Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
No option for "man"? Or "woman"? 🤔
Weird, but OK.
I know
This survey should be taken down?
Why does this matter?
They're trying to start an argument
For the record, OP could have put the only options as "do you identify as a squirrel or a chipmunk" and I still wouldn't have given a shit. The poll is in no way official, no one is being forced to participate in it or pick any of the options, and it's not going to change anything about the site.
The fact that some people think they were trying to be inflammatory rather than just curious what percentage of respondants would pick the trans options/etc is hilarious. "Cis man and woman" are literally the standard biological options.
Some of the responses (the ones that actually know what the prefix means rather than simply being confused) remind of me of someone objecting to a poll about sexualities along the lines of "Heterosexual or homosexual? I ain't no anything-sexual, I'm just normal, dagnabbit".
I find it quite intriguing that OP asks everyone to keep it civil whilst at the same time giving poll options that he/she must know will provoke reactions.
Well, i personally hate Marvel's blockbusters, but it doesn't mean i have to enter cinemas where they play it and slap everyone inside or log in in Marvel's forum and troll continously. I can just go ahead.
For the record, OP could have put the only options as "do you identify as a squirrel or a chipmunk" and I still wouldn't have given a shit. The poll is in no way official, no one is being forced to participate in it or pick any of the options, and it's not going to change anything about the site.
The fact that some people think they were trying to be inflammatory rather than just curious what percentage of respondants would pick the trans option/etc is hilarious. "Cis man and woman" are literally the standard biological options.
Denial of intellectual dishonest is also intellectual dishonesty. There is no such thing as "innocently" playing dumb. I'm not going to be so arrogant as to tell you what you do or do now KNOW, but I will say that your argument about OP's "innocence" does not stand to reason. After all, he started the thread (conversation) without defining terms. That said, the original post - though curious - was fine. But OP's follow-up responses throughout the thread are what then cause at least one reader to call his sincerity into question. Furthermore, he made a baseless statement yesterday that he has not yet substantiated. I am very interested in checking the source of his who's-using-what data. It could be that one of his beginning hypotheses fails on its face.
Denial of intellectual dishonest is also intellectual dishonesty. There is no such thing as "innocently" playing dumb. I'm not going to be so arrogant as to tell you what you do or do now KNOW, but I will say that your argument about OP's "innocence" does not stand to reason. After all, he started the thread (conversation) without defining terms. That said, the original post - though curious - was fine. But OP's follow-up responses throughout the thread are what then cause at least one reader to call his sincerity into question. Furthermore, he made a baseless statement yesterday that he has not yet substantiated. I am very interested in checking the source of his who's-using-what data. It could be that one of his beginning hypotheses fails on its face.
I’m losing my mind, cis as in not trans. A lot of these women were AFAB and still identify as women making them cis and a lot of them bristle at accusations that they look like men. Most cis men I know don’t identify as cis men. That is fine. This is not about whether you identify as a cis man or just a man. This is about who will select the trans option. I put the cis option there to let the trans people know which one to not pick.
Interesting that no one seems to have a problem with the cis woman label, the reaction is almost 100% about the cis man term. It's all about their reaction to a perceived threat to their masculinity. That's why all the negative comments are basically saying they are offended that the poll is not properly addressing them as men with the terms that they feel give them the proper status or respect. And none of the comments seem to have the same concern about the cis woman label. There are a decent number of women that answered the poll and this concern hasn't even come up from them, unless I missed something.
Interesting that no one seems to have a problem with the cis woman label, the reaction is almost 100% about the cis man term. It's all about their reaction to a perceived threat to their masculinity. That's why all the negative comments are basically saying they are offended that the poll is not properly addressing them as men with the terms that they feel give them the proper status or respect. And none of the comments seem to have the same concern about the cis woman label. There are a decent number of women that answered the poll and this concern hasn't even come up from them, unless I missed something.
Exactly this. The insecurity in this thread is absolutely insane. Which in itself is just as revealing as the poll. After reading the entire thread too, the mods clearly have a bias toeard one side and aren't being objective or fair. This is pathetic.
Interesting that no one seems to have a problem with the cis woman label, the reaction is almost 100% about the cis man term. It's all about their reaction to a perceived threat to their masculinity. That's why all the negative comments are basically saying they are offended that the poll is not properly addressing them as men with the terms that they feel give them the proper status or respect. And none of the comments seem to have the same concern about the cis woman label. There are a decent number of women that answered the poll and this concern hasn't even come up from them, unless I missed something.
You sound triggered. Just speculation on my part, but your observation could be due to the fact there are virtually no women participating here and that the men who are participating are (mostly) NOT trying to speak for those women who are not here.
I'm okay with the "cis man/woman" label in this case because no trans person can then misidentify as a plain "man/woman" since a few are loathe to even acknowledge their biological status.
