I’m cis. I’m a cis man with a exclusive sexual interest in cis women. I find the term very helpful to express very clearly who I am and what I want. I can’t imagine being so delicate as to lose my shit over being called cis.
I’m cis and my sister is too. My cister, if you will.
Are you a dad?
No, I’m just a bachelor dude. A mister. Or even… a “cister”?
Groan.
Wow guys, get a load of this cissy over here!
(Jk me too lol)
I don’t know why people get so grumpy over the word cis
If a room has no lights on do you say “this room has a complete absence of light”? Or do you say the room is dark?
I find cis to be an extremely useful term. It very clearly conveys what I am and who I’m interested in. Why wouldn’t I embrace it?
It kinda feels like people who don’t believe trans women and cis women are interchangeable should be the ones pushing the word, those who say ‘trans women are women’ surely don’t want the slogan to be made meaningless by having cis women as the established term.
That was the point of my meme.
They’re trying to use it as a slur but it perfectly captures what I’m trying to say and that pisses them off.
More like if the room is lit its “normal.” That seems to be how people see it, being “persecuted” becauae they cant be normal and call others abnormal
becauae
I like that
I find the word as displeasing as some people find ‘moist’, but I’m entitled to an opinion. Am I going to wave a sign around and demonstrate over it despite thinking it was promoted for its potential to upset the victim? Of course not: it’s just a stupid name and I’ve been called far worse by better drill sergeants. There’s a lot of room in there between disliking something and “losing my shit over” it, and it will help respecting others if you understand that.
Well, there’s also a different between “I have a weird visceral reaction to the sound itself” and “I think its equal to the new word” lol
What victim?
Wow, you really are delicate. It’s got to be hard going through life being offended by such little things all the time
That’s a really weird response to someone’s reasonable comment.
You think it’s reasonable to be offended by the words “moist” and “cis”?
People who are offended by being called “cis” are often the same people who have spent their lives labelling everyone else because of a misguided sense of superiority. Being called “cis” bursts that bubble of, “you can’t label me because I one of us, not one of them.” Those people need to get the fuck over themselves.
When someone uses the words f-ggot or d-ke or tr-nny or the words cis or breeder or the N word or bloodmouth or carnist or corpsemuncher or any one of the other words that fanatics or extremists use I know exactly what they are and I stop giving the first fuck about anything they say.
EdIT: Do you know why this comment is being downvoted? It’s because the members of the fanatical groups that I listed in my last paragraph resent being lumped in with the members of the other fanatical groups I listed. Each one of them believes that they are morally pure and supperior and that the others are not. They can’t see that they are making the exact same intellectual error in believing that they are pure and superior and that everything they say and do is justified. Anti-LBGTQ extremists and pro-LGBTQ absolutists are the same. Different beliefs and targets but the intellectual mistake that they make is exactly the same.
They didn’t even say he found it offending. Just that they found it displeasing.
They then spent the rest of the comment talking about how they keep it to themself and doesn’t attack or act otherwise negatively to people who use them. The way a healthy person handles such things.
Meanwhile you’re the one actually flying off the handle and getting offended by this. I would suggest some introspection as to why you’re so bothered by a random comment on the internet like that.
Displeasing…synonym, offensive.
Meanwhile you’re the one actually flying off the handle
Ah…the classic, “I know you are but what am I” retort.
Splended. Back to the school yard, are we?
OC is trying to use reductive fallacious arguments to invalidate my clearly stated preference. I’m not playing that game because that IS offensive.
Might I be a hypocrite? Of course not, it’s the children who are posting.
People who are offended by being called “cis” are often the same people who have spent their lives labelling everyone else because of a misguided sense of superiority.
Citation needed
Citation needed
That is not a citation.
Hi! I know this might just be the wrong context at this point as you are already getting flak, but I was curious and wanted to ask why you have exclusive sexual interest in cis women?
For example I would imagine some heterosexual cis men would have a hard time dating a trans woman who haven’t had bottom surgery or who are early in their transition (in which case sometimes the sexual preference is phrased as a genital preference rather than about exclusively dating cis people).
Some women who for various reasons pass well as cis are not distinguishable from cis women, and in that case I assume based on your statement you still would have a hard time dating that person if you found out they were trans.
For example, based on your statement I assume you wouldn’t date or be attracted to Nava Mau.
I understand if you don’t want to answer, it’s not like this is the best context and it is a vulnerable topic - just wanted to extend an olive branch in case you wanted to talk and think about it with less judgement.
Hi. I’m happy to talk to someone who wants to have a reasonable conversation.
Just some context. My wife is bisexual, my sister is bisexual, my daughter is a lesbian, my son and daughter both have non-binary and trans friends who I regularly spend time with, I have gay friends and lesbian friends, I was a member of the wedding party at a same sex wedding, I am friends with a local transmasc, and I’ve had a pair of transfem friends for more than 50 years. I am very much an ally to the LGBTQ+ community.
I have always been straight and have always been interested in women. My experience with my two long time transfem friends colors my preference. Both have very serious mental health issues. One is post-surgical, the other will never be able to get surgery. I do not find Nava Manu attractive but that is strictly a funcion of what I see as vary sharp facial features. She reminds me of Theodora Elphaba. Jaime Clayton, on the other hand, I find very attractive. I’m not completely closed to the idea of a relationship with a trans woman but in my fairly broad experience with trans women I have never encountered anyone who I would be at all interested in having a relationship with. Thus, my preference is for cis women.
