The Gender Unicorn
Discussion
Blue Oval84 said:
WinstonWolf said:
I'm equally happy with the traditional man or woman, it doesn't have to be 'normal'. There are more than enough terms already in the dictionary, just don't use cis unless you intend to cause offence.
I still don't understand where the offense comes from though? I could explain why if someone called me, for example, a faggot, that I may find it offensive (word has a long history of being used as a slur - therefore it indicates that they're trying to cause offense, therefore I'm offended sort of thing - although in reality I'd just shout back an equally colourful phrase 
) I just genuinely don't get it with "cis-gender", as far as I know it's never been used as a slur, it doesn't have a double meaning etc. That's the bit that I'm confused by.WinstonWolf said:
Let's be honest, if it wasn't for that f
king ridiculous unicorn (who thought that was acceptable?) we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.
Agreed. It is ridiculous. Maybe it's served a purpose though as regardless of the seemingly irreconcilable differences in views, it's always interesting to encounter them. king ridiculous unicorn (who thought that was acceptable?) we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.king massive faggot and you called me a butch bh or similar 
Cis et al is PC. I despise PC with a passion, it stops people taking the piss out of each other and having a laugh. Whilst the aims are laudable it is generally used to stifle people who disagree with you.
I'd rather be called a cantankerous old
that cis anything.
It seems there are some people who find the term cisgender offensive. Specifically, some LGB (but not T) people object to it on the grounds that cis/trans is binary and their own gender identity doesn't neatly fit into one or the other category. Which makes some sense, but probably wouldn't be such a big issue, except the trans activists have now come up with the term "cisgender privilege" to describe the supposed unfair advantages that society confers on non-transgender people. So you have transgender activists shouting "Check your privilege!" at LGB activists with predictably messy consequences. If nothing else, identity politics is very entertaining if you are a moderately liberal conservative who doesn't read the Bible or the Daily Mail.
230TE said:
Specifically, some LGB (but not T) .....
This has nothing to do with your post, but seeing reference to the LGBT label (which has grown with LGBTI/LGBTIQ/etc) reminds me of a question I keep meaning to askForgive my ignorance, but it seems not quite right to combine all these groups as some are about sexual orientation and some about gender, which actually are separate ways to define a person.
Also if say someone has a sex change from male to female (i.e. a woman born into a man's body who later has a sex change), if they are into women (sexually), would they be classed as gay or straight ? Likewise for their (non sex-change) partner ? Does being pre or post op have a bearing on the answer to that question (for either party)
WinstonWolf said:
So you would like to employ double standards? Interesting... In your world it's OK for you to be prejudiced and to insult people, but you'd like them to be respectful towards your special needs?
I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it.
A very 'interesting' and perverse interpretation , but entirely in line with your typical lack of self awareness and bigtory. I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it.
also your use of the term 'special needs' indicates once again that your bigotry has become so ingrained you simply cannot see it and cannot accept that your opinion is outwith that held by the law of the land .
Blue Oval84 said:
Well, only assuming the others don't wish to cause offense. Don't think for a moment that it's not obvious what your angle is here, calling you "normal" would therefore make anyone who doesn't fit your mould "abnormal".
Someone else has already done the ginger analogy, they are not "normal" according to the dictionary definition, but to call them abnormal is quite simply offensive. The same goes for trans people.
I don't believe for a second that you don't realise what you're suggesting. I also think that it's risible that you, to paraphrase, only believe you shouldn't have to offend an LGBT person provided they're willing to accept your assertion that they aren't normal.
They have as much right to refer to themselves as normal as you do, so sorry, no dice, won't be using "normal" to describe straight non-trans individuals. Although I'll happily call you "non-trans" if that makes you feel better about it? (Although this whole bloody thing is more or less hypothetical as I have only ever once in my whole life had to specifically state that someone is not-trans, it's hardly like your gender is a routine topic of conversation)
You still haven't answered what's wrong with "cis", given that it has never been used as a slur, it's literally and medically the correct terminology. I also presume no one has ever used the term to discriminate against you or anyone you know. It's no more offensive than calling someone a Homo sapiens. So, where's the offense.
I also think Winston dislikes thespians who engage in social intercourse , extroverts , homo sapiens who use homophones and so on ... Someone else has already done the ginger analogy, they are not "normal" according to the dictionary definition, but to call them abnormal is quite simply offensive. The same goes for trans people.
