you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ThiccDropkickGay 16 insightful - 3 fun16 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

I have my own little techniques. I always say non-trans instead of cis, birth sex instead of gender assigned at birth, sex instead of gender, etc.

That usually catches the attention of the typical TRA on the prowl for wrong-thinkers. So then they call me a 'transphobe', I ask them to elaborate, they can't so they get all angry

And then it's all there for onlookers to see our conversation. And it's up to them to decide who is the more reasonable one

[–]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