Anything is a slur if said hatefully enough often enough.
Anyone who uses cis as a slur is just as much an idiot as someone who uses trans (or, more often, related words) as a slur.
Cis and trans describe underlying characteristics of the human population that need to be named in some way to talk about them, and "cis" and "trans" are as good as any and better than most.
Anything is a slur if said hatefully enough often enough.
Anyone who uses cis as a slur is just as much an idiot as someone who uses trans (or, more often, related words) as a slur.
Cis and trans describe underlying characteristics of the human population that need to be named in some way to talk about them, and "cis" and "trans" are as good as any and better than most.
Cis and trans are not valid terms because gender is an invalid construct to begin with.
Learn to read, and to write concisely, which since you couldn’t, I trimmed your post to the first para.
Rights afforded by way of pregnancy will also be available to a trans man or intersex person if they get pregnant. There is gender-sex parity in the interpretation of federal law, not exact equality when it’s not relevant. The context is sex vs. gender rights, not men vs women’s rights. Can’t help you if you keep deliberately obtusely claptrapping.
But those rights would be afforded to so-called trans men or persons with DSD because of their female sex, not because of their gender identities. Their gender identities would not factor in at all.
Potato potahto. It doesn’t matter what you think, so suit yourself with your religion. The federal government is happy to interpret sex-based laws as gender-based when it comes to rights and privileges.
You seem slow, so I courteously cut out the rest of your claptrap crap.
It works as a slur in a social environment where being normal and healthy is considered a moral failure and a sign of unearned privilege.
It's also a religious term that has no meaning outside of the secular theology of intersectional oppression.
Why do you feel the need to burn down the house to argue your point? For example, there is overwhelming evidence that White women have privilege not afforded to Black women in the USA. The moral failing is in not recognizing this and trying to mitigate the damage. Do you not agree with this? Why not simply argue that trans women have privilege (aka unfair advantage) when it comes to athletics with respect to cis women? There are data supporting this view and it follows that steps should be taken to mitigate this problem, like the WA policy. Wouldn’t this be a better framework to address these contentious issues?
Just replace it with "normal" or "actual" to trigger them even more
Or 'real'
Yes, 'cis' is a slur, used when people want to stomp on women's rights. When they claim women don't deserve spaces of our own to be safe from males, they call us 'cis'. When they want to ruin the integrity of girls and women's sports they call us 'cis'. When we try to say that our biological realities as women matter, they call us 'cis' to try to shut us up. We are not 'ciswomen', we are women.
Banning people based on race is far different than banning people based on gender
It's not "unfair" for someone non-Kenyan (or Ethiopian, Ugandan, etc) to compete against East Africans, but it is unfair for females to have to compete against males
You also really like trying to boss other people around, LOL. But your constant barking of commands to me and other posters - "learn to read! learn to write! educate yourself! shut up!" - and all your peurile name-calling are other issues entirely. But your posts sure do remind me of the telltale sound a spoon makes when it's banged against a highchair.
We can play this game all day long sweetheart. The unending stream of words rattling from your keyboard sound like blubberous blather belching out of a bumbling baboon’s bollocks.
You also really like trying to boss other people around, LOL. But your constant barking of commands to me and other posters - "learn to read! learn to write! educate yourself! shut up!" - and all your peurile name-calling are other issues entirely. But your posts sure do remind me of the telltale sound a spoon makes when it's banged against a highchair.
We can play this game all day long sweetheart. The unending stream of words rattling from your keyboard sound like blubberous blather belching out of a bumbling baboon’s bollocks.
Appalling vile insults to the person how has presented the best set of references points than any other poster.
It works as a slur in a social environment where being normal and healthy is considered a moral failure and a sign of unearned privilege.
It's also a religious term that has no meaning outside of the secular theology of intersectional oppression.
Your post sounds like a weak attempt to sound deep but is just hot air. Nobody considers cisness as a moral failure or as earned or unearned, nor as anything to do with religion.
