I've always been of the notion that people are free to do whatever they choose. However, they must deal with the consequences. If you are in an environment where people find words offensive, be prepared to face the fact that people will find you offensive. If between friends, for instance, I don't think it matters. It's a mix of context of people and meaning.
By the same notion, you are free to be offended, but that does open up the fact that if a person meant it as an identifier and you note that it is offensive, it does set back the notion of equality. For instance, I've always been bothered by the n word. If blacks are offended when non blacks use it but not when blacks use it, then it does reflect poorly on the idea that blacks deserve equality. One can use any number of words (animals, fat, etc etc) to offend someone and if the context is to offend, it will probably have that effect. I just find that if the context is so far from intending to be offensive, it is a little sensitive to be offended. But to each his own, I suppose.
lol, I'm pretty sure I can think of at least 10 words off the top of my head more offensive than tranny.
How offensive words are is relative, though, isn't it?
BTW guys, I'm offended at the word "white person", please use "non-hispanic caucasian", as white person is actually deragatory to my people.
Seriously, just because it offends you doesn't make it a curse word, at that point litterally every other word is an explative, I hate the word otaku, I'd prefer "eccentric anime fan", I hate musclehead, I'd prefer "bodybuilding enthusiest" I hate the word ladder, I'd prefer "device used for climbing to high places". And seriously when did tranny become a slur, it's the equivilant of calling a "non-hispanic caucasian" white or an african american black.
It's a perjorative term that's usually used derogatorily, a shortening that carries a negative connotation. It's not "Hey, transsexual person I see over there!" The gay equivalent would be more like "Hey, ******." It's dehumanizing.
Perhaps a better example would be how insulting it gets if you add a "y" to the end of calling a black person "black".
Seriously if you're gonna be one of the most mocked minorities in modern times (even gays/lesbians tend to look down on trannies) you need to grow thicker skin, especially when the guy who says it is in the same community and said it jokingly. Seriously grow up.
The LGBT community is, most times, closer to the LG **** off community. [Oh, LG Electronics, what an unfortunate name you have. But I like your phones.] The bonds aren't necessarily so close, to put it mildly.
Your advice is ridiculous, though: your whole point is ridiculous, really. But NPH apologized for it, so whatever. It is what it is (and NPH is awesome). I'm not going to vilify NPH for it. ... There's enough confusion over this whole issue, anyways, that I feel that people should be quick to forgive: but it's important to point out when and where lines like this -are- crossed.
my mouth is full of winsome lies -
and eyes are full of death besides
but luckily the soul is wise -
it sees beyond my blindness and
forced failure makes a better guise,
so as i come again alive,
it feels like life's a decent plan
This thread deciding to follow me back into WCT does give Salvation that impression, doesn't it. Honestly, I'm as bewildered as you as to why all these threads keep popping up. Some are obviously Teia-baiting, others I have no clue.
Thread topic are cyclical. We're currently in the tail-end of what I liek to refer to as the "Teia-baiting" cycle. Honestly, it didn't exist before you became active on here and the debate -- but don't take that to mean you should leave. A new element to the cycle is good because it disrupts the status quo. The debate threads have moved on to the "politics" cycle and a few months from now they will switch over to the "religion" cycle.
Before the Teia-baiting cycle it jsut cycled between politics (republicans are evil!) and Religion (Christianity is evil!) threads.
My guess is WCT is just lagging behind debate a bit. Once politics get even more in swing (as if they aren't enough now) it'll take over the transgender/gay issues cycle.
Thread topic are cyclical. We're currently in the tail-end of what I liek to refer to as the "Teia-baiting" cycle. Honestly, it didn't exist before you became active on here and the debate -- but don't take that to mean you should leave. A new element to the cycle is good because it disrupts the status quo. The debate threads have moved on to the "politics" cycle and a few months from now they will switch over to the "religion" cycle.
Before the Teia-baiting cycle it jsut cycled between politics (republicans are evil!) and Religion (Christianity is evil!) threads.
My guess is WCT is just lagging behind debate a bit. Once politics get even more in swing (as if they aren't enough now) it'll take over the transgender/gay issues cycle.
I think it's interesting because it's a topic that I have some formal training / education within. It keeps coming up, and I know the right things to say. If it does indeed move more political, I'll be thrilled too because I follow politics very closely. Election Night is my second Superbowl (The Oscars being the true Superbowl.)
If blacks are offended when non blacks use it but not when blacks use it, then it does reflect poorly on the idea that blacks deserve equality.
The basic idea behind reclamation is that you're taking a word that has all kinds of hateful power over you and making it your own, in essence removing the active power (although not the history) from the word. Such as how "queer" is in the process of going from insult to a catchall for LGBT people. Lesbians reclaiming **** is another example of this.