Interesting. Well, first - thanks for being an ally!!
It does seem like trans folks have a pretty rough road in most societies, and predictably that leads to poor mental health outcomes. The statistics about how well a trans person does post-transition has a lot to do with whether they are accepted by their family and friends. (Mental health issues are also common before transition while closeted, or not-yet aware of being trans, which might have biological as well as social / psychological reasons behind it.)
It also makes sense you might not personally know trans women you are attracted to as there are far fewer trans folks compared to cis folks; though, it sounds like you were even able to list a trans woman you do find attractive.
Digging into that more, if there were someone who had the right personality and looked like Jaime Clayton, would being trans be a deal-breaker for pursuing a relationship with that person? I guess I wonder if it’s really being trans that is the problem for you, or if this is just a short-hand for a bunch of other traits that in practice just make you less likely to be attracted.
I ask because at this point it sounds like you would be pretty open to dating trans women who you find attractive (personality and looks wise), but that it is more practical reality that you just aren’t attracted to most trans women (probably for a variety of reasons).
Does that seem right, or am I off base here?
The question for me has always been, are my friends mentally ill because of how they were treated as a result of being trans or is being trans a manifestation of their mental illness.
The friend I am closest to grew up in a fundamentalist Christian family and she was horribly sexually abused as a child. I wonder if she didn’t reject her maleness as a result of that sexual abuse.
For me, personality is far more important than looks. I have often been attracted to women who were not classically attractive.
I can imagine myself being attracted to a trans woman with the right combaintion of looks, mental health, and personality. I haven’t encountered anyone who fit the bill but it might happen. Another issue is that I don’t like plastic at all. Fake boobs, cosmetic surgery, lip injectoions and fillers turn me off. I find Janie Clayton very pretty but I’m not keen on her body. I don’t find narrow hips attractive and her boobs just aren’t for me. The same is true for cis women. I don’t find narrow hips or fake boobs attrative on a cis woman.
There has been plenty of research into the etiology of gender dysphoria, but the current science considers gender identity as fixed and biological, which makes sense of why conversion therapies have been so unsuccessful (otherwise the conservative medical establishment would be more likely to recommend conversion therapy to solve the “problem” of trans people, as talk therapy is much less intervention, much cheaper, and much more socially acceptable than medical transition).
Here is a relatively accessible paper on the topic by esteemed endocrinologist Joshua Safer: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31027542/
It’s behind a paywall, but that can be circumvented if you know how.
More interesting than whether mental illness is more common in trans people because of how they are treated by society (which seems almost obvious, though worth confirming empirically) is whether mental illness might be more common for trans people because of the biology, such as from having the “wrong” sex hormones in their body.
Gay men who were forced to take estrogen in the UK experienced symptoms like depression and suicidal ideation, and lots of the same things trans people report (there is speculation whether Alan Turing being forced to take estrogen may have contributed to his suicide).
There is also the famous case of David Reimer whose penis was accidentally amputated during circumcision as a baby. Under the direction of the psychologist John Money, who believed gender was entirely determined by environment / social programming, was raised as a girl. Reimer consistently struggled being raised as a girl, eventually decided he was a man, and struggled immensely with mental health struggles before his suicide.
Suicide seems to be a common thread among those suffering from gender dysphoria, with over 40% of trans people reporting having previously attempted suicide and over 80% having considered attempting suicide (source), and it’s not surprising cis people when forced to take cross-sex hormones also seem more likely to commit suicide (though we don’t have as much evidence about this in particular, so take that as speculation on my part).
All this to say, religious trauma and sexual abuse certainly can and do complicate someone trying to figure out whether they are suffering symptoms of gender dysphoria or not, but the current evidence points to gender dysphoria not being caused by environmental factors (like sexual abuse) and likewise not being reversible with any kind of known treatment other than transitioning.
Furthermore, there have been autopsies of trans and cis brains that have found parts of the hypothalamus in trans women match cis women’s, even if not taking hormones. Here is a relatively accessible overview by neuro-endocrinologist Robert Sapolsky about those autopsy studies which were high quality and confirmed with follow up studies several times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QScpDGqwsQ
Being trans cannot be adequately theorized in merely biological terms, so please don’t mistake me for implying there are no social aspects to being trans, but I do think there is sufficient evidence that gender identity and dysphoria have biological components that aren’t influenced by environment.
Regarding trans women and plastic surgery: many trans women transition before puberty and thus look and sound pretty much like cis women, i.e. they develop as cis women would. Obviously even in those cases some trans women opt for surgeries, and while neo-vaginas have some differences, they are more like natal vaginas than most people realize (both in look and function).
In that sense, it doesn’t sound like being trans is what you don’t like in a woman, but rather certain body features that might be more common in trans women who have transitioned as adults (breast augmentation, facial feminization surgeries, narrow hips, etc. are more common in trans women who went through male puberty). But there is a huge variety of trans women, even those who transition as adults don’t necessarily get breast augmentation or facial feminization surgery, though narrow hips are obviously more common still.
Perhaps this seems like nitpicking or like I am making an irrelevant or theoretical distinction, after all if most trans women you know look a certain way, is it that wrong to generalize this way. The problems of stereotyping aside, part of the problem is that trans people in general are under a lot of pressure to conform to cis-sexual norms, and those who can go “stealth” typically do. That means, a bit like sexual minorities, it can be an invisible identity, but where a subset of adult trans folks especially early transition are more likely to stand out as trans. What we think of as a paradigmatic “trans woman” is someone who doesn’t conform that much to our cis-normative notions of a “woman”, and that is because of that unintentional sampling bias.
