Every time the issue of gender comes up, the same non-sensical argument gets rehashed. The biological one is usually big but was barely mentioned in this thread so I decided not to address it.

Well isn't that convenient. Disregarding the strongest argument because you have no persuasive rebuttal.

We're not "afraid" of anything--we simply reject their power move to pervert our language and erase our sex.

[–] 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.


(edited for own stupidity)

Cis means my gender identity and sex align. I don't believe in gender identity.

That simple.

[–] Salixj 4 points Edited

The whole issue with CIS is less offense than absurdity. The word woman loses its meaning when used to describe anyone who deems themselves to be a woman. I finally described myself as a dragon to someone. When she asked if I were joking my response was no, which caused her to basically shut up. Because if woman can mean anyone who just feeeels like a woman, then one can say the same about any descriptor.

What I find particularly amusing, for lack of a better word, is when people say a transwoman is a woman. Okay, if so, why do you put trans in front? Why point out a distinction that is not necessary to point out.

I think it is important to stop the strawman arguments. I am not transphobic. If a person in the stall next to me comes out and looks like theynwere once a man, I don't freak out and run from the bathroom as if pursued by a demon. I might look twice, but then I will wash my hands and leave.

But if a man is walking naked about the locker room with all parts showing and "too bad I'm a woman" well screw that. Get out. I have enough brains in my head to know the difference between a man and woman.

I also hate the pretense of dead naming, and so and so was always a woman or man. Or thwt biology is nothing.

I am fairly easy-going but there are limits, and the falseness of the trans movement is what gets me.

The whole issue with CIS is less offense than absurdity. The word woman loses its meaning when used to describe anyone who deems themselves to be a woman

I do find it offensive, for exactly the reason that it removes meaning from the word 'woman' and to erase the meaning of my sex-class offends me, yes. Because my sex class is already oppressed and erased from so many spheres of public and cultural life. To have it erased from language as well is super-offensive to me.

Why can't trans people just have their own descriptors? Why does it have to involve changing everyone else's words?