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 →

[–]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.