I acknowledge this is a lot, so let me stop here and see what you think so far.
This is very interesting. I don’t doubt that gender identity is biological. I agree with the current thinking that gender dysphoria is not mental illness. It is just apparent to me in my very small sample size of three (two transfem for more than 50 years and one transmasc for 10 years) that mental illness and gender dysphoria are, at least in my sample, adjacent to each other in 100% of trans people I know. I am also of the mind that mental illness is a biological issue so having biological gender dysphoria and biological mental illness adjacent to each other raises questions.
I have been thinking as I’ve been puttering around this evening and you just hit the nail on the head. It is the secondary sexual characteristics of cis women that I find attractive. I like a feminine face, natural breasts, and wide hips. I have a copy of The Big Butt Book 3D that a friend gave me in my nightstand. I don’t find men’s bodies attractive. When I look at a fit man I think, that’s a great body but I don’t feel any attration to him. I just appreciate that it is a good body. I have never encountered a transfem whose body I found attractive. In all cases I found their faces and bodies masculine which I don’t find attractive. To be honest, I don’t find supermodels attractive, either. They’re too skinny, with no behinds and often very chiseled, masculine faces. I think Scarlett Johansson is gorgeous and I find her body very attractive. I think Anna Kendrick if stunning but I don’t find her body attractive. She’s too light in the pants for my tastes. I don’t find most social media personalities at all attractive because I don’t like heavy makeup and fakeness. I like no makeup, hair pulled up into a ponytail, and … I dunno, plain?
Saying that I have an exclusive sexual preference for cis women is a very good starting point. I’m not interested in penises at all and every single person that I’ve ever been attracted to sexually has been a cis woman with the secondary sexual characterists of a cis woman. I don’t hate or fear trans women, I’m just never been attracted to any that I’ve met.
I’ve never met a person who is.
exclusive sexual interest in cis women
Hmm. So in other words, you think you can always tell if someone is trans?
If someone says they’re not interested in dating Republicans, it doesn’t mean they are any better than the average person at picking one out from a crowd.
No, but they didn’t say not date, they said not attracted to.
Attraction can change as you learn more about a person. There’s plenty of people on tinder who looked hot in their pictures but their bio then went on to turn me off.
So you were never attracted to those people?
There was initial attraction but the additional information killed it.
So in other words, you are not defending the statement that the commenter was making, about never experiencing attraction?
Do you consider yourself attracted to AI, cartoons, and or wax figures? Or do withhold judgment until you find out if they are human?
So in this metaphor trans people are AI, cartoons, and wax figures, and cis people are human?
Or, on a less confrontational tact, do you only experience attraction once you’ve confirmed that the person is cis? How does that work, do you ask for medical records before having an initial impression of people?
They didn’t actually use either of those terms.
Can you go back and show me where I said that?
I’m cis. I’m a cis man with a exclusive sexual interest in cis women.
Here. Unless you know for certainty that you can 100 percent correctly identify every person you meet as cis or trans, you wouldn’t have the knowledge to confidently make that statement.
Unless I misunderstand?
I have very clearly stated that I am exclusively interested in cis women. Are you suggesting that a trans person would ignore my very clearly stated preference and lie to me in order to have sex with me?
Hey, maybe instead of leaning on the “trap” meme that gets trans women brutally murdered you can actually engage with the content of what I’m saying.
Are you nitpicking an ally for using “exclusive” instead of “principal”?
MapleEngineer doesn’t actually know for sure that he has never been attracted to a trans woman. So it’s important to correct him when he says he has an exclusive sexual interest in cis-women.
Is that your point? That failing to acknowledge the nuance that sexuality exists on a spectrum must be addressed confrontationally because it’s erasure?
Transphobia and homophobia are too often literally (yes, I mean literally) beaten into men. We have to work to unlearn it. If an ally says he wouldn’t be able to keep it up if he learned the woman he was courting was assigned male at birth, believe him, but don’t discount him as an ally. Imo your efforts are better spent combating active transphobia than policing your allies. If their terminology hurts you, suggest better ways to articulate their points but do it collaboratively instead of confrontationally.
Just my two cents.
If you have issues with my tone maybe you should have raised the issue instead of me, because you obviously know how to do it better.
You can still collaboratively discuss with him why he is incorrect and how he is falling into ambient transmisogyny if you want.
I very clearly stated my preference. You’re trying to use pedantic arguments to invalidate my clearly stated preference. Are you suggesting that I shouldn’t be allowed to have a preference or that people who don’t like that preference or don’t think I should have that preference should be allowed to simply ignore my preference?
I think that your “preference” is based on very sloppy thinking rooted in ambient transphobia. I think you are also confusing a desire for precision of thought with being pedantic.
I think you’re trying to imply that preferences are neutral facts. I think you should consider how you’d react to someone saying “I am only attracted to white women” or “I am only attracted to 18 y/o women”. Do you think their preference is a neutral fact or an expression of something?
Oh, also, expression of “preference” is different than having a preference. Ask why you felt the need to say it in this thread.
Of course. For example, this woman is obviously trans:
I don’t think that MTG is trans but she is utterly unattractive to me physically and she’s a fucking horrible person.
41?
Cherry picked statistic of transgender suicide rate. They only look at that number, but never why that number is so high.
