Quote:
Originally Posted by Quantum Boy
(Post 11655041)
The thing is, whilst I think for linguistic/conversational simplicity, It think it would be useful to have a word that can be used in this distinguishing way (when discussing trans issues, specifically) HOWEVER what I do find completely disingenuous is pretending that there isn't a very good reason that women have taken against it even when used in good faith. It was used pointedly/as a slur for years. You understand this, the people doing it understand this, they MUST, given the number of words that have become slurs against them. Using a word pointedly (or knowing it has been used this way) and then insisting "you shouldn't have a problem with this word when it's not being used as a slur :)" is gaslight. You might as well be saying "Well, breeders is accurate for people with kids, it only means people who have offspring :)".
|
Stop calling everything gaslighting. Context matters to whether the word is an insult or not. Gay is used an insult, still, yet it's also used an an accurate adjective for a man who loves another man. Nobody gay would have any issue with someone calling someone gay unless the context was insulting or othering. I've never used cis in a derogatory way, and that should be taken into consideration when my usage of the word is being discussed.
Quote:
The irony here of course is that it kind of falls under the same thing. There is no meaningful difference between "trans woman" and "transwoman" other than the inference but you can clearly see why that is a problem whilst denying that "cis" is a problem. I get a bit stuck on my answer here because it is used pointedly but it's hard to say that the "space" makes an objective difference beyond intent. But it is -- you have to accept, I'm afraid -- a perfectly legitimate opinion to believe that biologically male trans individuals are not women. You cannot legally discriminate against them for that... but as an individual opinion, yes you are allowed to believe that trans women are not women. Thought-policing is not the vibe. I'm (largely) fine with restrictions on actions and behaviour, but not opinions.
|
Agreed, it's perfectly legitimate, which is why I haven't mentioned it until now despite it being used constantly, because I was giving the benefit of the doubt it was being used in a non-derogatory way. I was being extremely pedantic and petty because of the reaction to the usage of the word cis.
Quote:
Similar to the above, I think "a man" is pointed however even if you think it's respectful to avoid saying "male" (if proven) or "potentially male" (speculative) I think it does cobble the discussion. How else would you say it if you believe that this individual may actually be biologically male?
|
Saying "he" when that person identifies as a woman, was assigned female and raised as one their entire life is just disrespectful... it just is.
I am under no illusion that trans women are not biological women. That of course is undeniable. However, even though I
know that, I still refer to them as she out of respect for them and how they want to be known. It doesn't really matter that I
know in science they are biological men. It would be crass of me to call them he out of simple manners.
It's like if my name was Benjamin and I said "I hate it though so please call me Luke" and you continued to call me Benjamin. My actual name isn't Luke, it's not on my birth certificate and it's not how I was Christened or whatever, but I'm asking you to do the grace and humour me despite you knowing it's not actually my name.
At the very least it's not asking you to believe they're women, it's just asking you to do the good mannered thing and humour them. You can believe what you want.
If someone doesn't want to do that, fine. Call them he if you can't bring yourself to humour someone. But don't complain if someone tells you that you're being a dick. :shrug:
