political correctness/feminism and language

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well, yeah. Homophobia/transphobia is like any other prejudice--it isn't something we should accept or make accommodations for.

I did say that I believe that trans people should be honest to their potential partners, but I don't for a second find it acceptable to be violent toward trans people if they aren't completely honest, nor do I think it's equivalent to rape, and trying to equate the two is repugnant.

You mean ppl don't have the right to protect the sanctity of their choice of sexual orientations from malicious fraud? And this right should not be accommodated?

Sex without informed consent is rape. Or does that only apply if you're NOT a straight male?

You're right, you did say that. But you also said added a "but" in the end. Like the fact that a person who only wishes to engage in straight sex not have the right to feel violated when he gets deceived into participating in a sexual act he would never agree to.

It's NEVER ok to be violent. But somehow I feel like if a woman pepper sprays then repeatedly kicks a guy in the groin for groping her butt, ppl like you would cheer her on. While a guy who beats the crap out of trans guy who tricked him into sex would be crucified for being a "bigot". Even tho the latter would have far deeper and more traumatic psychological scars than the former. Double standards everywhere.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well, yeah. Homophobia/transphobia is like any other prejudice--it isn't something we should accept or make accommodations for.

I did say that I believe that trans people should be honest to their potential partners, but I don't for a second find it acceptable to be violent toward trans people if they aren't completely honest, nor do I think it's equivalent to rape, and trying to equate the two is repugnant.

Ironic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Idk, I feel like the usual word that's used, i.e. "Normal", actually does what the author complains about, cis not so much.

As an aside, how do you view he term "cis" in relation to the "straight" to refer to heterosexual people.

I do not see it as accurate or even particularly useful.

Straight refers to one who is attracted to members of the opposite sex. Since sex is a material reality, there can be a consensus about who qualifies as straight.

Cis refers to one who identifies with the gender that corresponds to his sex. Since gender is a social construct, no two ideas about manhood are the same.

Classifying all non-transgender people as cis incorrectly groups all people with male bodies who identify as men, even though there is no consensus among them about what manhood is or who qualifies as a man.

Gay, bi, queer, and straight men have very different ideas about manhood, and some would hold that others do not qualify to be in the same group.

Grouping them together effectively erases their conception and experience of their own gender by saying they are the same.

All to create a semantic dichotomy so transgender people do not feel stigmatized, even though forcing equity in language does not create equality in the real world.

Moreover, transgender people categorically do not want others to make assumptions or ask questions about their genitals, but in labeling others as cisgender, they are ironically making assumptions about the genitals of other people.

Which brings me to the subject of labeling: cisgender is not a term most non-transgender people choose for themselves, and it is not the place of any one to impose that label on them. Identity is central to the experience of a person, and he should be free to define that for himself.

Just as one person cannot define the sexuality of another person, one cannot define the gender of another person either. He chooses how he will identify and what he would prefer to be called, not anyone else.

Sounds like more of a birth defect than a sexual orientation.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
. . . Sex without informed consent is rape.

. . . a person who only wishes to engage in straight sex not have the right to feel violated when he gets deceived into participating in a sexual act he would never agree to.

It's NEVER ok to be violent. . .

I actually agree to this.

One has an inviolable right to control to whom he makes his body available to sexually.

One does not have the right to gain access to the body of another through deception by withholding information that would affect his decision making.

That is true whether it is the non-disclosure of a sexually-transmitted disease or of one's birth sex.

If one is male, identifies as a man, and identifies as straight because he is attracted to people with female bodies, he has a right to not have a same-sex sexual experience without his consent.

That is rape under any definition.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Apologism for homophobia. That's where we're at now.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's true that trans people should disclose to their potential partners who they are, but saying that keeping that a secret is as bad as rape is ridiculous and cheapens what rape really is.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Would it also be rape if you were half Jewish and your partner was an anti-Semite who didn't know?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I do not see it as accurate or even particularly useful.