It’s almost like constant bullying has a major effect on people’s mental health
Man that number is high
It’s also not the suicide rate. It’s either the has attempted suicide at least once in their life rate or the thought about it rate. Can’t quite remember which, but definitely not the suicide rate.
Even including attempts that’s high as shit. Thought about it, then it might not be that high, depending on how serious the thought have to be.
I’m fairly certain it’s attempts now that I’ve looked at it again. It’s been a long time since I’ve read breakdowns of the studies and what the numbers all mean. It wasn’t as simple as 41% of trans people attempt suicide. The numbers went down post transition and I don’t think suicide attempts had to be serious attempts to be counted (I think it’s worth nitpicking this).
Edit: Tried finding the survey the number comes from and got a bunch of different responses that are just confusing me more at this point. I’m probably done here, since researching suicide statistics isn’t a ton of fun.
That’s understandable
Who hasn’t thought about suicide even once in their life? I mean really.
A bit of the call of the void every now and then keeps you on the edge
Thought? Sure. But this was “attempted”, which is way past thinking of it
Yeah but like in a “how could you do that” kind of way, not an “actually considering it” kind of way.
And if it is the suicide rate there’s no way it isn’t massively skewed by doing some fuckery about who is counted.
Like me in high school.
Is that referring to 41%, 41 per 1000, or some other metric entirely? Either way it’s too damn high, but I’m curious and I don’t know how to go about researching it without potentially making the almighty algorithm think I’m anti-trans.
Percent
Specifically, it’s percent of adults who have attempted, not completed. I don’t think anyone in this thread is suggesting it’s the latter, but that was my first thought when I saw the statistic so I thonk it’s an important thing to note.
Thank you, I agree that it’s an important distinction to make. Having only been able to read the abstract of the linked article, do you perhaps have any information on the number of completed attempts compared to unsuccessful attempts?
I hope it goes without saying that even a single attempt is too many, and any completed attempts are devastating tragedies that don’t reflect kindly on our current society.
Thank you, that is absolutely heart-wrenching.
It certainly is. I know my sister has tried multiple times at this point and that’s with support of loved ones and friends. She is also fortunate to have always had access to her medication needs.
I sincerely hope that she has been trending in a positive direction. I’m glad to hear that her attempts have been unsuccessful, and that she has good love, support, and (hopefully helpful) medication in her life.
I imagine the knowledge of your sister struggling and suffering is hard on you too, and I wish the best for both of you.
After many years of suffering she’s finally on a upward trend. Engaged and planning for the future for the first time in at least a decade.
Well,
41would imply41/1 = 41, so…I don’t understand, could you please elaborate?
x = x/1 = x is true for all numbers, no?
I mean to say that
41 implies 41/1 instead of 41/100 (41%) or 41/1000.
So 41 attempts per person.
It is supposed to be my attempt at humour.
I’m sorry, I hope I didn’t offend you.
I’m still not sure if I understand the intended joke. An average of 41 attempts per person sounds horrific. I’m sure there is something that’s going over my head, it’s some kind of dark humor, correct?
I dunno. Maybe I’m just bad at making jokes, but you got the point.
41/1 = 4100/100 = 4100%Weereas,
= 41/100 = 0.41
Thank you for explaining.
41% is awful. I had no idea it was this high.
Removed by mod
Do you have any non-horrible opinions?
I think in this context bullying can be expanded to its summative affect at the level of the society. This accumlative persecution is cultural and does in turn lesd to internal beliefs that one’s perceived deviance, as pushed by the dominant social narrative, is unworthy. There are studies that demonstrate societal pressures/persecution does lead to increased rates of suicide. This is most notable within marginalized groups supporting the point made above.
I am open to actual data showing this from historically abused and marginalized group.
If you have time for a podcast, ScienceVS has done two episodes on trans people with well researched citations. The more recent episode looks specifically at the issue of bullying and negative trans experience. Hope this helps. Cheers!
I listened to that podcast, and it is just a one sided argument against a few studies, and just kind of hand waves away criticism or strawmans it.
Imagine we joked about cisgender men suicide rates the same way we joke about transgender suicide rates.
Plus this statistic is flawed. It comes from an older study that does not even compare pre- to post- transition.
People who joke like that are disgusting.
I don’t care who you are, if your best option is suicide, we failed you and we should be sorry.
In fact, the American Psychological Association warns that manhood and masculinity are so construed by society’s expectations, that being a man poses mental health risks itself.
There is a whole subdiscipline that focuses on 'counseling men".
Not to mention no one of this lot wants to have this discussion, either online or IRL.
https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf
Who jokes about suicide rates from any group?
I think the Adolf Hitler suicide rate is too low.
I’d say 100% is perfectly fine. He just needs to work on his timing.
In my experience? The people in modmail on trans communities. At least once a week.
deleted by creator
Transphobia is the intersection of misandry and toxic masculinity and all of it is gross.
I’ve been playing with this thought for a while, and it’s nice to see someone else express it
TIL ‘41’ has a long history as a slur for homosexuals
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/10/number-41-became-anti-gay-slur-mexico/
Is every word and number going to get colonised as dogwhistle until all of language has become a minefield ? Why do we even give air to this shit ? It seems to me acknowledging it is to give it power and legitimacy.
Kind of like asking if we can stop picking up stones and rocks and using them to beat each other and instead use them to build homes.
