you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]reluctant_commenter 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Hahaha, that sounds like a great idea. I especially agree with using "non-trans"... how else would a person define "cis"? If a TRA defined "cis" as "completely comfortable with their gender" then I would put out that many/most "cis" people are not. But then that might invite further debate.

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Well, wouldn't many trans people supposedly be 100% comfortable as the opposite gender? And since we know absolutely that a trans person is 100% the gender they identify as, then it must be the case that they are completely comfortable with the gender they "are" because they are supposedly the gender they identify as.

Oh wait, you can't make such pathetic definitions for shit and expect any logical application to work properly