đź¤....đź‘€
I’m losing my mind, cis as in not trans. A lot of these women were AFAB and still identify as women making them cis and a lot of them bristle at accusations that they look like men.
But see, you don't get to tell those women who/what they are or how they should choose to self-identify. I understand the classification system you are using. And I also see you.
Most cis men I know don’t identify as cis men. That is fine. This is not about whether you identify as a cis man or just a man. This is about who will select the trans option. I put the cis option there to let the trans people know which one to not pick.
It is a little curious - some might even say ironic - that you thought trans persons might be confused by the prefix "trans".
But see, you don't get to tell those women who/what they are or how they should choose to self-identify. I understand the classification system you are using. And I also see you.
Again, most cis people don’t identify as cis. They identify with the gender they were assigned at birth, making them cis. You identity as a man, and that identity is consistent with what you were assigned at birth. You are a cis man.
It is a little curious - some might even say ironic - that you thought trans persons might be confused by the prefix "trans".
Excuse me for wanting to poll to be clear and consistent. It is othering to trans people to simply put “man” and “trans man”, subtly implying that they are not actually men!
Me: Are you a Cisalpine Gaul or a Transalpine Gaul?
You: I’m just a Gaul.
Me: Okay cool, but I’m just asking which side of the Alps you live on, not just if you’re a Gaul.
You: I live on this side of the Alps, but I don’t identify as Cisalpine! There needs to be an option for just Gaul!
Me: …
What's needed in this thread is science, not politics. Modern politics is destroying the science that has stemmed from Western society (hmm wonder why they'd do that). Almost like 'woke' is a new religion, where they abandon logic for feelings and twisted definitions of concepts that frame our very existence, fighting against science as if it is attacking their belief systems; which is exactly what religions do. It's not a coincidence that this woke religion is emerging and growing stronger in conjunction with the old western religion dying out - Christianity.
Also in regards to the second interesting point on this thread, yes this site is comprised of mostly straight men who are attracted to muscular/very muscular women, with the majority of women on here definitely using testosterone supplements to get jacked. But lets not forget, that women produce testosterone naturally, some more than others - just like men. I'd wager that at least 50% of women on here, have very good genetics for natural testosterone production and thus the ability to grow muscles naturally (they then most likely get on var or what not to increase this). And testosterone doesn't turn women into men, there's tons of women on here that get pregnant whilst jacked. For men, high estrogen has more unfortunate side effects, gyno and erectile dysfunction for eg, which is of course undesirable. Women have to have extreme levels of high testosterone to match how destructive estrogen can be for men (which is subjective of course, as some women would hate to grow a large amount of muscle, or potentially a deeper voice). But certainly in terms of sexual function, women are much safer with increasing testosterone.
In short, testosterone is good for both sexes. Even for facial aesthetics, strong facial structure thats suggestive of high natural testosterone is highly attractive for both sexes, look at all female models/actresses today; high cheekbones, jaw built like anvils, angular forehead, strong but small nose. Only major differences are that men have androgenic facial hair, more squared of chins, a strong brow ridge and most often bigger noses.
What's needed in this thread is science, not politics. Modern politics is destroying the science that has stemmed from Western society (hmm wonder why they'd do that). Almost like 'woke' is a new religion, where they abandon logic for feelings and twisted definitions of concepts that frame our very existence, fighting against science as if it is attacking their belief systems; which is exactly what religions do. It's not a coincidence that this woke religion is emerging and growing stronger in conjunction with the old western religion dying out - Christianity.
Also in regards to the second interesting point on this thread, yes this site is comprised of mostly straight men who are attracted to muscular/very muscular women, with the majority of women on here definitely using testosterone supplements to get jacked. But lets not forget, that women produce testosterone naturally, some more than others - just like men. I'd wager that at least 50% of women on here, have very good genetics for natural testosterone production and thus the ability to grow muscles naturally (they then most likely get on var or what not to increase this). And testosterone doesn't turn women into men, there's tons of women on here that get pregnant whilst jacked. For men, high estrogen has more unfortunate side effects, gyno and erectile dysfunction for eg, which is of course undesirable. Women have to have extreme levels of high testosterone to match how destructive estrogen can be for men (which is subjective of course, as some women would hate to grow a large amount of muscle, or potentially a deeper voice). But certainly in terms of sexual function, women are much safer with increasing testosterone.
In short, testosterone is good for both sexes. Even for facial aesthetics, strong facial structure thats suggestive of high natural testosterone is highly attractive for both sexes, look at all female models/actresses today; high cheekbones, jaw built like anvils, angular forehead, strong but small nose. Only major differences are that men have androgenic facial hair, more squared of chins, a strong brow ridge and most often bigger noses.
Cool story bro. Except that science changes all the time as new areas are explored and researched. If science was fixed and unchanging in the face of new discoveries, then it wouldn't be science, it would be religion. Now that the stigma of being trans is letting up and scientists are beginning to explore the topic more rigorously, they are finding that being trans is a very real biological phenomenon.