Kind of why I'd seriously say "tranny" is like the five-letter "*****." Some trans people use the word within the trans community. Others don't and think it shouldn't be reclaimed. But it's still offensive when cis people say it.
Quote from bLatch »
The debate threads have moved on to the "politics" cycle and a few months from now they will switch over to the "religion" cycle.
And I strongly doubt that anything of value will be added when they cycle back to the same old, tired topics.
Quote from Marquoth »
Context is everything. Intention should always be taken into consideration, and people should be given the benefit of the doubt where reasonable, but equally it has to be recognised that there's a certain subjectivity to these sorts of situations and you can't just lay down a concrete rule for what is and what isn't offensive.
True. If I'm a guest in your house and I just go knock something over and break it because I feel like being a jerk, then you should of course handle the situation differently than if it had been an accident.
However, that doesn't change that I still broke the thing. The people who advocate stupid positions like "intent is 100% of everything, it's not offensive if it's not intended to be, you choose to be offended" are, in effect, the ones who'd say they didn't knock the thing over to begin with and that you actually chose for the thing to be broken. Intent does matter, but it doesn't change the action itself. If I knock your thing over and break it, you should absolutely get mad at me if I were to say, "Oh, but I didn't mean to knock it over, so that means I didn't knock it over."
New Phyrexia apologized for the faux pas. That's the right thing for him to do. He didn't mean any harm, and apologized when he learned it was offensive, so there's no need to harbour any ill will. Doesn't excuse what he said, but that's what forgiveness is for.
For my 2 cents: "Tranny" is about on par with "blacky" or "whitey." They aren't among the nastiest slurs per-say, but they have pretty obvious dismissive/belittling/dehumanizing subtexts to them.
It's not bleep-worthy, but most sentences with that class of words are going to make the person saying it sound like a bigoted douche.
I'd figure tranny would be short for transsexual. Just like you would say gay instead of homosexual....
You'd think that, if only because the -y ending makes it sound like a normal diminutive. The issue there is that sounding like a diminutive is also an element of many insulting terms—refer to the example of calling someone "blacky" for an illustration of this, or "lezzie" for lesbian, or for a slightly less impactful version, a friend of mine doesn't like being called "shorty" despite being very short. Like LoneDeranger said, it's belittling to have unwanted diminutives forced on you.
Quote from xsockmonkeyx »
I would have thought the Buffalo Bill part would be the offender here.
Honestly, in a vacuum I'd say the Buffalo Bill joke and the trans joke would count as two separate things, if only because it's explained very clearly in-story that Buffalo Bill isn't really trans. But sadly that distinction is missed with a lot of people, so you do run into those stereotypes from time to time. Although in my experience the obligatory Austin Powers line is actually more offensive if only because of how prevalent it is by comparison.
Also something I meant to say but forgot to the first time around:
Quote from actionandy »
Why is every third thread on this forum about trans people?
I think I just don't notice these things because, unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of being able to ignore trans issues once I close the MTG Salvation tab. I can understand intellectually that most people here see it as a dead horse, but what seems to others to be an excess of threads is to me just a small handful threads of people talking about stuff I have to take into consideration on a nigh daily basis. I can and have gotten sick and tired of specific issues in the past, but the cutoff is much higher than it is for everyone else (my original intent for instance was to let that huge Debate thread die once it hit 1000 posts but it stopped just short of that).
In an amusing reversal, though, I have seen "stop with all this Magic crap" on a trans forum (although in context it was mostly due to the discussion derailing a thread, not the userbase being uninterested in Magic). But as far as both subjects go, if people bring them up I'll talk about them. It's not like I'm directly inciting anyone to post or making these threads myself or anything.
I can't remember the exact quote and I'm too lazy to go look it up, but the gist of it was that he saw himself as fundamentally broken and thought being "reborn" as a woman would change that. Or something along those lines. Also I don't think it was Hannibal that said it, but someone else who specialized in stuff like that.
I'll put this into a different context, think of the word "negro." Sounds too much like the swear word, which in part why it was decimated from common usage. However, older people will still use the word negro at times like Reid. So in common parlance, most people would probably give a person a scolding or a by and learn, but in public would be more likely to be cajoled over it.
Frankly, I have really no care about the problem with "tranny" being retired from common parlance. What I do reject is beginning to apply new words and pronouns like "cis" that makes thing more complex in regarding other humans. The same goes with shifting words like negro to black, but once you get to African-American or the whole shindig between "Native American versus Indian" or "American Indian." It's time to pick a good word and stick to it.
Definitions get really fuzzy when dealing with personal sentiments.
