25 Nov 10, 12:57 AM
fluffy_welsh_angel
UK(DN), 6 yrs
 |
Because...(and I am aware this may offend but it is not meant in that way) I am a woman, end of. I understand that Trans women see themselves as such and fair do's to them. That is who they are, but they are trans and different to natural born women. There has never been a need to label me as anything else (re gender) so why should someone, or a group of somebodies be allowed to do that.
Trans identify as such, Women identify as such. I am a woman, not a cisperson.
That is why I personally find it offensive, and if that doesn't make sense maybe I haven't explained myself properly but it's how I personally feel about the word cis. It brings with it negative connotations. Mew
|
25 Nov 10, 12:58 AM
sharktooth
UK, 3 yrs |
Admin wrote:
You've been given two here (eye and hair colour.) So another example already given on the other thread: switch and non-switch. |
All of these have the exact same flaw, though - you're taking an identity or aspect of appearance for which there are multiple mutually-exclusive possibilities, picking one of them, and creating an X versus not-X dichotomy from that one randomly picked possibility. People aren't generally referred to as non-switches. Instead we talk about the specific kind of not-a-switch they are: dom(me)s, subs, non-BDSMers, etc...
In fact, I can ask an equivalent question here to the one in my previous comment: non-switch is to dom as non-trans person is to... what? |
25 Nov 10, 1:00 AM
growly
UK(RG), 2 yrs
|
Minor question from me as it's not a term I've heard before: who uses it, who is/should be/shouldn't be offended by it, and why? Sorry for the ignorance on my part but this seems a fair place to ask :p |
25 Nov 10, 1:01 AM
Iphis_me
UK(E), 4 yrs
|
fluffy_welsh_angel wrote:
Because...(and I am aware this may offend but it is not meant in that way) I am a woman, end of. I understand that Trans women see themselves as such and fair do's to them. That is who they are, but they are trans and different to natural born women. There has never been a need to label me as anything else (re gender) so why should someone, or a group of somebodies be allowed to do that.
Trans identify as such, Women identify as such. I am a woman, not a cisperson.
That is why I personally find it offensive, and if that doesn't make sense maybe I haven't explained myself properly but it's how I personally feel about the word cis. It brings with it negative connotations.
|
Cis is simply a description. There is a category "woman" which includes transwomen and ciswomen, both of whom can legitimately describe themselves as women. If you say the categories are "woman" and "transwoman" then you are quite clearly saying that transwomen are not "real women" like you.
You think that cis is negative - I think your explanation of why is transphobic.
"The unexamined life is not worth living" - Socrates
|
25 Nov 10, 1:01 AM
fluffy_welsh_angel
UK(DN), 6 yrs
|
growly wrote:
Minor question from me as it's not a term I've heard before: who uses it, who is/should be/shouldn't be offended by it, and why? Sorry for the ignorance on my part but this seems a fair place to ask :p
|
Trans people have thought it up to use for us 'non-trans' Mew
|
25 Nov 10, 1:04 AM
fluffy_welsh_angel
UK(DN), 6 yrs
|
Iphis_me wrote:
fluffy_welsh_angel wrote:
Because...(and I am aware this may offend but it is not meant in that way) I am a woman, end of. I understand that Trans women see themselves as such and fair do's to them. That is who they are, but they are trans and different to natural born women. There has never been a need to label me as anything else (re gender) so why should someone, or a group of somebodies be allowed to do that.
Trans identify as such, Women identify as such. I am a woman, not a cisperson.
That is why I personally find it offensive, and if that doesn't make sense maybe I haven't explained myself properly but it's how I personally feel about the word cis. It brings with it negative connotations.
|
Cis is simply a description. There is a category "woman" which includes transwomen and ciswomen, both of whom can legitimately describe themselves as women. If you say the categories are "woman" and "transwoman" then you are quite clearly saying that transwomen are not "real women" like you.
You think that cis is negative - I think your explanation of why is transphobic.
|
As I thought you might, that is not the case, my objection is why. Why do trans have to have a description of us? It's crap. Just because it's easier. As someone else has sais, what if non trans came up with a word to describe trans people, it was seen as derogatory, but despite being asked to stop continue to use it because it was 'easier' to give the label AND to use it to their face despite being told it is seen as unpleasant and derogatory?
Mew
|
25 Nov 10, 1:05 AM
Attitude_Adjuster
UK(N), 6 yrs
|
Iphis_me wrote:
Attitude_Adjuster wrote:
Iphis_me wrote:
Actually with open-minded vanilla friends (i.e. ones with whom I feel able to be open about being kinky) I do use the term vanilla, and if they said they found it offensive I would want to know why - because to my mind it's simply a flavour, vanilla is not in and of itself bad or anything negative at all.
|
It quite clearly has connotations of boring, choosing the default. Yes, I've been pulled up on using it by errr vanillas, who found it offensive in the sense that it casts aspersions on the imaginativeness of their sex life and open mindedness in general. I stopped using it with those people at that point.
|
Even given that, cis doesn't carry those kind of connotations. I still don't understand why the word bothers people so much, am I being dense?
|
It doesn't matter. If some one called you a blond, and you asked them not to, you wouldn't expect them to keep on demanding why not and insisting that as you are a blond, they have every right to keep doing it. Its just rude, and comes across as deliberately provocative which INCREASES the offence taken by its use.