I don't believe for a second that you don't realise what you're suggesting. I also think that it's risible that you, to paraphrase, only believe you shouldn't have to offend an LGBT person provided they're willing to accept your assertion that they aren't normal.
They have as much right to refer to themselves as normal as you do, so sorry, no dice, won't be using "normal" to describe straight non-trans individuals. Although I'll happily call you "non-trans" if that makes you feel better about it? (Although this whole bloody thing is more or less hypothetical as I have only ever once in my whole life had to specifically state that someone is not-trans, it's hardly like your gender is a routine topic of conversation)
You still haven't answered what's wrong with "cis", given that it has never been used as a slur, it's literally and medically the correct terminology. I also presume no one has ever used the term to discriminate against you or anyone you know. It's no more offensive than calling someone a Homo sapiens. So, where's the offense.
jonby said:
This has nothing to do with your post, but seeing reference to the LGBT label (which has grown with LGBTI/LGBTIQ/etc) reminds me of a question I keep meaning to ask
Forgive my ignorance, but it seems not quite right to combine all these groups as some are about sexual orientation and some about gender, which actually are separate ways to define a person.
It strikes me that grouping all these subsets together (basically saying "everything but heterosexual and cisgender") doesn't really help in a campaign not to be considered as other than "normal".Forgive my ignorance, but it seems not quite right to combine all these groups as some are about sexual orientation and some about gender, which actually are separate ways to define a person.
mph1977 said:
WinstonWolf said:
So you would like to employ double standards? Interesting... In your world it's OK for you to be prejudiced and to insult people, but you'd like them to be respectful towards your special needs?
I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it.
A very 'interesting' and perverse interpretation , but entirely in line with your typical lack of self awareness and bigtory. I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it.
also your use of the term 'special needs' indicates once again that your bigotry has become so ingrained you simply cannot see it and cannot accept that your opinion is outwith that held by the law of the land .
Carry on with the insults if you like, you're merely highlighting your own double standards and prejudice.
Even as a relatively young, "PC" friendly person, I really don't like the term "cis".
Isn't the whole point of the gender and sexuality movement to allow people to be who they want to be and be attracted to who they are attracted to without fear of any stigma or name calling? It seems somewhat counter productive to throw yet more labels and terms into the mix?
What happens if you're not cis, but aren't trans? What if you're in the middle? Or don't know? Or don't care?
Let people be people, not labels.
Isn't the whole point of the gender and sexuality movement to allow people to be who they want to be and be attracted to who they are attracted to without fear of any stigma or name calling? It seems somewhat counter productive to throw yet more labels and terms into the mix?
What happens if you're not cis, but aren't trans? What if you're in the middle? Or don't know? Or don't care?
Let people be people, not labels.
279 said:
Even as a relatively young, "PC" friendly person, I really don't like the term "cis".
Isn't the whole point of the gender and sexuality movement to allow people to be who they want to be and be attracted to who they are attracted to without fear of any stigma or name calling? It seems somewhat counter productive to throw yet more labels and terms into the mix?
What happens if you're not cis, but aren't trans? What if you're in the middle? Or don't know? Or don't care?
Let people be people, not labels.
Is this a genuine question ? or just an attempt to troll , as it;s hard to determine from the way you have phrased your post. Isn't the whole point of the gender and sexuality movement to allow people to be who they want to be and be attracted to who they are attracted to without fear of any stigma or name calling? It seems somewhat counter productive to throw yet more labels and terms into the mix?
What happens if you're not cis, but aren't trans? What if you're in the middle? Or don't know? Or don't care?
Let people be people, not labels.
genderfluid, bi-gender, genderqueer may be appropriate descriptors if people are forced to classify in this situation , it is however generally accepted that these gender identities form part of the wider trans descrption.
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Transhealth/Documents/L...
Edited by mph1977 on Wednesday 17th August 18:28
mph1977 said:
Is this a genuine question ? or just an attempt to troll , as it;s hard to determine from the way you have phrased your post.