The basic idea behind reclamation is that you're taking a word that has all kinds of hateful power over you and making it your own, in essence removing the active power (although not the history) from the word. Such as how "queer" is in the process of going from insult to a catchall for LGBT people. Lesbians reclaiming **** is another example of this.
Kind of why I'd seriously say "tranny" is like the five-letter "*****." Some trans people use the word within the trans community. Others don't and think it shouldn't be reclaimed. But it's still offensive when cis people say it.
And "cis" still sounds like terminal cancer!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
What I do reject is beginning to apply new words and pronouns like "cis" that makes thing more complex in regarding other humans.
Objecting to "cis" is like objecting to "straight" or "white." The point is to take being cis, being straight, being white, or whatever out of the base assumptions of personhood. In other words, to eliminate the assumption that "a person" is cis, straight, or white. That people with those traits are the default. That people who aren't those things are some Other that need specific labels specifically because they deviate from this default state of being.
After all, when you say "a person," you should not be implying that the person is white, such that the audience assumes you're specifically talking about a white person unless you say otherwise. After all, you can just say "white person" if you want to talk specifically about a white person (you certainly wouldn't say "non-black person," even if we were to assume some kind of racial binary). In the same way, "a person" should not refer specifically to cis people, which is what it'd do if there's no equivalent to "trans" for people who aren't trans.
And "cis" still sounds like terminal cancer!
Your own personal issues with the way it sounds aside, it's still the best word for its purpose.
Quote from Misclick »
No, it's Hannibal. In classic Baader-Meinhoff fashion, I just watched that movie yesterday.
Huh. Maybe I'm mixing it up with something else, or even just thinking of the case of Ed Gein (who Buffalo Bill was based off of).
Huh. Maybe I'm mixing it up with something else, or even just thinking of the case of Ed Gein (who Buffalo Bill was based off of).
No, you got it correct except you forgot that, in a movie with Hannibal Lector, Hannibal Lector is always right and everyone else is always wrong.
Anyhow, to get back into this despite the overwhelming instinctual reaction to just run away at top speed:
Really? So, a cis person objects to the idea of being called "cis" and you spend 2.3 paragraphs telling them why they're wrong instead of just ceding to their wishes? It may, or may not, be "the best word" considering the etymology, but why would efficiency and minimalism matter more than the Cap'n's desires to not be stigmatized?
Because there's no external stigmatization to the term. When an inherently negative label (such as "tranny" or "******") is forced on someone, the stigmas accompanying that label are simultaneously forced on the person. That person is, through this label, being reduced to nothing more than the stereotypes accompanying it. In the case of "cis," there's really nothing to object to except perhaps a complaint that one's own class isn't regarded as the unspoken default anymore (imagine someone objecting to being called "white" or "straight" on the same grounds and you'll see where I'm coming from—"I take offense to being called 'white' so you should just call me 'normal' if you have to label my race" type arguments in a nutshell).
Because there's no external stigmatization to the term. When an inherently negative label (such as "tranny" or "******") is forced on someone, the stigmas accompanying that label are simultaneously forced on the person. That person is, through this label, being reduced to nothing more than the stereotypes accompanying it. In the case of "cis," there's really nothing to object to except perhaps a complaint that one's own class isn't regarded as the unspoken default anymore (imagine someone objecting to being called "white" or "straight" on the same grounds and you'll see where I'm coming from—"I take offense to being called 'white' so you should just call me 'normal' if you have to label my race" type arguments in a nutshell).
Well, what about someone who's simply unsure if they're cis or not? Hypothetically, they might request you not call them by that moniker, and come up with all sorts of c-raaaaaa-zy excuses for it too, but wouldn't you agree that forcing that label upon them might damage them, give them a negative social stigma that could harm their psyche in very, very painful ways?
Or the person who accepts that they might be somewhere on the trans spectrum but close to cis-ality, and requests that you not call them "cis" because it defines them incorrectly?
Your latter example strikes me as asking about someone who's cissexual and transgender, potentially with an identity close but still apart from cisgender norms. Which is a good point insofar as it brings up the fact that blanket "cis" implying both cissexual and cisgender is a massive oversimplification owing to the fact that this is a Magic forum and not a forum focusing on queer issues (in effect I'm generally doing the trans* equivalent of using Portal rules with newbies who don't know Magic that well, even if it winds up with things that look weird to experienced players, like counterspells that say "Sorcery" on the type line—and you're basically holding up a non-Portal card and asking me what "Instant" means). Such a person would thus be referred to with more specific and accurate terms, at any rate.
The first example is just asking about someone who's questioning, which, again, is a bit deeper of an issue than I normally go into on this forum, but in general the answer is that what I do varies wildly on a case by case basis.