This isn’t a new fight. There will always be people who take our tools and abuse them by using them to hurt others. That’s what we’re fighting against, people who use our tools to hurt people instead of doing good. Unfortunately, if we just let people who collect stones and sticks for hurting people be, and not push them out of our village, they will just grow in number and strength so we can’t just block it out, we can’t live and let live around those who would take your life if they grew strong enough.
If it’s tiring and annoying to see people have to always yell at the club-and-rock-wielding thugs and throw rocks back at them, you don’t have to get involved, but don’t decry those who DO have the courage to throw rocks back. If they didn’t do this, the rocks would start hitting you next.
I mean I just watched this explanation of the “sneed seed and feed” dogwhistle and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUbo0IeWTY4 It doesn’t seem to signal more than vague group membership appartenance. I think the thing with dogwhistle is they expire as they diffuse. Like teens drawing swastikas and penises just because it’s offensive. This “41” is from more than a century ago. I think with these heirloom dogwhisles, you at least should check how much they really mean it are if they’re just shitposters. You don’t want the whiteknight stonethrowers to get bogged down by collateral damage, playing into their game and catching all the flak from “them”
They’ve already ruined a perfectly good mustache, forever.
We need a Ted Lasso-like character to neutralize it.
Not a common one, at least not in the US.
in the US it’s an anti trans reference to the % of trans people who had suicidal ideation in one study
I have never heard of it in this context before this post and I live in the us.
It’s actually the number of brain cells lost every time someone reads stupid shit like this on the internet
Just because you have never heard of something doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
You were one 15 second search away from not being a cunt on the internet but here you are, being proud of how ignorant you are.
People from these groups get pretty well informed about various dogwhistles and slurs that the general population won’t, because they’re used to harass us.
I heard the number 43 is code for marijuanas
watching transphobic cis people piss and shit themselves over being called cis has been one of the funnier things in my modern life.
I’m not trans but don’t understand why I have to accept being called cis.
My gaming friend who’s m-f is a female now, sure, whatever works for her. But why must I suddenly have a name for something I am. I didn’t choose any of this? Is it actually made to anoy me, it doesn’t. Is it something that happens because, in the modern day we live in, this is just a change that has to happen? I don’t know, probably.
What I do know is that the trans community is, in many cases, so unrelentingly hostile towards cis, because many don’t understand. Even against trans people, some communities create so many rules. My friend had trouble trying to fit in because she wasn’t trans enough for her discord group. Wtf?
Bottom line for me is; were all human, and that is more a problem than gender. Jealousy, pride, ego, it’s all part of a human and that goes for cis/trans and the lot.
And I think alot of cis people hate being called that because it’s new and it feels aggressive.
Can’t wait for someone to smack me down for my opinion
don’t understand why I have to accept being called cis.
Because that’s what you are. It’s a statement of fact, not an insult
But why must I suddenly have a name for something I am
Cisgender isn’t a new term. Also, it’s because trans people are actually somewhat accepted now so we need a more mainstream way to reference people who are and are not. Really simple concept
What I do know is that the trans community is, in many cases, so unrelentingly hostile towards cis
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. You’re not the victim here, stop it.
Bottom line for me is; were all human, and that is more a problem than gender. Jealousy, pride, ego, it’s all part of a human and that goes for cis/trans and the lot.
Bullshit. If that were true you wouldn’t care about being called cis.
And I think alot of cis people hate being called that because it’s new and it feels aggressive.
It only feels aggressive to those who have been saying sht like “tranny” with bile in their tone, likely because theyre projecting their intentions.
Can’t wait for someone to smack me down for my opinion
Glad I could help out.
Guess you’re right. But the part about the trans community is something I’ve seen happen to my friend, not myself.
They were so unfair. Like you say. They were victims and very bitter about it.
I really cannot care about most of the drama. That’s too time consuming. Old men probably feel threatened, I don’t. Regardless, we will never meet eachother but a discussion keeps the mind fresh, thank you.
You also have to accept being called “white”, but noone gets up in arms about it.
not to be that guy here but I f do not identify as white. I understand I am racialized in my society as white, but whiteness is oppressive, and I reject whiteness. you may call me “Pennsylvanian” though.
You’re a white dude, that’s a fact, you can dress it up as much as you want but that’s the whole point of this post.
I’m aware how others racialize me but it is not part of my identity.
then you should probably identify as some form of mixed then.
“some form of mixed” isn’t my ethnicity. I’m a Pennsylvanian
well technically, you’re some form of American, not Pennsylvanian. Technically, you’re using a demonym which is actually irrelevant to ethnicity.
how dare you tell me my ethnicity doesn’t exist.
You don’t have to accept being called anything. Doesn’t have much use outside the Internet anyway.
You don’t say “That trans person over there” or “That cis chick over there” or “That gay dude over there.” You say their names. (Or “that person” if you don’t.)
Because no one is really going to care about my sexual orientation in a formal setting or when they come across me or another random person at the grocery store.
You can call me a leaf for all I care. We most likely won’t be seeing each other the next day anyway.
I’m not trans but don’t understand why I have to accept being called cis.
