imbecile. You're thick as pig shit country fried stupid. Either educate yourself or don't, but broadcasting your hurt feelings over innocuous shit like that just signals to everyone else that you're a sad little baby.
Disagreements are fine but spewing hatred for others who disagree with you is not, and I'll be banning people who make such comments like the one above and at least one from the previous page I can think of. I'm a bit busy right now though so if I haven't banned you yet don't worry, I'll get to it soon.
Agree with the guys above, this gender ideology crap has no place in GWM.
considering the amount of discussion that people have about the women on this site potentially being trans or not, i think it's highly appropriate here
The level of mental damage that it takes to get in your feelings over legitimate terminology like "cisgender" is just hilarious to me. If you think there are only two genders, you're a fucking imbecile. You're thick as pig shit country fried stupid. Either educate yourself or don't, but broadcasting your hurt feelings over innocuous shit like that just signals to everyone else that you're a sad little baby.
I disagree that a person is an imbecile because they believe in a pure/near-pure gender binary vs a gender spectrum.
If a person identifies as a male man and his partner identifies as a female woman, and both are 40 years old and have never met any person outside the gender binary they themselves exist in, do not their lived experiences matter most to THEM? What they see is what they believe to be true. Are they really "in their feelings" for having a different lived experience than you?
I believe in a gender spectrum. I know trans persons. They're fully entitled to live and to be. My only issue ever is with respect to sex-segregated sports. Sports participation is not the question here, but apart from that - and the oxygen thing mentioned above - I'm happy to support all the rights and freedoms enjoyed by every other taxpayer in the U.S. and Denmark.
But just like the trans person has the right to self-identify as "trans man" or "trans woman" or "trans non-gender-conforming", etc., I have the right to self-identify as a "man". If others choose to add modifiers for themselves, fine. But it's both arrogant and unreasonable to expect me to do the same.
It's weird to me when that group (not the GWM mods, I'm speaking about the ___a-istas) try to gaslight people for deciding for themselves that they're cool with being "men" or "women" without other modifiers. Others choosing to other themselves have an absolute right to do so. But their decision to self-other does not place any obligations upon anyone else to do the same.
I can't speak for them, but maybe the mods think this is an interesting survey or an interesting study in human behavior, or maybe they're just busy with more important matters. But even if OP claims he/she/they is/are not seeking to be inflammatory, the post does have the aroma of "agenda-driven", the primary goal being to soak up the majority of oxygen in the room due to having untreated Main Character Syndrome.
It kind of seems like you're just making up a bunch of stuff in your head about OP and deciding to be upset at the version of them you made up. It's a dumb informal poll trying to see what people on the forum identify as. Obviously if they're curious what percentage of people are trans, they'd have to differentiate on the poll, and those are the formal terms. I guess they could have phrased it as "non-trans men" and "trans men" etc to make it clearer, because a bunch of people seem to literally not understand what the prefixes mean, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It kind of seems like you're just making up a bunch of stuff in your head about OP and deciding to be upset at the version of them you made up. It's a dumb informal poll trying to see what people on the forum identify as. Obviously if they're curious what percentage of people are trans, they'd have to differentiate on the poll, and those are the formal terms. I guess they could have phrased it as "non-trans men" and "trans men" etc to make it clearer, because a bunch of people seem to literally not understand what the prefixes mean, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
How much stuff did I make up? The terms "man" and "woman" have been around and in use for a thousand years as a part of the gender spectrum or binary, whichever you subscribe to. There's a group here arguing that there is more than one type of "man", but it's OP's thread and he excluded persons identifying as "man". That's fine! It's his poll, he can write what he wants. But he posted it publicly, so others have responded. His responses to follow-up questions NOT the original question itself are why I said it didn't pass the smell test. You don't think the responses were worthy of ANY sort of side-eye? Hmmm....
I don't see how not subscribing to the idea that there are an infinite number of genders has anything to do with believing women belong in the kitchen. I also don't see what you mean with 'women who don't conform to their beliefs' since it's mostly all just men here. Oh well