TBH, you come across as the troll in this instance. It has already been stated that some of us dislike your cis term and find it offensive, regardless of your attempts to portray it as valid. I have rights too (although sometimes they appear to be secondary to other folks.) Why can't you accept that we are more than happy to respect your label of choice as long as you respect ours.I don't wish to offend you but you come across as a tad obsessed with the matter, surely that cannot be healthy?
technodup said:
ou've answered it yourself. In the context of trans-ness, when you accept only 2% of people are, then there is no better word for the other 98%.
normal
?n??m(?)l/Submit
adjective
1.
conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
What could be more standard or expected than 98%? That's not to say they're not abnormal in some other sense, having a 15" cock for example.
Having met one trans person in 38 years it's really not something I lose any sleep over, offended or not.
Gotta be honest, this is where I am. The phrase 'normal' seems appropriate as it covers the majority, but I don't consider people outwith this 'norm' to be 'abnormal', just different. Makes sense in my head, anyway.normal
?n??m(?)l/Submit
adjective
1.
conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
What could be more standard or expected than 98%? That's not to say they're not abnormal in some other sense, having a 15" cock for example.
Having met one trans person in 38 years it's really not something I lose any sleep over, offended or not.
I really don't care about peoples drives, preferences, or how they want or are forced to see themselves as I'm very much live and let live. I do get f
ked off with this eternal search for categories and badges to pin on people though, and 'cis' is just a st badge.Trans means transsexual, but it also means transgender.
Transsexual is the specific - assigned/assumed female at birth but person is male, or assigned male at birth and person is female.
Transgender is the more inclusive all-encompassing umbrella term: if your gender identity is not a straightforwardly good match with what your folks thought when you were small, you fit in this bracket, if you want to. So obviously that's transsexual boys and girls, men and women but it's also that poster's genderqueer niece and their trendy nonbinary friends, it's cross dressers, transvestites and drag queens, drag kings too for that matter, it's pretty much anyone who doesn't present themself the way the world generally expects that they will in terms of gender. So in theory, it might include some 'just' very butch women or very femme men, too.
So - unlike male/female which ignores the people who are neither, trans/cis covers the whole lot.
Transsexual is the specific - assigned/assumed female at birth but person is male, or assigned male at birth and person is female.
Transgender is the more inclusive all-encompassing umbrella term: if your gender identity is not a straightforwardly good match with what your folks thought when you were small, you fit in this bracket, if you want to. So obviously that's transsexual boys and girls, men and women but it's also that poster's genderqueer niece and their trendy nonbinary friends, it's cross dressers, transvestites and drag queens, drag kings too for that matter, it's pretty much anyone who doesn't present themself the way the world generally expects that they will in terms of gender. So in theory, it might include some 'just' very butch women or very femme men, too.
So - unlike male/female which ignores the people who are neither, trans/cis covers the whole lot.
mph1977 said:
279 said:
Even as a relatively young, "PC" friendly person, I really don't like the term "cis".
Isn't the whole point of the gender and sexuality movement to allow people to be who they want to be and be attracted to who they are attracted to without fear of any stigma or name calling? It seems somewhat counter productive to throw yet more labels and terms into the mix?
What happens if you're not cis, but aren't trans? What if you're in the middle? Or don't know? Or don't care?
Let people be people, not labels.
Is this a genuine question ? or just an attempt to troll , as it;s hard to determine from the way you have phrased your post. Isn't the whole point of the gender and sexuality movement to allow people to be who they want to be and be attracted to who they are attracted to without fear of any stigma or name calling? It seems somewhat counter productive to throw yet more labels and terms into the mix?
What happens if you're not cis, but aren't trans? What if you're in the middle? Or don't know? Or don't care?
Let people be people, not labels.
genderfluid, bi-gender, genderqueer may be appropriate descriptors if people are forced to classify in this situation , it is however generally accepted that these gender identities form part of the wider trans descrption.
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Transhealth/Documents/L...
Edited by mph1977 on Wednesday 17th August 18:28
.Your answer of "genderfluid, bi-gender, genderqueer" sums up the point to me - A baffling array of words, phases and labels that have no meaning to me as a fairly liberal western 20 something, let alone society at large.
Instead of working towards adding more boxes for people to try and fit their gender/sexuality into, wouldn't it be more beneficial to move away from labels entirely?
FlyingMeeces said:
So - unlike male/female which ignores the people who are neither, trans/cis covers the whole lot.