I couldn't see why the offence was taken either - guess what - it doesn't matter. As cookie said, its rude to impose a term on a group that doesn't want it imposed.
And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!
Edited 25 Nov 10, 1:10 AM by Attitude_Adjuster
|
25 Nov 10, 1:07 AM
fluffy_welsh_angel
UK(DN), 6 yrs
|
Attitude_Adjuster wrote:
Iphis_me wrote:
Attitude_Adjuster wrote:
Iphis_me wrote:
Actually with open-minded vanilla friends (i.e. ones with whom I feel able to be open about being kinky) I do use the term vanilla, and if they said they found it offensive I would want to know why - because to my mind it's simply a flavour, vanilla is not in and of itself bad or anything negative at all.
|
It quite clearly has connotations of boring, choosing the default. Yes, I've been pulled up on using it by errr vanillas, who found it offensive in the sense that it casts aspersions on the imaginativeness of their sex life and open mindedness in general. I stopped using it with those people at that point.
|
Even given that, cis doesn't carry those kind of connotations. I still don't understand why the word bothers people so much, am I being dense?
|
It doesn't matter. If some one called you a blond, and you asked them not to, you wouldn't expect them to keep on demanding why not and insisting that as you are a blond, they have every right to keep doing it. Its just rude, and comes across as deliberately provocative which INCREASES the offence taken by its use.
|
this exactly. Mew
|
25 Nov 10, 1:14 AM
Iphis_me
UK(E), 4 yrs
|
fluffy_welsh_angel wrote:
Iphis_me wrote:
fluffy_welsh_angel wrote:
Because...(and I am aware this may offend but it is not meant in that way) I am a woman, end of. I understand that Trans women see themselves as such and fair do's to them. That is who they are, but they are trans and different to natural born women. There has never been a need to label me as anything else (re gender) so why should someone, or a group of somebodies be allowed to do that.
Trans identify as such, Women identify as such. I am a woman, not a cisperson.
That is why I personally find it offensive, and if that doesn't make sense maybe I haven't explained myself properly but it's how I personally feel about the word cis. It brings with it negative connotations.
|
Cis is simply a description. There is a category "woman" which includes transwomen and ciswomen, both of whom can legitimately describe themselves as women. If you say the categories are "woman" and "transwoman" then you are quite clearly saying that transwomen are not "real women" like you.
You think that cis is negative - I think your explanation of why is transphobic.
|
As I thought you might, that is not the case, my objection is why. Why do trans have to have a description of us? It's crap. Just because it's easier. As someone else has sais, what if non trans came up with a word to describe trans people, it was seen as derogatory, but despite being asked to stop continue to use it because it was 'easier' to give the label AND to use it to their face despite being told it is seen as unpleasant and derogatory?
|
I don't even know where to start with this but I'll have one crack at it and them I'm going to bed - where I should have been ages ago.
The terms in your post about "natural born women" and transwomen being "different" very clearly label transwomen as "other" and weird - you might well not be intending to do that but I'm afraid that is very much how you come across.
It's not because it's easier, it's because having words to describe things is important, and if the only word you have to describe cis people is "non-trans" (or even worse "women" and "transwomen") then you're stuck with a language which is not fit to describe reality other than from the point of view of the "normal" majority ie cis people.
Basically, you don't think there's even a need for a word to describe cis, you think "non-trans" or just "woman" will do if I have understood you correctly. Which is what the whole discussion on this thread has centred around - why there IS a need for a term to describe "non-trans" people. You're the only person I've seen to elaborate their reasoning so honestly though.
"The unexamined life is not worth living" - Socrates
|
25 Nov 10, 1:16 AM
Admin
UK, 14 yrs
|
sharktooth wrote:
Admin wrote:
You've been given two here (eye and hair colour.) So another example already given on the other thread: switch and non-switch. |
All of these have the exact same flaw, though - you're taking an identity or aspect of appearance for which there are multiple mutually-exclusive possibilities, picking one of them, and creating an X versus not-X dichotomy from that one randomly picked possibility. People aren't generally referred to as non-switches.
|
When we're talking about switching, they often are.
|
Instead we talk about the specific kind of not-a-switch they are: dom(me)s, subs, non-BDSMers, etc...
|
Lots of doms and subs are also switches.
|
In fact, I can ask an equivalent question here to the one in my previous comment: non-switch is to dom as non-trans person is to... what?
|
Blue-eyed person. There are lots of blue-eyed people who are also trans.
Admin
Remember: it's only a website 
|