Cis is literally just a root term meaning “not trans” I.E. "identifies with gender assigned at birth. I.E. full correlation between sex and gender, biologically (i’m using the interpretation that in trans people, there is a biological desync somewhere along the line, separating physical sex, and mental sex, causing the “trans-ness” to exist, you probably shouldn’t disagree with me, because the research and lived experience behind this stuff supports it)
It’s like me talking about your ethnicity. There is literally nothing you can do to have control over it, it’s a fully observed concept, there is no “applied” conceptualization of the term cis. Just like there is no active conceptualization of the term “human”
My gaming friend who’s m-f is a female now, sure, whatever works for her. But why must I suddenly have a name for something I am. I didn’t choose any of this?
yeah, none of us did, i didn’t fucking want to be born, i didn’t decide to exist, and even if i did, it wasn’t here on this hell hole of a planet. Who gives a shit that people call you cis, because you are literally, objectively cis. You are arguing the most fundamental aspects of philosophy here. You might as well engage in nihilism if this hurts your soul.
Is it actually made to anoy me, it doesn’t.
no, it’s not. It’s not supposed to. It’s a mechanism for classifying your existence in a broader, undefined society, that is experiencing challenges of definition more broadly across the whole of the field this term specifically resides in. In fact, healthcare in general, is experiencing a minor revolution.
if you’re curious about why they exist, have a look into social gender expression, or gender identity more broadly, modern or historical (historical being 1950’s) hell you can even go into ancient human history and see the same thing, though it’s often different from how it is now. There were still clear distinctions in how things worked.
Things change, as they always have, and will continue to change, Change is good, it signals technological evolution, and social progress. There is nothing inherently bad about change. I mean sure there’s bad change. Like hitler, for example. But if hitler didn’t exist, there is no guarantee that we wouldn’t still be fighting like the british were during the revolutionary war.
What I do know is that the trans community is, in many cases, so unrelentingly hostile towards cis, because many don’t understand. Even against trans people, some communities create so many rules. My friend had trouble trying to fit in because she wasn’t trans enough for her discord group. Wtf?
in defense of the internet, you are asking a pretty stupid question. It’s like being mad when someone refers to you by your proper honorific title. It’s just, fucking weird.
and infighting in the queer community is a thing, it’s a big problem as of late, although that’s a different story and nobody really knows how to classify it or what to do about it at this moment.
And I think alot of cis people hate being called that because it’s new and it feels aggressive.
yeah, you’re correct about it being new, people are apprehensive to change. It’s normal, doesn’t mean you need to express it though. Also, it likely feels aggressive to you because you haven’t been classified before in your life time, to this degree at least. Chances are, you don’t like it now, even though you’ve probably done the same thing to other people, and you’ve almost certainly seen this done to other people throughout your life, aware or not. Gay people were considered mentally ill up until the 70’s and it was only really more normalized in the 90’s.
BTW, i recommend you do some reading on the Schizoid personality disorder, and do some thinking about how it feels to be classified. It’s better than being socially shunned, consciously or not.
If you feel like your life is crumbling because you’re being called cis, you might want to think back to what red lining was like, or what the pushback against the gays was like, or what it was like being japanese in the US shortly after pearl harbor, or being muslim in the US any time after 9/11, or jewish, just in general. Or like a minority in an oppressive state/regime.
To sum it up here, you’re complaining about being called cis. It’s not a slur, it’s not an insult, it’s not degrading, it’s just a classification term. And this is apparently, the most important problem in your life right this moment, judging by the fact that you left a comment about it. You’re not worried about putting food on the table, or being sane, or fitting in with society, or being able to function within it, putting gas in your car, getting to work, having work, being able to do your job, and being able to live in general.
It’s a rather privileged problem to have, and you should think about how good your life is, rather than how bad it is.
I think I’m missing something with “41” is it some kind of dog whistle?
41%, or the statistic of how many transgender people have attempted to commit suicide.
Sometimes used as a synonym for suicide.
Of course it’s something horrific like that. Fuck those people. 41 goes on my dog whistle list.
Would you share that list?
I feel my life is happier not knowing or caring about their dog whistles. Is that harmful to others?
Erm, yea, I’d say so.
If you don’t recognize and call out dogwhistles then it makes it easier for chuds to hide in plain sight. It should not be easy for them. They should not be able to hide. They should be called out, named, shamed, and overall be met with the persecution they wish on marginalized groups that they target.
If you believe in such things, it’s a moral imperative to make their lives more difficult, and knowing their dogwhistles is an important part of that.
I don’t want to live on the same planet with anyone who would quote that statistic for any reason other than an emphatic demand for action to lower it
I don’t understand how anyone can think hate is ever the right thing to do.
I think most sane people want to have it lower, the contention comes when we get to how to lower it.
Pardon my ignorance, but what does cis mean?
“cis” and “trans” are prefixes denoting on what “side” something is. “cis” means “on this/our side”, while “trans” refers to “the other side”, for example:
- “Cisalpina” is how the Romans referred to their side of the Alps (modern day Italy), while “Transalpina” referred to land on the other side of the alps.
- There exist certain pairs of molecules with either a “cis” or “trans” prefix, depending on whether certain identical groups are on the same side or on opposite sides, respectively.
The modern use of “cis” and “trans” is generally about gender. A cisgender person is someone whose gender identity aligns with their sex assigned at birth, while a transgender person is someone for whom that doesn’t hold true.
In this meme, the person on the right is wearing a transgender flag for a shirt, and presumably offending the cisgender person on the left by calling them cis. The meme is making fun of the fact that some cisgender people consider “cis” an insult, when it really only is a neutral and non-offensive description.
Can i just thank you so very much for that amazing etymology summary you just made? I can’t even grammar right now, love it!
