Rules change, so far

submitted by grixitperson from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Greensquidsphone 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

My question as well. Very vaguely worded but it seems like yes.

[–]grixitperson[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

Anyone who wants to tell people what language to use is free to try to argue their case, but no one is required to concede in advance.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

That would likely be the end of my participation then. If I can’t say cis but they can call me a man, that isn’t a balanced space.

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I do think using neutral language for other users could work as a compromise. However, do you realize that the inverse case (i.e. "cis" was fine, but "misgendering" not) was the norm before and no one on the QT side thought this favoured them?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Cis isn’t the opposite of misgendering. It just means not trans. It’s not an insult. It’s a good thing. I wish I was a cis woman.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I’m on your side with this rule, but “cis” means more than “not trans”. It’s literally saying that our “gender identity” is in line with our sex, so it supports both the idea of gender identity (as well as assigning a gender identity to us), and supports the idea that TWAW and TMAM, neither of which gc agrees with. I’m gonna keep using they/them, and I think this should be the rule, but it’s not as simple as saying “cis” just means “not trans” when in reality it pretty much is meant to validate trans people. There’s no such thing as a “cis woman”. There’s woman and transwoman. At least that’s how gc sees it and that’s why we don’t want to be referred to as cis.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That’s not what cis means but I’m not fighting about it. My point is banning one sides language but not the others destroys even the veneer of neutrality,

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I literally looked it up to make sure I was correct before commenting but okay.

I agree that we should use neutral pronouns, I was explaining what I explained because that’s what biologyisreal is saying, that gc had the no misgendering rule while qt could call us a term that means we align with qt ideology.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Someone could have dysphoria and still be considered “cis” unless they identified as something else. Not transitioning or identifying differently shouldn’t imply any feelings about someone sex, but I feel like “cis” does that.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

It’s literally a binary. Trans or not. That’s all cis means. Just not trans. All humans are contained in the set [ trans people and cis people]

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Are you really gonna argue that the definitions that pop up when someone looks it up as well as all of the pro trans articles that pop up and define the word as well as the Wikipedia page are all wrong about what this word means?

I know that’s not the point of this post but it’s just odd that you think this word simply means “not trans” when even qt sites explain it to mean exactly what peaking and I (and several others) are saying. If it just meant “not trans” gc wouldn’t care about it’s usage.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

We’ve literally had this exact discussion. The “dictionary definition” is there to look fancy it’s not how anyone actually uses it. They use it to mean not trans. There’s literally a whole branch of language philosophy about this exact issue.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You’re the only person I ever see act like the word doesn’t mean someone whose gender identity aligns with their sex but I’ll just drop it.

It’s not just the dictionary definition, even qt friendly articles define it this way. I see people on Facebook, Twitter, and ig use it to mean exactly what I said it means.

Again, if it only meant “not trans” gc wouldn’t object and would maybe even use it ourselves.

It’s not “cis sex” it’s “cis gender” the implication being that TW and “cis” women are the same gender and share a gender identity, just different sexes (some even going so far as to say “different sexes at birth, implying TW change sex). like- I’m stunned you can’t admit what this word means but there’s no need to go on a tangent we should focus on trying to get the rule about pronouns changed.

[–]Greensquidsphone 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Agreed with this but I'm more than comfortable not using terms which make gc uncomfortable if they can put forth the modicum of effort it takes to do the same.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That the thing. Both or neither.

[–]kwallio 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I wish I could believe you, but personal experience and people's behavior in this own sub its blatantly obvious that people ARE using it as an insult.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It’s literally a better thing to be. That’s insane.