Straight refers to one who is attracted to members of the opposite sex. Since sex is a material reality, there can be a consensus about who qualifies as straight.

Cis refers to one who identifies with the gender that corresponds to his sex. Since gender is a social construct, no two ideas about manhood are the same.

Classifying all non-transgender people as cis incorrectly groups all people with male bodies who identify as men, even though there is no consensus among them about what manhood is or who qualifies as a man.

Gay, bi, queer, and straight men have very different ideas about manhood, and some would hold that others do not qualify to be in the same group.

Grouping them together effectively erases their conception and experience of their own gender by saying they are the same.

All to create a semantic dichotomy so transgender people do not feel stigmatized, even though forcing equity in language does not create equality in the real world.

Moreover, transgender people categorically do not want others to make assumptions or ask questions about their genitals, but in labeling others as cisgender, they are ironically making assumptions about the genitals of other people.

Which brings me to the subject of labeling: cisgender is not a term most non-transgender people choose for themselves, and it is not the place of any one to impose that label on them. Identity is central to the experience of a person, and he should be free to define that for himself.

Just as one person cannot define the sexuality of another person, one cannot define the gender of another person either. He chooses how he will identify and what he would prefer to be called, not anyone else.

This is just a ridiculous amount of mind bending to fit a preconceived notion.

While straight is often simplified to mean an attraction to the opposite sex, in reality sex is a much more complicated construct than is made out to be, and the idea of gender identity is not even considered.

Gay, Bi, Queer, Straight have nothing to do with whether someone is cis or trans, all of these groups can contain either cis or trans people.

While most people assume that a person they are talking to is cisgender (the same way people default to assuming others are straight), it is silly to pretend that this is the same as the issue of people casually asking about trans people's genitals.

The labeling also doesn't work the way you make it seem. The same way trans people don't choose the term trans, it just applies to their situation, cis is a term that applies to many other people's situation (they are still individuals, with different experiences and lifes, that is not erased by being part of a group). If you identify as the gender that you were assigned and that society has been applying to you, you are cis, if not, you are trans, if you think your situation doesn't fit in this, very well, you can explain why and what term you want to be used, but you don't get to claim the term "normal", the same way straight people don't get the term.

This really boils down to the fight about labeling of sexuality having taken place over the last century and through exposure and acceptance now having arrived at a point where people are okay with the once extremely anti-gay term homosexual and people being alright with the term "straight" which was initially defined in gay culture. Just because the trans rights movement is at an earlier point of acceptance doesn't mean we should fight it tooth and nail, that just makes us the bigots of this civil rights issue.

Originally posted by long pig
You do know the definition of gender was recently changed, correct? Libs are to thank for that. They also changed the definition of racism to include race/culture/sex/sexuality/religion/creed/gender/nationality . Guess why? Because "race" was also given a new definition recently! 😂. Race no longer means a person's color/origin. Race is now considered a social construct.

15 yrs ago, gender and sex were by definition one and the same. Gender roles are social construct.

Gender is not.

Since language actively changes meaning over time there is little point in arguing about strict definitions.

I avoid this kind of discussion like a plague 👆

Originally posted by Bardock42
This is just a ridiculous amount of mind bending to fit a preconceived notion.

Pot, meet kettle.

Originally posted by Bardock42
While straight is often simplified to mean an attraction to the opposite sex, in reality sex is a much more complicated construct than is made out to be, and the idea of gender identity is not even considered.

No, it is not. With the exception of rare medical conditions in which people are intersex, humans are a sexually dimorphic species. Sex is a material reality that is not complicated whatsoever.

Gender is not a consideration of sexual orientation, because one does not have sex with the gender identity of another person. A male, who identifies as a man, and identifies as heterosexual is attracted to female bodies, not necessarily a feminine gender expression. Presenting as a woman ≠ having a female body.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Gay, Bi, Queer, Straight have nothing to do with whether someone is cis or trans, all of these groups can contain either cis or trans people.