I find it quite intriguing that OP asks everyone to keep it civil whilst at the same time giving poll options that he/she must know will provoke reactions.
"It's you're fault that I'm having a bad reaction to your poll that acknowledges that trans people exist!"
Interesting that no one seems to have a problem with the cis woman label, the reaction is almost 100% about the cis man term.
You haven't been paying attention then.
Exactly this. The insecurity in this thread is absolutely insane. Which in itself is just as revealing as the poll. After reading the entire thread too, the mods clearly have a bias toeard one side and aren't being objective or fair. This is pathetic.
Someone not having the same group-think as you does not mean they are "insecure". And it does not mean someone is not being objective or "fair", whatever that means, when they come to a different conclusion than you.
It's sad, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that most people under 30 can't think for themselves anymore.
Someone not having the same group-think as you does not mean they are "insecure". And it does not mean someone is not being objective or "fair", whatever that means, when they come to a different conclusion than you.
It's sad, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that most people under 30 can't think for themselves anymore.
Help me to understand why you object so much to the term cis man. Is it because you object to the fact that it means that trans men are also men? Is it because using the term cis implies that trans men are just as much men as you? I'm not saying this is what you believe, but this is what it sounds like people on this thread have been implying and I want to know what the issue is here.
Help me to understand why you object so much to the term cis man. Is it because you object to the fact that it means that trans men are also men? Is it because using the term cis implies that trans men are just as much men as you? I'm not saying this is what you believe, but this is what it sounds like people on this thread have been implying and I want to know what the issue is here.
I know the question was posed to real_iluvmuscle, but speaking only for myself, I do not "object" to the existence of those terms or your use herein, except I did not see that exact term - "cis man" - in the dictionary. The insistence upon adding the extraneous modifier "cis" implies Main Character Syndrome.
Think: default setting - that's why I use "men" and "women" when speaking of "men" and "women", where adult males are generally referred to as "men" and adult females are generally referred to as "women".
In no universe (yet known to personkind) is a female man the equivalent of a male man, just as no male woman is the equivalent of a female woman. But, if you think they ARE equal, then perhaps you should direct readers to your definitions of "man" and "woman".
I know the question was posed to real_iluvmuscle, but speaking only for myself, I do not "object" to the existence of those terms or your use herein, except I did not see that exact term - "cis man" - in the dictionary. The insistence upon adding the extraneous modifier "cis" implies Main Character Syndrome.
It isn't extraneous and in this instance it's incredibly relevant. When you say "male man" guess what, that is basically the same thing as cis man. Cisgender is a phrase that means you identify with your birth sex. You were born male, and you identify as male, you are cis. I'm not asking whether you go around using this term in common parlance. I'm not asking if you actively identify as cis. I'm not asking if you like the term. I'm asking you to describe a fact about yourself.
Think: default setting - that's why I use "men" and "women" when speaking of "men" and "women", where adult males are generally referred to as "men" and adult females are generally referred to as "women".
In no universe (yet known to personkind) is a female man the equivalent of a male man, just as no male woman is the equivalent of a female woman. But, if you think they ARE equal, then perhaps you should direct readers to your definitions of "man" and "woman".
Aha okay! So it's just transphobia. You don't like the fact that trans people are just as much men/women as everyone else. I think that's the obvious crux of the issue here. And yeah! I think it's perfectly fine to say this attitude is wrong because it adversely affects peoples lives. Trans people are harassed, belittled, shamed, assaulted, and murdered because of who they are. And this all stems from the belief that they aren't the gender that they present as. So please forgive me if myself and others aren't tolerant of your viewpoint that harms me and my community!
When you say "male man" guess what, that is basically the same thing as cis man. Cisgender is a phrase that means you >identify with your birth sex. You were born male, and you identify as male, you are cis.
I am not "cis". And most people that refuse it are saying, which you refuse to accept it seems because you've said the same thing about 20 times now, is that we don't accept that term being thrust on us, and don't accept it as valid. In any shape form or fashion. Nor do most care if the word "straight" with no qualifiers offends you.
Aha okay! So it's just transphobia. You don't like the fact that trans people are just as much men/women as everyone else. >I think that's the obvious crux of the issue here. And yeah! I think it's perfectly fine to say this attitude is wrong >because it adversely affects peoples lives. Trans people are harassed, belittled, shamed, assaulted, and murdered because of >who they are. And this all stems from the belief that they aren't the gender that they present as. So please forgive me if >myself and others aren't tolerant of your viewpoint that harms me and my community!
There it is. It took a while, but there it is. The entire reason you started this thread. To do nothing more than start trouble.
I find it quite intriguing that OP asks everyone to keep it civil whilst at the same time giving poll options that he/she must know will provoke reactions.