Anyway, there's still nothing wrong with using "cis" to describe someone both cisgender and cissexual. Personal preference aside. But the personal preference argument falls apart for reasons explained in the post you quoted.
Your latter example strikes me as asking about someone who's cissexual and transgender, potentially with an identity close but still apart from cisgender norms. Which is a good point insofar as it brings up the fact that blanket "cis" implying both cissexual and cisgender is a massive oversimplification owing to the fact that this is a Magic forum and not a forum focusing on queer issues (in effect I'm generally doing the trans* equivalent of using Portal rules with newbies who don't know Magic that well, even if it winds up with things that look weird to experienced players, like counterspells that say "Sorcery" on the type line—and you're basically holding up a non-Portal card and asking me what "Instant" means). Such a person would thus be referred to with more specific and accurate terms, at any rate.
Ach, my apologies. I'm tired and rusty.
The first example is just asking about someone who's questioning, which, again, is a bit deeper of an issue than I normally go into on this forum, but in general the answer is that what I do varies wildly on a case by case basis.
But we don't have to go deeper, is kind of the point.
If I were to say to you, "Hey, Teia, don't call me cis, I think it sounds like 'scissors' and I hate scissors," or some other lame excuse, there's a possibility that I might be lying because I'm confused about being cis. To then rattle off a whole bunch of reasons why you should be allowed to call me cis anyways might just confuse me more. It's a pretty obvious allegory: calling someone cis, forcing that label upon them when they might be trans would be (at least) an insult and might be much, much worse for them. Dangerous, even. Right?
Now, while I can respect that your trans-dar is far better than mine, I would (highly) doubt it functions at 100% accuracy 100% of the time. So why risk someone's personal boundaries, their very safety, over this when it's just more personable to stop calling them cis when they ask, anyways?
Anyway, there's still nothing wrong with using "cis" to describe someone both cisgender and cissexual. Personal preference aside. But the personal preference argument falls apart for reasons explained in the post you quoted.
Listen, I didn't want to start a whole debate here (I know where to go for that, if I ever have the time again), I just want to know why it is that you are so hung up on the whole 'cis' label thing suddenly; it just seems to me that if someone says they don't like being called 'cis' it's not very much different from someone saying they don't like being called '******', '******', or '****.' Someone says they don't like the term, any term, it's not so hard to avoid using, so why are you all of a sudden fighting for your right to use labels when specifically asked not to? The whole thing smacks of a double standard (even... no, especially when you don't mean it to be), and isn't this whole thing about a person's fundamental rights to expect others to respect their choices? Even choices you might not agree with?
In short, how can you expect people to not use terms you find demeaning if you're willing to argue for your own right to use terms they might find demeaning?
Also, just a quick shout out here to the forum's auto-censors. They be the best.
You're making the mistake of assuming all labels are equal (which is why "don't call me <this> but you have to let me call you <that>" appears to be a double standard when the former is a slur and the latter is "cis"). It's like asking how I can be against people who abuse morphine and think there should be controls in place to prevent that when I also support someone's right to go buy Aspirin without being restricted from doing so. It's not about escaping others' labels in general, it's about escaping harmful labels—and I should emphasize that "I don't like the way it sounds" is not real harm. A word sounding silly to the listener is much, much different from embodying bigotry and oppression. "Cis" is, no matter how hexproof their other permanents are, not harmful to those in the privileged position of actually being cis. "Tranny" and "******" are. To be blunt, people who sincerely act as if "cis" (or "straight" or "white") is harmful and tell trans people not to use that label are like the people who sincerely think they're poor because they can only afford two yachts, and then go to people who have issues holding down a job and stable address to complain about their financial problems.
Think about it this way: If someone doesn't like "cis" because it "sounds like scissors," then imagine what the real slurs sound like to people affected by them. Try telling a black guy that "cracker" is anywhere near as bad a word as "******" and see how well that goes over.
If I were to say to you, "Hey, Teia, don't call me cis, I think it sounds like 'scissors' and I hate scissors," or some other lame excuse, there's a possibility that I might be lying because I'm confused about being cis.
And there's a possibility you're saying it for any number of other reasons. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not a telepath. I can't simply divine the reason for what others are saying. If someone's questioning their gender identity and doesn't want to be called cis (let's ignore that most people who are questioning actually prefer to be called cis until further notice), then they can say that they're questioning. This whole worry, to me, seems a bit paranoid and unreasonable. Someone could object to being called straight because they're secretly panromantic heterosexual, but they'd be very unreasonable in asking others to avoid using "straight" entirely. To hear such an argument from someone who, to my knowledge, has never seriously questioned their gender identity comes off as concern trolling rather than anything more substantive (do questioning people who don't want to be called "cis" exist? Maybe, but how are you any kind of authority on what they'd want?).
