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 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.

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

Look at the usage. Someone would say “cis and trans (whatever). Not cis, trans, and people who are neither cis nor trans. But we’ve been over this so what’s the point in rehashing.

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

Because people who don’t support qt ideology wouldn’t say “cis, trans, and people who are neither” we’d say “transwomen and women, or transmen and women, or trans people and people who aren’t trans”

The usage is literally the problem. You can say you personally aren’t using the word to mean anything about gender identity or gender and you only mean it to mean “not trans” but that’s not what the word means. Anyone can look it up and verify

Eta- the fact that you dispute what houseplant is saying about man just meaning “adult male human” but can argue that “cis” just means “not trans” is kind of funny