10

6 comments

[–] Tortoisemouse 7 points Edited

So much wrong with this article I don't even know where to start.

People who voted that "cis" was offensive "are the same people who called leftist “snowflakes that get offended by everything”".

I was one of those people voting on Twitter and I am a leftist.

This article assumes TWAW. If you start from the premise that this is true, then all sorts of conclusions flow logically from this starting point. But the author fails to comprehend that many of the people objecting to "cis" do so precisely because TW are not W (and TM are not M).

Of course if I assert "chairs are tables" then I can make all kinds of logical arguments based on that premise, and reach all kinds of conclusions, and many of them would be absurd.

And this BORING BORING fucking argument: "When I say I’m a white woman, are people offended by me saying I’m white? I’m simply stating a fact. No one attributes that to being a “subset” of my gender. It’s simply a ridiculous argument."

Yeah because white women are still women you idiot. TiMs are not women. That's the whole point.

This style of reasoning/arguing drives me insane because they are completely missing the point. The whole point is how you define woman. If you redefine it to include men then that's the ridiculous argument. But they sail past this bit, assuming TWAW is a "fact" (like the fact of a white woman being a woman) without acknowledging that disputing this fact is precisely what is at issue here.

There's no capacity or willingness to examine the statement TWAW. Instead a load of twaddle based on the premise that it's true. Fine to believe TWAW but be prepared to argue why you think this.

ARRRGHH SO STOOOOPIIIDDDDD.

(edited for own stupidity)