I try to make this as exeggerated and stupid of an example as possible if I got it right:
So… let’s say if a 37 year old man, born male, with a wife, born female, who is married with kids with a house in suburbia and stable income, calls some regular thai ladyboy a “fag”, while said ladyboy counters “pretty harsh tone for a cis” and then that 37 year old man gets angry over the fact that he’s being called “cis”… That man is being angry about the fact that he is being called non-trans?
The outrage is more that a label is being applied to them. They want it to be ‘women’ and ‘trans women’, where only ‘non-normal’ identities get a label.
The application of ‘cis’ bothers conservatives because it changes the narrative, from people who identify as their assigned sex being ‘the default’, into cis people just another state of identity with no more significance than the others.
Huh…. Weird. And here I am, having grown up with an aunt who always wanted to be a man, and to be honest, I never questioned it. I got told as a kid that he felt he was born in the wrong body, so I just went with it. I never had the urge to call him a trans-woman or anything, not even as a teen. Might be good to get rid of that trans thing.
They would be a trans man fyi.
We learn whatever we’re taught, and many people were taught that people who are different should do whatever it takes to be “normal”.
Those people hide their true self and ridicule/attack others so they must do the same.
Fortunately, there are LESS people teaching that now. The kids I interact with at work give a lot of hope for the future.
I’m not an expert on assholes, so I can only guess at his motivation, but I have a theory that the guy in your example maybe doesn’t actually know what cis means, but he understands his intentions behind saying “fag” so he assumes that “cis” was intended in the same way.
That’s just my take, a proctologist may have better insight.
Thanks for the clear explenation! Further comments say it’s a pretty neutral identification, but to me it sounds like there’s two sides of it and one is bad. I presume this feeling is incorrect?
Yes. “Cis” is just a description, like “straight” or “white.” Calling someone “cis” is not an insult, but some conservatives take it as such. The common phrase they echo is “I’m not cis, I’m normal.” They’re trying to denormalize trans people by making an inoffensive and common descriptor an insult. The same people sometimes have a problem with being called straight by queer people because they see themselves not as straight, but normal, and anything different is abnormal. In reality, “gay,” “straight,” “trans,” and “cis” are no more abnormal descriptors than calling someone “black,” “white,” “American,” or “tall.” It’s all just “othering” those they perceive as political opponents.
It’s short for cisgender, which is basically the opposite of transgender. Cis and trans are both Latin prefixes, meaning ‘same side of’ and ‘opposite side of.’
Ohhhhh. I wish that were explained more. My only problem with the term “cis” is that it seemed to come from nowhere, a made-up term out of a random syllable that was suddenly being applied to people.
Like Inside as the outside. Do you feel like a man and were born male, do you feel like a woman and were born female? Then you are cis. It’s the opposite of trans: inside not like the outside.
Ooh, thanks for the insight!
So does that mean one could be Cis and Gay for example? As in feeling like a man and born male, and also attracted to men?Yeah, pretty much. IIUC being trans does not have anything to do with terms for sexual attraction.
Question for the crowd who understands this better, a transwoman attracted to women is still termed a lesbian, right?
Yep. Gay transmen, Bi transpeople, Lesbian transwomen and every other sexual attraction paired with the queer spectrum.
What is ‘IIUC’?
“If I Understand Correctly”, most likely. Same pattern as “If I Recall Correctly” (IIRC).
As in feeling like a man and born male, and also attracted to men?
Yes. Those are the manliest of men.
And they’ve got the theme song for Two and a Half Men playing in their heads at all times
deleted by creator
Cis and trans are indeed chemistry terms to denote isomerism, but that doesn’t typically occur until college (specifically organic chemistry) in the States.
Most people probably aren’t aware of that meaning in the US.
Can confirm. Well-educated American. Never heard of it (didn’t study chem in college).
The use of the word cis has its roots in an obscure Usenet group; it’s genesis (apparently) rooted in a desire for more inclusive language for trans folks (the notion that “gender” Vs “transgender” was too othering).
It hit Tumblr like a train in the 2010s, and became a symbolic phrase in trans counterculture. “Cisgender” was less than popular with non-trans people, as it robbed them of the illusion of normality and turned the word “gender” into a social trap.
It later found derogatory use in the phrase “cissy” (a counter for the popular derogatory term “tranny”).
It’s a fun word with an interesting history, and it has helped contribute to the wider acceptance of trans folks.
Cissy boy
I am cisgender
I don’t understand why that’s a bad thing?
I don’t understand a lot of this political gender shit tbh. I’m just chillin
Its not a bad thing
Samesies. Here for the support and the dank memes. Not offended to get labeled. I’m also questioning if most cisgender people take offense to the label. I feel like most wouldn’t. Maybe we’re talking about the minority that gets triggered by words that they don’t understand. I hope y’all don’t rope the whole cis culture in with the haters, because you don’t have to be queer to understand the plight of non-binary peoples. Just sayin’.
Yeah I mean I definitely don’t understand the whole non-binary thing, to me it seems silly. But they aren’t hurting anyone, or affecting my life in any way, so why care?
What?
This thread is such a microcosm of today’s discourse.
Everyone attributing malice to anyone they don’t agree with, everyone looking to dunk on people and up votes / down votes piling on in batches based on trends.
It is possible to not immediately be on board with new terms without being a bigot. Sometimes it’s just a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge or sometimes just preference.
I’ve said it before I will address people as they wish to be addressed. If somone has been called a straight male for all their life and they want to be called that it changes nothing for me. Calling them a bigot is counterproductive and just causes divides for no reason.
Straight people are the worst of all options.