And as for my transdar, I actually try to keep from guessing whether others are trans or not. I just don't see the point in a passive scan when an active one (e.g. asking a discreet question if I have sufficient cause to wonder) is both more respectful and more accurate.
To be blunt, people who sincerely act as if "cis" (or "straight" or "white") is harmful and tell trans people not to use that label are like the people who sincerely think they're poor because they can only afford two yachts, and then go to people who have issues holding down a job and stable address to complain about their financial problems.
To be blunt, people who sincerely act as if "Tranny" (or "******" or "******") is harmfull and tell straight white males not to use that label are like the people who sincerely think they're poor because they can only afford two yachts, and then go to people who have issues holding down a job and stable address and complain about their financial problems.
How is what I said any different from what you said? Aside from the fact that I am telling it from the "straight white male" prespective and you are telling it from the "trans" perspective?
Or were you really just lying all along when you said that a label is harmful/insulting based on whether the person being assigned the label finds it harmful or insulting?
Think about it this way: If someone doesn't like "cis" because it "sounds like scissors," then imagine what the real slurs sound like to people affected by them. Try telling a black guy that "cracker" is anywhere near as bad a word as "******" and see how well that goes over.
This... is irrelevant.
One of the following is true:
You think that labels are offensive or not-offensive regardless of the person it is being applied to's wishes.
-or-
You think that labels are offensive or non-offensive based on what the person you are applying the label to finds offensive
-or-
You are being a giant hypocrite and claiming that labels you find benign are benign regardless of the person you are applying them to's feelings, but you expect other people to not have the exact same stance you do, and fault them termendously when they do.
How is what I said any different from what you said?
Because you too are acting as if all labels are equal or something. A trans person complaining about "tranny," a black person complaining about "******," and so on are, in this example, the underemployed and chronically homeless person complaining about their poverty to the guy who thinks having only two yachts means he's poor.
Or were you really just lying all along when you said that a label is harmful/insulting based on whether the person being assigned the label finds it harmful or insulting?
I gave this thread a reread and found that I didn't actually say that. And if I ever did say words to that effect in another thread, odds are you're taking it out of context (that or I was simplifying an issue for the sake of not arguing minutiae).
This... is irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant in the slightest, although I got the comparison slightly wrong. Complaining about "cis" like it's even remotely comparably as bad as "tranny" is actually more like complaining about "white" like it's even remotely comparably as bad as "******."
Edit:
You are being a giant hypocrite and claiming that labels you find benign are benign regardless of the person you are applying them to's feelings, but you expect other people to not have the exact same stance you do, and fault them termendously when they do.
If you'd mind explaining just how you feel "cis" isn't actually benign (since I went and explained why it actually is benign), then that would help your argument much more than trying and failing to guess what I think. Because so far all you're doing is riding the "all labels are equal" horse extremely hard without actually backing it up.
Because you too are acting as if all labels are equal or something. A trans person complaining about "tranny," a black person complaining about "******," and so on are, in this example, the underemployed and chronically homeless person complaining about their poverty to the guy who thinks having only two yachts means he's poor.
I gave this thread a reread and found that I didn't actually say that. And if I ever did say words to that effect in another thread, odds are you're taking it out of context (that or I was simplifying an issue for the sake of not arguing minutiae).
I'll take your word for it, because its not worth getting into.
Am I correct in stating, then, that your opinion is that a label is hurtful or non-hurtful regardless of the person who is receiving the label's opinion on the word?
It's not irrelevant in the slightest, although I got the comparison slightly wrong. Complaining about "cis" like it's even remotely comparably as bad as "tranny" is actually more like complaining about "white" like it's even remotely comparably as bad as "******."
It's irrelevant because how other people react to a hateful word that is not the word at issue has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a completely different word is hateful or insulting.
If you'd mind explaining just how you feel "cis" isn't actually benign
I feel it isn't benign because I think whether a lable is benign or not depends on the person recieving the label's opinion. If a person is insulted by recieving the label "cis" (which you alreayd know my opinion on) then cis is not benign.
Because so far all you're doing is riding the "all labels are equal" horse extremely hard without actually backing it up.
In hte sense that all labels are... labels -- yes all labels are equal. In the sense that whether a label is benign or not benign depending on whether the recieving person finds it offensive -- yes, all labels are equal.
In the sense that common conversation will find a label applied to others not in the conversation benign, no they aren't equal. But thats strictly a function of the percentage of people who find the label benign or not.
As for "cis" explicitly -- its a stupid made up word that is only used by activists or people with agendas to push. the vast majority of the english speaking word has never heard it and has no idea what it means, so they are far more likely to be confused and wonder what the hell youre talking aobut than anything else.
By the same notion, you are free to be offended, but that does open up the fact that if a person meant it as an identifier and you note that it is offensive, it does set back the notion of equality. For instance, I've always been bothered by the n word. If blacks are offended when non blacks use it but not when blacks use it, then it does reflect poorly on the idea that blacks deserve equality. One can use any number of words (animals, fat, etc etc) to offend someone and if the context is to offend, it will probably have that effect. I just find that if the context is so far from intending to be offensive, it is a little sensitive to be offended. But to each his own, I suppose.
Buy Sell Thread
How offensive words are is relative, though, isn't it?
It's a perjorative term that's usually used derogatorily, a shortening that carries a negative connotation. It's not "Hey, transsexual person I see over there!" The gay equivalent would be more like "Hey, ******." It's dehumanizing.
Perhaps a better example would be how insulting it gets if you add a "y" to the end of calling a black person "black".
The LGBT community is, most times, closer to the LG **** off community. [Oh, LG Electronics, what an unfortunate name you have. But I like your phones.] The bonds aren't necessarily so close, to put it mildly.
Your advice is ridiculous, though: your whole point is ridiculous, really. But NPH apologized for it, so whatever. It is what it is (and NPH is awesome). I'm not going to vilify NPH for it. ... There's enough confusion over this whole issue, anyways, that I feel that people should be quick to forgive: but it's important to point out when and where lines like this -are- crossed.
and eyes are full of death besides
but luckily the soul is wise -
it sees beyond my blindness and
forced failure makes a better guise,
so as i come again alive,
it feels like life's a decent plan
Thread topic are cyclical. We're currently in the tail-end of what I liek to refer to as the "Teia-baiting" cycle. Honestly, it didn't exist before you became active on here and the debate -- but don't take that to mean you should leave. A new element to the cycle is good because it disrupts the status quo. The debate threads have moved on to the "politics" cycle and a few months from now they will switch over to the "religion" cycle.
Before the Teia-baiting cycle it jsut cycled between politics (republicans are evil!) and Religion (Christianity is evil!) threads.
My guess is WCT is just lagging behind debate a bit. Once politics get even more in swing (as if they aren't enough now) it'll take over the transgender/gay issues cycle.
I think it's interesting because it's a topic that I have some formal training / education within. It keeps coming up, and I know the right things to say. If it does indeed move more political, I'll be thrilled too because I follow politics very closely. Election Night is my second Superbowl (The Oscars being the true Superbowl.)
The basic idea behind reclamation is that you're taking a word that has all kinds of hateful power over you and making it your own, in essence removing the active power (although not the history) from the word. Such as how "queer" is in the process of going from insult to a catchall for LGBT people. Lesbians reclaiming **** is another example of this.
Kind of why I'd seriously say "tranny" is like the five-letter "*****." Some trans people use the word within the trans community. Others don't and think it shouldn't be reclaimed. But it's still offensive when cis people say it.
And I strongly doubt that anything of value will be added when they cycle back to the same old, tired topics.
True. If I'm a guest in your house and I just go knock something over and break it because I feel like being a jerk, then you should of course handle the situation differently than if it had been an accident.
However, that doesn't change that I still broke the thing. The people who advocate stupid positions like "intent is 100% of everything, it's not offensive if it's not intended to be, you choose to be offended" are, in effect, the ones who'd say they didn't knock the thing over to begin with and that you actually chose for the thing to be broken. Intent does matter, but it doesn't change the action itself. If I knock your thing over and break it, you should absolutely get mad at me if I were to say, "Oh, but I didn't mean to knock it over, so that means I didn't knock it over."
New Phyrexia apologized for the faux pas. That's the right thing for him to do. He didn't mean any harm, and apologized when he learned it was offensive, so there's no need to harbour any ill will. Doesn't excuse what he said, but that's what forgiveness is for.
It's not bleep-worthy, but most sentences with that class of words are going to make the person saying it sound like a bigoted douche.
Nothing ever is. But it's the way of these forums.
You'd think that, if only because the -y ending makes it sound like a normal diminutive. The issue there is that sounding like a diminutive is also an element of many insulting terms—refer to the example of calling someone "blacky" for an illustration of this, or "lezzie" for lesbian, or for a slightly less impactful version, a friend of mine doesn't like being called "shorty" despite being very short. Like LoneDeranger said, it's belittling to have unwanted diminutives forced on you.
Honestly, in a vacuum I'd say the Buffalo Bill joke and the trans joke would count as two separate things, if only because it's explained very clearly in-story that Buffalo Bill isn't really trans. But sadly that distinction is missed with a lot of people, so you do run into those stereotypes from time to time. Although in my experience the obligatory Austin Powers line is actually more offensive if only because of how prevalent it is by comparison.
Also something I meant to say but forgot to the first time around:
I think I just don't notice these things because, unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of being able to ignore trans issues once I close the MTG Salvation tab. I can understand intellectually that most people here see it as a dead horse, but what seems to others to be an excess of threads is to me just a small handful threads of people talking about stuff I have to take into consideration on a nigh daily basis. I can and have gotten sick and tired of specific issues in the past, but the cutoff is much higher than it is for everyone else (my original intent for instance was to let that huge Debate thread die once it hit 1000 posts but it stopped just short of that).
In an amusing reversal, though, I have seen "stop with all this Magic crap" on a trans forum (although in context it was mostly due to the discussion derailing a thread, not the userbase being uninterested in Magic). But as far as both subjects go, if people bring them up I'll talk about them. It's not like I'm directly inciting anyone to post or making these threads myself or anything.
Its been a while since Ive seen Silence of the Lambs. What did Hannibal Lecter say he was? I do remember that part now that you mention it.
[Clan Flamingo]
Frankly, I have really no care about the problem with "tranny" being retired from common parlance. What I do reject is beginning to apply new words and pronouns like "cis" that makes thing more complex in regarding other humans. The same goes with shifting words like negro to black, but once you get to African-American or the whole shindig between "Native American versus Indian" or "American Indian." It's time to pick a good word and stick to it.
Definitions get really fuzzy when dealing with personal sentiments.
And "cis" still sounds like terminal cancer!
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Objecting to "cis" is like objecting to "straight" or "white." The point is to take being cis, being straight, being white, or whatever out of the base assumptions of personhood. In other words, to eliminate the assumption that "a person" is cis, straight, or white. That people with those traits are the default. That people who aren't those things are some Other that need specific labels specifically because they deviate from this default state of being.
After all, when you say "a person," you should not be implying that the person is white, such that the audience assumes you're specifically talking about a white person unless you say otherwise. After all, you can just say "white person" if you want to talk specifically about a white person (you certainly wouldn't say "non-black person," even if we were to assume some kind of racial binary). In the same way, "a person" should not refer specifically to cis people, which is what it'd do if there's no equivalent to "trans" for people who aren't trans.
Your own personal issues with the way it sounds aside, it's still the best word for its purpose.
Huh. Maybe I'm mixing it up with something else, or even just thinking of the case of Ed Gein (who Buffalo Bill was based off of).
No, you got it correct except you forgot that, in a movie with Hannibal Lector, Hannibal Lector is always right and everyone else is always wrong.
Anyhow, to get back into this despite the overwhelming instinctual reaction to just run away at top speed:
Really? So, a cis person objects to the idea of being called "cis" and you spend 2.3 paragraphs telling them why they're wrong instead of just ceding to their wishes? It may, or may not, be "the best word" considering the etymology, but why would efficiency and minimalism matter more than the Cap'n's desires to not be stigmatized?
Well, what about someone who's simply unsure if they're cis or not? Hypothetically, they might request you not call them by that moniker, and come up with all sorts of c-raaaaaa-zy excuses for it too, but wouldn't you agree that forcing that label upon them might damage them, give them a negative social stigma that could harm their psyche in very, very painful ways?
Or the person who accepts that they might be somewhere on the trans spectrum but close to cis-ality, and requests that you not call them "cis" because it defines them incorrectly?
The first example is just asking about someone who's questioning, which, again, is a bit deeper of an issue than I normally go into on this forum, but in general the answer is that what I do varies wildly on a case by case basis.
Anyway, there's still nothing wrong with using "cis" to describe someone both cisgender and cissexual. Personal preference aside. But the personal preference argument falls apart for reasons explained in the post you quoted.
Ach, my apologies. I'm tired and rusty.
But we don't have to go deeper, is kind of the point.
If I were to say to you, "Hey, Teia, don't call me cis, I think it sounds like 'scissors' and I hate scissors," or some other lame excuse, there's a possibility that I might be lying because I'm confused about being cis. To then rattle off a whole bunch of reasons why you should be allowed to call me cis anyways might just confuse me more. It's a pretty obvious allegory: calling someone cis, forcing that label upon them when they might be trans would be (at least) an insult and might be much, much worse for them. Dangerous, even. Right?
Now, while I can respect that your trans-dar is far better than mine, I would (highly) doubt it functions at 100% accuracy 100% of the time. So why risk someone's personal boundaries, their very safety, over this when it's just more personable to stop calling them cis when they ask, anyways?
Listen, I didn't want to start a whole debate here (I know where to go for that, if I ever have the time again), I just want to know why it is that you are so hung up on the whole 'cis' label thing suddenly; it just seems to me that if someone says they don't like being called 'cis' it's not very much different from someone saying they don't like being called '******', '******', or '****.' Someone says they don't like the term, any term, it's not so hard to avoid using, so why are you all of a sudden fighting for your right to use labels when specifically asked not to? The whole thing smacks of a double standard (even... no, especially when you don't mean it to be), and isn't this whole thing about a person's fundamental rights to expect others to respect their choices? Even choices you might not agree with?
In short, how can you expect people to not use terms you find demeaning if you're willing to argue for your own right to use terms they might find demeaning?
Also, just a quick shout out here to the forum's auto-censors. They be the best.
Think about it this way: If someone doesn't like "cis" because it "sounds like scissors," then imagine what the real slurs sound like to people affected by them. Try telling a black guy that "cracker" is anywhere near as bad a word as "******" and see how well that goes over.
And there's a possibility you're saying it for any number of other reasons. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not a telepath. I can't simply divine the reason for what others are saying. If someone's questioning their gender identity and doesn't want to be called cis (let's ignore that most people who are questioning actually prefer to be called cis until further notice), then they can say that they're questioning. This whole worry, to me, seems a bit paranoid and unreasonable. Someone could object to being called straight because they're secretly panromantic heterosexual, but they'd be very unreasonable in asking others to avoid using "straight" entirely. To hear such an argument from someone who, to my knowledge, has never seriously questioned their gender identity comes off as concern trolling rather than anything more substantive (do questioning people who don't want to be called "cis" exist? Maybe, but how are you any kind of authority on what they'd want?).
And as for my transdar, I actually try to keep from guessing whether others are trans or not. I just don't see the point in a passive scan when an active one (e.g. asking a discreet question if I have sufficient cause to wonder) is both more respectful and more accurate.
To be blunt, people who sincerely act as if "Tranny" (or "******" or "******") is harmfull and tell straight white males not to use that label are like the people who sincerely think they're poor because they can only afford two yachts, and then go to people who have issues holding down a job and stable address and complain about their financial problems.
How is what I said any different from what you said? Aside from the fact that I am telling it from the "straight white male" prespective and you are telling it from the "trans" perspective?
Or were you really just lying all along when you said that a label is harmful/insulting based on whether the person being assigned the label finds it harmful or insulting?
This... is irrelevant.
One of the following is true:
You think that labels are offensive or not-offensive regardless of the person it is being applied to's wishes.
-or-
You think that labels are offensive or non-offensive based on what the person you are applying the label to finds offensive
-or-
You are being a giant hypocrite and claiming that labels you find benign are benign regardless of the person you are applying them to's feelings, but you expect other people to not have the exact same stance you do, and fault them termendously when they do.
Because you too are acting as if all labels are equal or something. A trans person complaining about "tranny," a black person complaining about "******," and so on are, in this example, the underemployed and chronically homeless person complaining about their poverty to the guy who thinks having only two yachts means he's poor.
I gave this thread a reread and found that I didn't actually say that. And if I ever did say words to that effect in another thread, odds are you're taking it out of context (that or I was simplifying an issue for the sake of not arguing minutiae).
It's not irrelevant in the slightest, although I got the comparison slightly wrong. Complaining about "cis" like it's even remotely comparably as bad as "tranny" is actually more like complaining about "white" like it's even remotely comparably as bad as "******."
Edit:
If you'd mind explaining just how you feel "cis" isn't actually benign (since I went and explained why it actually is benign), then that would help your argument much more than trying and failing to guess what I think. Because so far all you're doing is riding the "all labels are equal" horse extremely hard without actually backing it up.
I'll take your word for it, because its not worth getting into.
Am I correct in stating, then, that your opinion is that a label is hurtful or non-hurtful regardless of the person who is receiving the label's opinion on the word?
It's irrelevant because how other people react to a hateful word that is not the word at issue has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a completely different word is hateful or insulting.
I feel it isn't benign because I think whether a lable is benign or not depends on the person recieving the label's opinion. If a person is insulted by recieving the label "cis" (which you alreayd know my opinion on) then cis is not benign.
In hte sense that all labels are... labels -- yes all labels are equal. In the sense that whether a label is benign or not benign depending on whether the recieving person finds it offensive -- yes, all labels are equal.
In the sense that common conversation will find a label applied to others not in the conversation benign, no they aren't equal. But thats strictly a function of the percentage of people who find the label benign or not.
As for "cis" explicitly -- its a stupid made up word that is only used by activists or people with agendas to push. the vast majority of the english speaking word has never heard it and has no idea what it means, so they are far more likely to be confused and wonder what the hell youre talking aobut than anything else.
As for me -- yes, I do find it offensive.