The term “cis” has meanings in contexts outside of your word salad that reads like scars left over from being disciplined in humanities.
Just replace it with "normal" or "actual" to trigger them even more
Or 'real'
Yes, 'cis' is a slur, used when people want to stomp on women's rights. When they claim women don't deserve spaces of our own to be safe from males, they call us 'cis'. When they want to ruin the integrity of girls and women's sports they call us 'cis'. When we try to say that our biological realities as women matter, they call us 'cis' to try to shut us up. We are not 'ciswomen', we are women.
There is no such conspiracy of the kind you appear to be hallucinating. One can be both a woman and a cis woman. Much as you might like to think it’s all about you, these terms simply exist to be able to talk about the topic.
How come “biological woman” is all warm and fuzzy for you but cis woman isn’t?
It works as a slur in a social environment where being normal and healthy is considered a moral failure and a sign of unearned privilege.
It's also a religious term that has no meaning outside of the secular theology of intersectional oppression.
Why do you feel the need to burn down the house to argue your point? For example, there is overwhelming evidence that White women have privilege not afforded to Black women in the USA. The moral failing is in not recognizing this and trying to mitigate the damage. Do you not agree with this? Why not simply argue that trans women have privilege (aka unfair advantage) when it comes to athletics with respect to cis women? There are data supporting this view and it follows that steps should be taken to mitigate this problem, like the WA policy. Wouldn’t this be a better framework to address these contentious issues?
I've been back and forth with you on these threads, and I don't think you truly understand this ideology and why it predictably leads to the inverse of what it claims to do.
When some people experience unfair discrimination due to race or other immutable characteristics, this does not mean that people who don't face this particular mode of discrimination have privilege. Fair treatment is not a privilege; it's the basic right of all human beings within liberal philosophy. Liberal rights principles laid the foundation for many of the freedoms we enjoy in Western democracies today. Calling fairness a privilege allows power hungry psychopaths to rip our social fabric apart while doing very little to solve actual social problems. Liberal philosophy prevents tyranny; it's not the cause of oppression, as believers of contemporary social justice doctrine want us to belive.
Relatedly, this identity-focused ideology minimizes and often ignores wealth inequality and poverty, which is why so many educated and well-off people feel entitled to sneer at the culture and lifestyle of poor people, especially poor white people. Gender ideology similarly uses the cis/trans dichotomy to justify attacks on women. The "Karen" trope runs cover for people who want to publicly denigrate white women. That doesn't mean white women can't be jerks, simply that Karen is more often a mechanism to perpetuate hate than to describe actual bad behavior. More often than not, the ideas held sacred within this movement are part of an elite status game through which people with relative wealth and status kneecap their enemies and accrue power.
It works as a slur in a social environment where being normal and healthy is considered a moral failure and a sign of unearned privilege.
It's also a religious term that has no meaning outside of the secular theology of intersectional oppression.
Why do you feel the need to burn down the house to argue your point? For example, there is overwhelming evidence that White women have privilege not afforded to Black women in the USA. The moral failing is in not recognizing this and trying to mitigate the damage. Do you not agree with this? Why not simply argue that trans women have privilege (aka unfair advantage) when it comes to athletics with respect to cis women? There are data supporting this view and it follows that steps should be taken to mitigate this problem, like the WA policy. Wouldn’t this be a better framework to address these contentious issues?
The moral failure is to attempt 'mitigate the damage' through the data and theory of pseudo-academic 'Critical Theory' over traditional academia. The former lacks anything close to the scholarship to a) support the arguments made, b) measure the 'damage', and c) implement the changes required. It's also demonstrably ideologically driven.
The CT framework doesn't work for the very reason it's become so popular: intersectionality is (comically) reductive, with the most apparent example being the 'prioritisation' of skin colour over socioeconomic class.
Yes, 'cis' is a slur, used when people want to stomp on women's rights. When they claim women don't deserve spaces of our own to be safe from males, they call us 'cis'. When they want to ruin the integrity of girls and women's sports they call us 'cis'. When we try to say that our biological realities as women matter, they call us 'cis' to try to shut us up. We are not 'ciswomen', we are women.