Yes, it does. Gender is a social construct. There are as many notions of man and woman as there are people. One may identify with the gender that corresponds with his sex, but depending on who is defining man, he may or may not qualify to be a part of that group. It is completely inaccurate to say that a feminine queer man is cisgender in the same way as a masculine straight man. Not to mention that it completely erases their conceptions and experiences of their own gender to say they are the same. They are not the same.

Originally posted by Bardock42
While most people assume that a person they are talking to is cisgender (the same way people default to assuming others are straight), it is silly to pretend that this is the same as the issue of people casually asking about trans people's genitals.

A transwoman would like others to accept her gender identity on the basis of her gender presentation without making assumptions about whether she has a penis. Yet, when labeling me cisgender on the basis of my gender presentation, she is making assumptions about whether I have a penis. That is completely hypocritical.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The labeling also doesn't work the way you make it seem. The same way trans people don't choose the term trans, it just applies to their situation, cis is a term that applies to many other people's situation (they are still individuals, with different experiences and lifes, that is not erased by being part of a group). If you identify as the gender that you were assigned and that society has been applying to you, you are cis, if not, you are trans, if you think your situation doesn't fit in this, very well, you can explain why and what term you want to be used, but you don't get to claim the term "normal", the same way straight people don't get the term.

This is incorrect. Trans people adopted transgender in 1970 as term to use to describe themselves, in the same way that homosexuals adopted gay in 1955.

Moreover, there are people who are male, and identify as men, but who do not identify cisgender, because they do not subscribe to the notion of gender. They believe that gender is an emergent property of their sex, and they simply conform to and identify with the role that they were assigned at birth, because that is how the society in which they live operates. They do not believe they have a unique experience of gender, and could not even begin describe to someone what an experience of being a man is, because they believe the entire notion to be incomprehensible. To say that because this person is male, identifies as a man, and presents as a man that he is cisgender completely belies the meaning of the term.

Furthemore, it is not a value judgment to state that being non-transgender is the norm and being transgender is an anomaly, in the same way that being heterosexuality is the norm and being homosexuality is an anomaly. Both or normal, one is simply more prevalent.

Originally posted by Bardock42
This really boils down to the fight about labeling of sexuality having taken place over the last century and through exposure and acceptance now having arrived at a point where people are okay with the once extremely anti-gay term homosexual and people being alright with the term "straight" which was initially defined in gay culture. Just because the trans rights movement is at an earlier point of acceptance doesn't mean we should fight it tooth and nail, that just makes us the bigots of this civil rights issue.

Homosexual is not implicitly anti-gay. It is a clinical term that can be anti-gay depending on how it is used.

Moreover, the etymology of straight meaning "heterosexual," is derived from the use of the word meaning "not dishonest, not a drug addict, not a delinquent, etc." When the term came into use to refer to heterosexuals in 1960, homosexuality was still considered a mental illness, and it was widely believed that homosexuals belonged in the aforementioned group. So no, straight is not a term homosexuals developed for heterosexuals, it is a term they adopted for themselves, and it is one born of homophobia at that.

If we have learned anything from the fight over the labeling of sexuality that has taken place over the last century, it is that people get to define themselves, and no one else.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Pot, meet kettle.

No, it is not. With the exception of rare medical conditions in which people are intersex, humans are a sexually dimorphic species. Sex is a material reality that is not complicated whatsoever.

Gender is not a consideration of sexual orientation, because one does not have sex with the gender identity of another person. A male, who identifies as a man, and identifies as heterosexual is attracted to female bodies, not necessarily a feminine gender expression. Presenting as a woman ≠ having a female body.

Yes, it does. Gender is a social construct. There are as many notions of man and woman as there are people. One may identify with the gender that corresponds with his sex, but depending on who is defining man, he may or may not qualify to be a part of that group. It is completely inaccurate to say that a feminine queer man is cisgender in the same way as a masculine straight man. Not to mention that it completely erases their conceptions and experiences of their own gender to say they are the same. They are not the same.