This always makes me laugh. Somewhere after 2000 I had my gender and sexuality renamed by a really small, small part of the population. Who gets offended as hell if I say I don’t care for it. I can easily make them mad as hell just by mentioning a few thing they don’t like but can’t be argued. But somehow my dislike of their renaming me is not justified but their presumption to do so for everyone is.
Nobody renamed anything, we just called it what it was more concisely than just saying “normal” lol
Sure you made up a new system because the old one offended you. Same thing but hypocrisy always is just the same shit different day.
in the jargon of psychological journals from 1990s
Wrong on the when and wrong on the why. https://www.etymonline.com/word/cisgender#etymonline_v_53367
Equality feels like oppression, to the privileged.
Imma take issue with this.
You’ve rephrased, and essentially reformulated Paolo Friere’s famous and enlightening quote, “Equality feels like oppression to the oppressor.” Does having privilege make one an oppressor? In some cases, it most certainly does but I would disagree that coming from privilege makes one an oppressor: history is full of examples of people from the oppressive ruling classes risking or sacrificing everything to fight against oppression and restore equality. I am privileged but equality would not feel like oppression to me; or if it did I would have to self criticize harshly since I spend so much of my time and energy fighting against oppression and for equality. And this is what your rephrasing has done, it has eliminated the class aspect from Friere’s formulation; furthermore it isn’t connected to anything. So when you say this in isolation you create a privileged other. Friere on the other hand was fully aware of the dialectic between the oppressed and their oppressors, and scientifically worked out his thesis: through dehumanization of the oppressed, the oppressors lost their own humanity. While oppression had to be fought, first the oppressed had to restore their own humanity by restoring their own subjectivity. Once they had liberated their minds, and in fact through this process they would become organized in such a way to organize their bodies as well. This is the perceived nadir of the oppressors, the equality that feels like oppression. However, in its final stage this equality restores the humanity of the oppressor, in fact it is the ontological mission of the oppressed to restore the humanity of the oppressors. this final synthesis of the dialectic is not inevitable however, and the whole enterprise is based on education. “When education is not liberating,” he said, “it is the dream of the oppressed to become the oppressor.”
I don’t know what that deleted comment was, probably some hateful bs, but was your comment intended to educate, and set others on the path of education?
I’m more rephrasing ‘loss of privilege feels like oppression,’ but that sure is a wall of text about something nobody said.
Just because you don’t know where it comes from doesnt mean it isn’t connected
Just because you want it to be what I meant doesn’t mean I care that it’s what you’re rambling about.
I looked it up, it appears in a lot of places though its origin is unknown. So you picked it up from somewhere. Definitely not your fault for mangling what is obviously a distorted Friere quote, though it remains mangled and now a part of public consciousness. I still have the same reservations about it and I wish you would consider reading Pedagogy of the Oppressed rather than dismiss what I’m saying and probably keep repeating this. But you’re right, it was a waste of time.
‘Don’t say X.’
Okay, I didn’t.
My problem is not with the remedy to a serious issue of body dysphoria. Nor with people practicing something that is well within their rights, especially if it helps their condition which research shows is amongst the most effective. Individuals should be free to do anything they please with the caveat it doesn’t affect other people.
And I am not talking about hate from transphobes, fuck those guys. I am speaking from a well established scientific fact that sex is very much a concrete inherited attribute decided by combining two genders of DNA at conception. Organic life as we know it is more effective in the fight of evolution when more than one gender is required for reproduction.
I will fight for the integrity of truth with no exception. It is NOT possible to change genders, nor race, nor animality. I would love to become a tree but will have a hard time realizing that dream. We can still be accepting without compromising the power of truth. End of rant, thanks for reading.
If only sex was as simple as a selection of gametes. There is a wide range of chromosomal, hormonal, genitalia, and physiological variation in human sex characteristics, and it is much more common than you think. And that is ignoring much more subtle variation and overlap between the sexes - cognitive, emotional, psychological - that are just as much a part of the natural variation of human sex as any other.
And before you come back with an argument about some rhetoric about “conditions” or what ever - all of evolution starts as a rare variation that becomes common in a certain population. Certain eye colors are nearly the same rarity.
Finally, there are plenty of animals that have individuals that do not reproduce. Examples are naked mole rats. We aren’t a eusocial species, but it isn’t to say we don’t have some very early characteristics of it.
Great, now explain the science on how it is possible to change an inherited characteristic outside of playing pretend?
deleted by creator
Congrats on completely missing my point. The examples you listed don’t require other people to change their behavior to accommodate them. On the other hand transgenders demand other people suspend truth to play along with their transition.
deleted by creator
I am impressed that you have the courage to double down further exposing your lack of understanding to what I am saying. Why do you think society created woman only sport leagues? Why do they seperate prisons by gender?
Again I have no problem if someone transitions. My problem is when they demand that I compromise the truth to not hurt their feelings. My problem is when protections for the differences of gender are under attack by people who are pretending to be something they can never be. One truth is compromised for feeling, the integrity of our system of structure is lost.
Get over your petty feelings on the matter, get back to me when you have an argument and please address me as king, peasant.
And I am not talking about hate from transphobes, fuck those guys
A little self-hate is always nice
You are missing what I fear, and it is not transgender people. I fear the dissolution of truth to accommodate the needs of a remedy that will never be able to cure the original condition. This fear is starting to be realized as protections put in place to protect the differences in gender are under attack.
Truth does not equate to a lack of empathy, you just can’t handle the truth.