There is no such conspiracy of the kind you appear to be hallucinating. One can be both a woman and a cis woman. Much as you might like to think it’s all about you, these terms simply exist to be able to talk about the topic.
How come “biological woman” is all warm and fuzzy for you but cis woman isn’t?
Did I say 'biological woman' is warm and fuzzy to me? There is no need to say 'biological woman', it's redundant. A woman is a biologically female person. There is no other kind of woman. Women are not 'identities' that men can have in their minds. To think otherwise is an absurd insult to women. We are women because we are female. Not because we 'identify' with pink or dresses or shaving our damn legs or whatever other stereotypical nonsense some men think makes them a woman. There is nothing they can do, or feel, that will make them a woman. Because women and girls are not defined by actions or feelings. Neither are men. Whatever a man feels or does, he remains a man.
Why do you feel the need to burn down the house to argue your point? For example, there is overwhelming evidence that White women have privilege not afforded to Black women in the USA. The moral failing is in not recognizing this and trying to mitigate the damage. Do you not agree with this? Why not simply argue that trans women have privilege (aka unfair advantage) when it comes to athletics with respect to cis women? There are data supporting this view and it follows that steps should be taken to mitigate this problem, like the WA policy. Wouldn’t this be a better framework to address these contentious issues?
I've been back and forth with you on these threads, and I don't think you truly understand this ideology and why it predictably leads to the inverse of what it claims to do.
When some people experience unfair discrimination due to race or other immutable characteristics, this does not mean that people who don't face this particular mode of discrimination have privilege. Fair treatment is not a privilege; it's the basic right of all human beings within liberal philosophy. Liberal rights principles laid the foundation for many of the freedoms we enjoy in Western democracies today. Calling fairness a privilege allows power hungry psychopaths to rip our social fabric apart while doing very little to solve actual social problems. Liberal philosophy prevents tyranny; it's not the cause of oppression, as believers of contemporary social justice doctrine want us to belive.
Relatedly, this identity-focused ideology minimizes and often ignores wealth inequality and poverty, which is why so many educated and well-off people feel entitled to sneer at the culture and lifestyle of poor people, especially poor white people. Gender ideology similarly uses the cis/trans dichotomy to justify attacks on women. The "Karen" trope runs cover for people who want to publicly denigrate white women. That doesn't mean white women can't be jerks, simply that Karen is more often a mechanism to perpetuate hate than to describe actual bad behavior. More often than not, the ideas held sacred within this movement are part of an elite status game through which people with relative wealth and status kneecap their enemies and accrue power.
I think most see the moral imperatives and don't have the IQ and / or academic background to recognise logical flaws others can intuit.
On the few occasions that they can, I think self-aggrandizement plays into it. There's a reason this ideology is so popular with unattractive people and past their prime powerful men - it's a way of gaining / maintaining power whilst handling envy.
It works as a slur in a social environment where being normal and healthy is considered a moral failure and a sign of unearned privilege.
It's also a religious term that has no meaning outside of the secular theology of intersectional oppression.
Your post sounds like a weak attempt to sound deep but is just hot air. Nobody considers cisness as a moral failure or as earned or unearned, nor as anything to do with religion.
The term “cis” has meanings in contexts outside of your word salad that reads like scars left over from being disciplined in humanities.
In 2010, the term cisgender privilege appeared in academic literature, defined as the "set of unearned advantages that individuals who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth accrue solely due to having a cisgender identity"
This was written in an academic journal, too. Yes, fickle, the idea that society has been constructed in ways that unfairly benefit "cis people" and oppress "trans people" is commonly shared among the proponents of Gender Theory, which implies that cisgender people are morally bankrupt.
A cisgender (can be shortened to cis; sometimes cissexual) person has a gender identity that matches their sex assigned at birth. A person whose sex was assigned male at birth and identifies as a boy or a man, or someone whos...