you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]notdelusionalbased faggot 32 insightful - 10 fun32 insightful - 9 fun33 insightful - 10 fun -  (6 children)

Sir, we're gonna have to ask you to put down the twitter. And there's no such thing as "cis".

[–]IGiveAFuck2 27 insightful - 1 fun27 insightful - 0 fun28 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Yes, using the word "cis" is giving in to them - as well as being completely meaningless!

[–]fuck_reddit 15 insightful - 8 fun15 insightful - 7 fun16 insightful - 8 fun -  (4 children)

That's why I prefer to use the term "normal", get's my point across and makes sure to piss them off at the same time! Voila

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 16 insightful - 8 fun16 insightful - 7 fun17 insightful - 8 fun -  (1 child)

I am using "real", or just saying "women and transwomen".

Reminded me about Green Party post, where they went "women and non-transwomen", where "women" meant "transwomen" and "non-transwomen" meant "women".

[–]fuck_reddit 9 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

"Yes, today we will win votes by alienating 50% of the population and pandering to 0.1% of the population."

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

For me it's more about the idea that allowing people to call you cis is an agreement that gender identity even exists in the first place.

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

Yeah. It's also a gross sounding word (imo). It seems to lend itself to becoming a slur/insult. Like, "cisgender" is a (semi)reasonable term that derives from Latin and has some meaning, "cis" alone just means "same" and is devoid of real meaning in the contexts its used. I get that it's a contraction, but imo its a pretty shit one that's used to demean others and reject their opinions based on immutable characteristics...