Surely it's about arguing the toss between biological gender and psychological gender? If you have the ability to bear children then you are female vs to sire children equals male, how you feel about that accident of birth is another matter, and if you wish to change that situation then good luck to you.
TeamD said:
FlyingMeeces said:
So - unlike male/female which ignores the people who are neither, trans/cis covers the whole lot.
Surely it's about arguing the toss between biological gender and psychological gender? If you have the ability to bear children then you are female vs to sire children equals male, how you feel about that accident of birth is another matter, and if you wish to change that situation then good luck to you.
Edited by mph1977 on Wednesday 17th August 20:26
mph1977 said:
ah the flawed logic of the TERFs in callingtranswomen not women but forgetting that there is a significant minority of women who are unable to concieve or carry a pregnancy to term , equally that there is a number of of cisgender men who are infertile ( in absolute or functional terms)
WTF is a TERF? And what the hell does biological (or should that be physiological?) sexual disfunction have to do with your pigeonholing exercise?
Janluke said:
I must admit I've never understood the whole trans thing. I wasnt prejudiced at all just didnt get it. I have recently returned from coaching at a youth sports camp aged 12-16. Before the students arrived we where told that one of kids who was "Janet" last year is now "John"(made up names ). I remember Janet as what I would call a tomboy, a slightly troubled child who never quite seemed comfortable or at ease. A year older John was a confident young man clearly happy with his own identity. Now the really interesting thing was how readily the other kids(many who hadn't seen John for a year) just accepted the situation. When coaching John I never once thought of him as a her it was obvious that he was a he. I've come away a little more educated and with a little more understanding
I think I need a similar experience to 'get it' as I thought it was merely people who were suffering teenage angst and identity issues. It's certainly causing a storm on social media in the states with different toilets, funding for changes and drugs etc. All the terminology are a new to me too. I'd be interested in seeing How it's presented in a science lesson, biology perhaps, if at all, or would it be a psychology lesson it's addressed in?! 279 said:
I don't see who you could construe a simple question as 'a troll post'? .
Your answer of "genderfluid, bi-gender, genderqueer" sums up the point to me - A baffling array of words, phases and labels that have no meaning to me as a fairly liberal western 20 something, let alone society at large.
Instead of working towards adding more boxes for people to try and fit their gender/sexuality into, wouldn't it be more beneficial to move away from labels entirely?
For some reason though I always feel when people argue the point that they are progressive and then prove it by the suggestion of we're all equal so lets do away with all the labels. It seems to come up a lot in relation to trans people, and I just feel its a way to not accept trans people, nullify their identity and pat themselves on the back for being progressive. After all I don't remember the last time it was suggested Afro Caribbean, Latino's and Asians should just be happy to tick the box "person" or we have a form that says white/back/Other. I don't think its even suggested the LGB should not all accept just being a sexually active person. Peoples identities are important to them, on the one hand many trans people strive to be accepted as the men or woman they are with no prefix, but equally denying anyone of an identity they have a kinship with is also pretty offensive..Your answer of "genderfluid, bi-gender, genderqueer" sums up the point to me - A baffling array of words, phases and labels that have no meaning to me as a fairly liberal western 20 something, let alone society at large.
Instead of working towards adding more boxes for people to try and fit their gender/sexuality into, wouldn't it be more beneficial to move away from labels entirely?
As for the term Cis being a trans term, I have said it before on this thread, pretty much all these terms were coined by the normals. Don't blame the trannies for coming up with the terminology, and as for its use, it pretty much only comes up in trans discussion as that is about the only place it is necessary to distinguish Cis and Trans as its pretty unequal, inaccurate and sometimes confusing not to use both terms in such a discussion. In all other cases the use of trans is as unnecessary as Cis is unless it goes against the affected persons wishes, we are all just men, woman or whatever identity we have a kinship with.
TeamD said:
FlyingMeeces said:
So - unlike male/female which ignores the people who are neither, trans/cis covers the whole lot.
Surely it's about arguing the toss between biological gender and psychological gender? If you have the ability to bear children then you are female vs to sire children equals male, how you feel about that accident of birth is another matter, and if you wish to change that situation then good luck to you.
You don't know which reproductive bits I was born with, and *I* don't know whether the bits I do know I have are, even as individual components, fully functional - certainly my body as a reproductive unit is not. Am I neuter? Reproductively yes I suppose, but that's neither gender nor sex.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff