Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Agonistes]

from wikipedia:

In April 1996, Buijs said in a Usenet posting, "As for the origin, I just made it up. I just kept running into the problem of what to call non-trans people in various discussions, and one day it just hit me: non-trans equals cis. Therefore, cisgendered."[6]


further:

The term has more recently been used in publications, such as a 2006 article in the Journal of Lesbian Studies[8] and Julia Serano's 2007 book Whipping Girl.[9] Serano also uses the related terms cissexual, which she defines as "people who are not transsexual and who have only ever experienced their subconscious and physical sexes as being aligned" (p. 12), and cissexism, "which is the belief that transsexuals' identified genders are inferior to, or less authentic than, those of cissexuals."[10]





so, basically, a made-up word to make sure that people who don't have issues with gender identity are defined as separate and non-empathetic to those who do.



edit:  also, joking about something does not automatically mean one is implying that it is inferior, or less authentic than the so-called 'norm' one is using as a clarifier in the fucking joke.

[spider jerusalem]

i'm not even a native english speaker. there are really few sayings in my vocabulary knowledge.

and i'm sure you also know i'm not some kind of bigot to use a saying just to offend trans people.

i do respect them, and am really sorry for they have to struggle with common people's bias. not only the bias, most of them also have to struggle to find a job, get an apartment, communicating with their families, etc. which is very sad to see in 2000s so called modern world.

ps: i'm really sorry if i offended somebody unintentionally.

I am not a native English speaker too, but we have similar saying here, so I got what you mean.

I don't. I'm calling cissexism. Genitals are not the same as gender.

ETA: cissexism is kinda like transphobia, just to clarify terminology.

BB Gun-it, when Savannah said:

Yeah, yeah, if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle 

She meant: "if my aunt was born a man".

"activism" gets used as an excuse too often these days to dictate to people how they should think by taking away the very thing that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom; out language.

Instead of understanding it was a slip of the tongue from someone who as admittedly tired, you chastise them on their choice of words.

This offends me. I'm not asking you to knock it off, stop, or change what you're doing. I just ask that you be a bit more aware of the circumstances before you deign yourself fit to judge what someone's intentions are.

If my stance offends you, you'll just have to be content with being offended.

Remember me of paying you a beer or any drink that you might like if we met someday.
 

[BB Gun-it]

"activism" gets used as an excuse too often these days to dictate to people how they should think by taking away the very thing that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom; out language.

Instead of understanding it was a slip of the tongue from someone who as admittedly tired, you chastise them on their choice of words.

This offends me. I'm not asking you to knock it off, stop, or change what you're doing. I just ask that you be a bit more aware of the circumstances before you deign yourself fit to judge what someone's intentions are.

If my stance offends you, you'll just have to be content with being offended.

I haven't judged anyone's intentions. I don't know what words the ones I type look like to you, but I haven't chastised. I've made it extremely clear that I'm trying to inform people and giving them the benefit of the doubt. Not everyone knows, is friends with, loves and sleeps with trans* people. Not everyone is heavily involved in trans* activism and trans* rights movements. I don't expect everyone to know or understand what I do, but I want more than anything for people I respect to be willing to learn. And totalfrog is. And Savannah seems to be. And I don't understand why, in this community of people who've been hurt and shafted and treated as freaks and abused so many of you aren't willing to just try to learn how to stop making other people feel the way you've been made to feel.

If a tired person's automatic instinct is to refer to a trans* person by their assigned pronouns instead of their preferred pronouns, I'm going to call them out as wrong so maybe one day their automatic instinct will be to refer to trans* people by their preferred pronouns.

from wikipedia:

In April 1996, Buijs said in a Usenet posting, "As for the origin, I just made it up. I just kept running into the problem of what to call non-trans people in various discussions, and one day it just hit me: non-trans equals cis. Therefore, cisgendered."[6]


further:

The term has more recently been used in publications, such as a 2006 article in the Journal of Lesbian Studies[8] and Julia Serano's 2007 book Whipping Girl.[9] Serano also uses the related terms cissexual, which she defines as "people who are not transsexual and who have only ever experienced their subconscious and physical sexes as being aligned" (p. 12), and cissexism, "which is the belief that transsexuals' identified genders are inferior to, or less authentic than, those of cissexuals."[10]





so, basically, a made-up word to make sure that people who don't have issues with gender identity are defined as separate and non-empathetic to those who do.



edit:  also, joking about something does not automatically mean one is implying that it is inferior, or less authentic than the so-called 'norm' one is using as a clarifier in the fucking joke.

Hey guess what? Somebody at some point "made-up" every single word we use in this whole fucking language.

As knowledge and understanding progress, so must language. Having a word for people who are not transgendered is necessary, because every other possible option diminishes trans people and genderqueer people as people whose gender identities are legitimate. We use words to define things, including the difference between people who ascribe to the gender assigned to them at birth and people who don't.

Do you think rape jokes are acceptable?

[Agonistes]

from wikipedia:

In April 1996, Buijs said in a Usenet posting, "As for the origin, I just made it up. I just kept running into the problem of what to call non-trans people in various discussions, and one day it just hit me: non-trans equals cis. Therefore, cisgendered."[6]


further:

The term has more recently been used in publications, such as a 2006 article in the Journal of Lesbian Studies[8] and Julia Serano's 2007 book Whipping Girl.[9] Serano also uses the related terms cissexual, which she defines as "people who are not transsexual and who have only ever experienced their subconscious and physical sexes as being aligned" (p. 12), and cissexism, "which is the belief that transsexuals' identified genders are inferior to, or less authentic than, those of cissexuals."[10]





so, basically, a made-up word to make sure that people who don't have issues with gender identity are defined as separate and non-empathetic to those who do.



edit:  also, joking about something does not automatically mean one is implying that it is inferior, or less authentic than the so-called 'norm' one is using as a clarifier in the fucking joke.

Hey guess what? Somebody at some point "made-up" every single word we use in this whole fucking language.

As knowledge and understanding progress, so must language. Having a word for people who are not transgendered is necessary, because every other possible option diminishes trans people and genderqueer people as people whose gender identities are legitimate. We use words to define things, including the difference between people who ascribe to the gender assigned to them at birth and people who don't.

Do you think rape jokes are acceptable?

calm down, i just said that to piss you off anyway.  but, it's still a pretty young word (coined on the internet), and a word that's appropriate in a clinical context isn't necessarily applicable to the rest of the world.  i haven't heard a physician use it, for instance.  and i damn sure didn't think that 'calling cisassination' or whatever it was was appropriate in the context of this thread.  i found it offensive.

there are already words for people who are not transgendered.  and, gender identities that are called into question by the owner of both the birth gender and their identifying gender, even if solidified by that same person, are still identities that have been called into question.  legitimate or not is not the issue i actually take with your posts.

don't get me wrong.  i am not in dispute of a transgender community nor am i faced with any problems with the issue itself.  it's been, however, established that i have a problem with many aspects of activism, and while i am glad to see an emerging language and attempt at structuring the admittedly complicated aspects of gender identity and how it relates to the physical body, we just aren't there yet.   getting there, but not there yet.  and once 'we' get there, well, guess what.  one still has to wait on society to dilute it into something they can understand, or at least feel some empathy for.  otherwise, they're never going to accept.

frankly, i prefer the buck approach to educating people about transgender issues.  it's much simpler.



do i think rape jokes are acceptable?  i make them, don't i?  at a 'take back the night' gathering, probably not, no.  but yes, i think almost any topic is acceptable as a joke in the right context.  nothing is intrinsically sacred, after all, and nothing exists in nature to define 'right' from 'wrong.'  those are human concepts, and they derive from us thinking it isn't fair that we have to suffer and then die, much less watch others do same.

[N.U.]

The mere fact that you have deigned it necessary to correct someone's misuse of a pronoun without taking into account any aspect of the situation as it pertains to intent means that you, in fact, ARE judging. What's worse, you're judging without facts but based upon assumptions. Judging before you had a grasp of the specific situation. Pre-judging one might say.

Another way of saying "Pre-judging" is...?

[Agonistes]

prejiudice.  which is why political correctness comes full circle into exclusivity.


it's just another form of exclusion, really.

[Mockery]

Can I say something?

I am naïve. There is no getting around that but that is because due to me being an aspy, I tend to get frustrated and angry. I then tend to say things that I don’t mean and then everything goes to shit.

I love this forum because I have made some really nice friends and for the longest time, I didn’t want to say anything concerning my views because I was afraid I was going to get judged. Well, I should learn not to say anything because that’s what happened.

But I’m not going to be sorry for being a Christian. I’m sorry if I offended anyone because that was not my intention. I wanted to have a mature, adult conversation and instead, it turned into a “Mockery is an idiot” thread.  I have nothing against gay people but I don’t agree with their life style. They still have a right to be happy and I won’t stand in their way. 

And if I have come off as BB put, “misogynistic, sexist, anti-feminist, homophobic, fatphobic, slut-shaming, ignorant” then I am sorry! Apparently, this not the place for me so I’ll leave ya’ll too it. But seems to me that no here will let me have an opinon because when I do, I end up getting attacked. It’s not fair is it?

I doubt I’ll be posting on this thread anymore because everything I say doesn’t seem to matter. Go ahead and call me troll, naïve or whatever but I honestly don’t give a flying fuck anymore.

[lentower]

i'm locking this thread for a few days.

the discussion is getting too personal.
and disrespectful.
a cooling off period is in order

those who are posting in this thread might want to re-read all of
http://www.theshadowbox.net/forum/index.php?topic=12409.0

i just excerpted the parts that apply here:

***

- Don't be abusive to board members, k? K. Arguments will happen - and that's fine - but please don't make correcting or belittling others your mission here. No one here is in a position to lay into others for small mistakes, and if the majority of your posts consist of you giving attitude to others here, you will be warned (and ultimately removed). If someone makes a typo or forgets to use the search function, we ask that you politely point out the mistake (or ignore it altogether).
Examples include (but are not limited to):
* Harassment * Posting of (or paraphrasing from) off-Box/private conversations without consent * Posting of images of other members without their consent (this is only enforced if people complain) * Misuse of the Private Messaging system will lead to the loss of your ability to send and receive PMs * Mockery through the likes of "impersonations", and other similar behaviors.

***

- If a thread you created is deleted/moved/locked, DO NOT MAKE IT AGAIN. If you have a question about it, please PM a moderator to discuss it there. Also, if it appears that your thread is "missing", check to see if it has been moved to another section of the board.

***

[lentower]

unlocked

be kind to one another

[Agonistes]

you're my rare gem, len.   

[Tiervexx]

I think you made a good decision Len!

I had just discovered this thread and thought it had potential but it really degenerated and got very, very subjective.

Subjective discussions are fine but it bothers me when people state their opinions as facts, as the one true way.

I want to give my opinions on the original topic of the thread:

I think the only really scientific definition you can use of mental illness is something that impairs your perception of objective reality, such as hallucinating.

I think that is the only definition you can use that will yield testable results which is necessary for it to be considered scientific.  The line between mood disorders of various types and just being emotional is arbitrarily defined.  There are reasons why people in the hard sciences have always been very critical of the soft sciences...

What I'm getting at is that I don't think it is accurate to refer to any abnormal sexual attraction as a "mental illness."  I agree with most people that a homosexual attraction towards adults is less offensive than a pedophiliac attraction but I want to say that that's a common opinion, and not a scientific distinction.

I'm not saying this to argue that we should not try to treat pedophiles or lock them up, just that pedophilia is probably just as hard to cure as it is to "cure" homosexuality.  "Curing" any abnormal sexualities likely would require major neurological remodeling that we are not even close to having the technology to do.  Hell, we can't even cure much simpler mental problems like alzheimer's.

I think most people would be tempted to believe that their sexualities can't be "wrong" so it makes sense that pedophiles would believe out of convenience that their victims can consent.  I remember one episode of Law and Order SVU where Benson scoffed at the idea that pedophiles could love their victims.  While I understand why people would scoff at that idea I'm sure that the neurological activity many pedophiles feel towards their crushes is identical to what "normal" people feel towards theirs.  So once again the distinction is not very scientific.

I know I'm kind of just rambling, but what I'm trying to say is that although I think we should lock up pedophiles I think we should do it to protect the children and not because of a primitive, false belief that the pedophiles just chose to be "evil".

[Mockery]

I think most people would be tempted to believe that their sexualities can't be "wrong" so it makes sense that pedophiles would believe out of convenience that their victims can consent.  I remember one episode of Law and Order SVU where Benson scoffed at the idea that pedophiles could love their victims.  While I understand why people would scoff at that idea I'm sure that the neurological activity many pedophiles feel towards their crushes is identical to what "normal" people feel towards theirs.  So once again the distinction is not very scientific.

You're addicted to eh?

And it's true, some pedophiles see their actions as pure because they believe it's innocent love. However, there are a lot of people who have those urges and they go through ways to deal with them by going to therapy or even getting rid of their genitals. Again, there are those groups who try to get equal rights by saying they're being persecuted for 'loving' a child. Do they ever stop to think about how the child feels? A child does not fully understand the concept of love and sex!

[Tiervexx]

I think most people would be tempted to believe that their sexualities can't be "wrong" so it makes sense that pedophiles would believe out of convenience that their victims can consent.  I remember one episode of Law and Order SVU where Benson scoffed at the idea that pedophiles could love their victims.  While I understand why people would scoff at that idea I'm sure that the neurological activity many pedophiles feel towards their crushes is identical to what "normal" people feel towards theirs.  So once again the distinction is not very scientific.

You're addicted to eh?

And it's true, some pedophiles see their actions as pure because they believe it's innocent love. However, there are a lot of people who have those urges and they go through ways to deal with them by going to therapy or even getting rid of their genitals. Again, there are those groups who try to get equal rights by saying they're being persecuted for 'loving' a child. Do they ever stop to think about how the child feels? A child does not fully understand the concept of love and sex!

I agree.

But it is human nature to twist things to suit your desires.  Neither you, or I can really know how our perception might be warped if we instead developed the attraction to children.

I just know it is easy for me to see that children can't consent because I happen to be attracted to things like wide shoulders and defined cheek bones that little kids normally don't have.

And yes... it is a great show!  It can be hard for me to watch it sometimes because my paranoid brain worries about such predators attacking my female friends but I do like the show.

[Mockery]

I think most people would be tempted to believe that their sexualities can't be "wrong" so it makes sense that pedophiles would believe out of convenience that their victims can consent.  I remember one episode of Law and Order SVU where Benson scoffed at the idea that pedophiles could love their victims.  While I understand why people would scoff at that idea I'm sure that the neurological activity many pedophiles feel towards their crushes is identical to what "normal" people feel towards theirs.  So once again the distinction is not very scientific.

You're addicted to eh?

And it's true, some pedophiles see their actions as pure because they believe it's innocent love. However, there are a lot of people who have those urges and they go through ways to deal with them by going to therapy or even getting rid of their genitals. Again, there are those groups who try to get equal rights by saying they're being persecuted for 'loving' a child. Do they ever stop to think about how the child feels? A child does not fully understand the concept of love and sex!

I agree.

But it is human nature to twist things to suit your desires.  Neither you, or I can really know how our perception might be warped if we instead developed the attraction to children.

I just know it is easy for me to see that children can't consent because I happen to be attracted to things like wide shoulders and defined cheek bones that little kids normally don't have.

And yes... it is a great show!  It can be hard for me to watch it sometimes because my paranoid brain worries about such predators attacking my female friends but I do like the show.

Gosh I know! My dad said the only reason I was allowed to watch the show as because it would teach me not to trust everyone.

Yes, humans like to twist things around but I've always noticed that people, no matter who they are hate to see harm come to children. That's why people where so pissed off about Casey A. I think it's because when we loose our innocence, we want to help persevere it for children and it's not fair when it gets taken away from them. At the same time, a lot of pedophiles realize that their is something wrong with their feelings towards children and go out of their way to stop it because they realize that what they do could hurts a child.

[Agonistes]

But it is human nature to twist things to suit your desires. 

this is the smartest sentence i have read in weeks.