A transwoman would like others to accept her gender identity on the basis of her gender presentation without making assumptions about whether she has a penis. Yet, when labeling me cisgender on the basis of my gender presentation, she is making assumptions about whether I have a penis. That is completely hypocritical.

This is incorrect. Trans people adopted transgender in 1970 as term to use to describe themselves, in the same way that homosexuals adopted gay in 1955.

Moreover, there are people who are male, and identify as men, but who do not identify cisgender, because they do not subscribe to the notion of gender. They believe that gender is an emergent property of their sex, and they simply conform to and identify with the role that they were assigned at birth, because that is how the society in which they live operates. They do not believe they have a unique experience of gender, and could not even begin describe to someone what an experience of being a man is, because they believe the entire notion to be incomprehensible. To say that because this person is male, identifies as a man, and presents as a man that he is cisgender completely belies the meaning of the term.

Furthemore, it is not a value judgment to state that being non-transgender is the norm and being transgender is an anomaly, in the same way that being heterosexuality is the norm and being homosexuality is an anomaly. Both or normal, one is simply more prevalent.

Homosexual is not implicitly anti-gay. It is a clinical term that can be anti-gay depending on how it is used.

Moreover, the etymology of straight meaning "heterosexual," is derived from the use of the word meaning "not dishonest, not a drug addict, not a delinquent, etc." When the term came into use to refer to heterosexuals in 1960, homosexuality was still considered a mental illness, and it was widely believed that homosexuals belonged in the aforementioned group. So no, straight is not a term homosexuals developed for heterosexuals, it is a term they adopted for themselves, and it is one born of homophobia at that.

If we have learned anything from the fight over the labeling of sexuality that has taken place over the last century, it is that people get to define themselves, and no one else.

Since reasonable estimates for intersex births range from about the same to considerably more than the trans population, maybe we shouldn't pretend it is not an issue in this context.

And gender expression should and is a consideration in actual sexuality. People are attracted to different phenotypes (mixed with a lot of cultural baggage of course), not chromosomes.

It is as silly to say that being cis erases their experience as saying grouping them both as blond is. If the person identifies as male and was assigned male then they fit the description of cisgender. I don't have a problem with another term becoming more accepted at some point, the problem at the moment is that transgender people are pretty much erased from popular consciousness, so that many cis people don't even realize that there is a need to categorize their experience (which is very similar to what happens with heterosexual experiences, really). Of course there is also people who are gender fluid, which get perhaps erased even more, or others who think gender is a function of a binary sex (those people are misinformed or idiots though)

I also like how you basically agree on my point that both are normal, but phrase it to make it seem that we are in disagreement.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Normal is not the same as most common. It has a value judgment, as in, this fits to the norm. People with black hair aren't called normal opposed to those that have other hair colors, the same goes for eye color, race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, political affiliation, etc.

So, no, Trans people are also normal, they just aren't a majority.

pretty insensitive of you to say so, buddy

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And why shouldn't they feel normal? Do you want them to feel separate from society?

if i have to have a term i'd rather get to pick it, just like trans people get to pick from the 70+ something genders out there and if they don't find one they like then they can just make up a new one

maybe i should invent my own gender just to avoid being called cis

Yes, I think "insensitive" does describe your stance. I'd recommend actually getting to know a transgendered person. It might broaden your understanding of the subject.

Originally posted by red g jacks
actually i find this an interesting claim, since it implies there is something negative about being abnormal

pretty insensitive of you to say so, buddy
no.. i just don't want to get stuck with a shit term like cis just to help them feel normal

if i have to have a term i'd rather get to pick it, just like trans people get to pick from the 70+ something genders out there and if they don't find one they like then they can just make up a new one

maybe i should invent my own gender just to avoid being called cis

how do you know i don't know any trans people?

Trans people generally don't make up their experiences.

And abnormal is a term that when used to describe people comes with a stigma attached to it.

what about if a person is 8 feet tall.. would you consider that abnormal?

Originally posted by red g jacks
actually i find this an interesting claim, since it implies there is something negative about being abnormal

pretty insensitive of you to say so, buddy

I think that's what most people would like to avoid.

Originally posted by long pig
You do know the definition of gender was recently changed, correct? Libs are to thank for that. They also changed the definition of racism to include race/culture/sex/sexuality/religion/creed/gender/nationality . Guess why? Because "race" was also given a new definition recently! 😂. Race no longer means a person's color/origin. Race is now considered a social construct.

15 yrs ago, gender and sex were by definition one and the same. Gender roles are social construct.

Gender is not.

at their most basic they are a biological reality.

Well, that is a unique aspect of the internet. Arguments here often get refined to a, sometimes brilliant, point we'd never see in real life. It can turn into an insulated bubble that doesn't reflect the "common" view of the real world. It doesn't make the online arguments wrong of course, just more developed.

Honestly, whenever discussions like this/socialism/any of the topics we talk about here come up in real life, most people just kinda nod and smile. You might get a comment or two before they go back to their drink.

just that my idea of a misogynist was someone who hates women

so if that's the definition then i don't consider myself a misogynist

but if not being a misogynist means i can't call hillary clinton a b*tch, then i suppose i'd rather just be a misogynist

do you guys really want to live in a world where calling hillary clinton a b*tch is considered over the line? i know i don't

Haha, nicely put.

Originally posted by red g jacks
no i wasn't saying it's necessarily 'wrong'

just that my idea of a misogynist was someone who hates women

so if that's the definition then i don't consider myself a misogynist

but if not being a misogynist means i can't call hillary clinton a b*tch, then i suppose i'd rather just be a misogynist

do you guys really want to live in a world where calling hillary clinton a b*tch is considered over the line? i know i don't

I want to live in a world where the term b*tch is not used to put down and disqualify women. If you think she's an assh*le just call her that, no need to draw attention to her gender in your put down.

As an aside, my objection of misogynist code was to the term "that chick", at the time I had missed you calling her a "b*tch".

I don't think that someone using misogynist language is necessarily a misogynist, I think there is an argument to be made about severity and prevalence of their misogyny, but we definitely all have internalized the misogyny that society teaches us, and some of us are less comfortable with that than others.

Originally posted by red g jacks
no i wasn't saying it's necessarily 'wrong'

just that my idea of a misogynist was someone who hates women

so if that's the definition then i don't consider myself a misogynist

but if not being a misogynist means i can't call hillary clinton a b*tch, then i suppose i'd rather just be a misogynist

do you guys really want to live in a world where calling hillary clinton a b*tch is considered over the line? i know i don't

I don't think using those words makes you a misogynist. I use *****/pussy/etc. myself and I am sure I rate highly on TI's "crazy left libtard" scale. These words still developed out of a sexist line of thought though. We have to acknowledge that.

As a male, I don't know what it feels like to have my sex be synonymous with "weak and crazy".

Originally posted by Bardock42
I want to live in a world where the term b*tch is not used to put down and disqualify women. If you think she's an assh*le just call her that, no need to draw attention to her gender in your put down.

As an aside, my objection of misogynist code was to the term "that chick", at the time I had missed you calling her a "b*tch".

I don't think that someone using misogynist language is necessarily a misogynist, I think there is an argument to be made about severity and prevalence of their misogyny, but we definitely all have internalized the misogyny that society teaches us, and some of us are less comfortable with that than others.

but i notice you think assh*le is a gender neutral substitute for the word b*tch... as it gives the same basic meaning except without being gender specific

i agree.. and i would argue that assh*le is likewise a gender neutral substitute for the insults "dick" and "prick," and that these are (as i noted in my OP ) basically male equivalents for that insult

ush tried to argue that i was wrong in defining them this way, but clearly he was wrong about that, at least by the common american use of these words

so once again i'd reiterate that these terms aren't really hateful at all, but are just gender specific insults. and i don't really see what is wrong about having gender specific terms

the fact that you think the phrase "that chick" is also somehow degrading and/or misogynist is even more strange to me