Who determines the number of genders- and how?

[Thermal]

Once again, humans are utterly confused by the difference between using of language to define things in the real world, and using of language to invent things that don't exist in the real world.

The humans are confusing, aren't they?

 

[Cleon]

Does anybody ever even complain about "straight"?

I've heard the occasional homophobe complain about it, but it's pretty rare.

 

[Matthew Best]

I've heard the occasional homophobe complain about it, but it's pretty rare.

But break out the word "cis" and it's all clutching of pearls (not to mention using of language).

 

[tyr_13]

This term is considered to be grossly offensive by a large number of women. Probably by most women who have figured out what it means (or actually heard it used). To continue to insist on using it after this has been explained is even more grossly offensive. Not born with external genitalia which were recognised as female, and raised as a girl? Not a woman.

Find other words for people who are otherwise described, and don't erase our identity by appropriating our actual name.

Would you continue to use a derogatory term for an ethnic group after it had been explained to you that many members of that group considered it to be extremely offensive? No? Then stoppit.

Cis woman is a perfectly valid term, no matter how trans-excluding feminists want to twist the language in order to use old tactics of being the victimized, marginalized group against a group that they are currently victimizing and marginalizing.

I do in fact use terms for ethnic groups that many members claim they consider grossly offensive; black and African American. Most however, don't. This is the OVERWHELMING case with cis woman as well.

This is a basic fact that every TERF and other trans-excluding 'woman's' group fails to integrate; you do not own womanhood. You do not speak for womanhood. It is not a weapon you can swing against the other. This fear isn't of losing 'what they've worked for', it's for losing control and power. It's the sad hanging on to power that was fought for at first for noble goals, but power does what power does. 'Erase your identity' only works if one believes the markedly unfeminist idea that what is between your legs defines you as a person. What are you afraid of losing? From you last article, it looks like you want to reject women from being given shelter from violence because they're trans women, even though trans women are at greater risk of violence than cis women. How very kind of you.

Be grossly offended. Being offended doesn't make you right. I'll continue to offend you just like I continue to grossly offend radical Christians by denying a belief in any god, just like I'll grossly offend Trump supporters by opposing his harms, just like I'll grossly offend anti-vaxers with scientific facts.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Look at it this way. Let's look at once common but slightly older and archiac term that has mostly fallen out of use... crossdresser. A crossdresser was (is, I'm sure the subculture still exists in some context) a person who preferred to wear the clothing of the other gender.

See the problem? For that concept to have any meaning at all you have to agree that men and women are required by some level; social, legal, whatever to wear different clothing. If you don't, if you think men should be able to wear skirts and women to wear to wear pants and so forth... the concept stops being meaningful.

Very good point. And that may in fact be the reason why you don't hear much about crossdressers in today's debates. You don't see any crossdresser cultural groups intervening in the current discussion. It's kinda out of fashion culturally. That was back then, when there was no debate about the existence of two genders, so it made sense. But as you correctly point out, to validate crossdressing, you have to validate the fact that there are differences between how men and women dress.

The paradox still exists today, though, because transgender people do the same thing: They transform physically and dress like the opposite sex. So they're admitting that there's an opposite sex. Though there are also transgender people who are only transgender "in their soul" so to speak. While they look like their "original" sex, they claim to be the other one, because that's how they feel.

And that's all fine, by the way. Adults are free to do whatever they want. Just don't act like there aren't clear differences between males and females. Because if there were actually zero differences, then the whole concept of transgender and pretty much, the whole discussion, would be moot.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

The humans are confusing, aren't they?

Confusing and confused

 

[tyr_13]

It has multiple usages. According to a quick google etymology search it means "across" in latin, which in astrological context apparently means "beyond". Makes sense to me. Even for gender it makes sense as "beyond sex" ie different than just one's sex.

cis IS a pointless modifier 99% of the time, because almost all discussions about men and women aren't about making such a distinction. Sometimes, the distinction is necessary and having a convenient, easy-to-understand (at least to anyone who took high school chemistry) label for this is ideal.

I just did it in a sentence from my last post.

"From you last article, it looks like you want to reject women from being given shelter from violence because they're trans women, even though trans women are at greater risk of violence than cis women."

It's much more clear than otherwise. The entire argument against its use isn't on language grounds really, it's all about denying that trans women are women.

 

[Thermal]

Not any more than "right-handed" is superfluous just becausae 90% of humans are rightcis-handed. It just has a more limited use.

FTFY

 

[Belz...]

Yes. I know. But across-gender, beyond-gender, on-the-other-side-of-gender all make absolutely no sense (I didn't see the stand-alone 'other' while flipping through definitions for trans).

Makes sense to me, though.

 

[Meadmaker]

entire argument against its use isn't on language grounds really, it's all about denying that trans women are women.

Indeed. That's it.


It's all about who can claim to be a woman, and for what purpose.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Once again, humans are utterly confused by the difference between using of language to define things in the real world, and using of language to invent things that don't exist in the real world.

*Taps the side of my nose.*

 

[qayak]

What do you mean?

Men are modified females. They were all females until testosterone was introduced and modified them.

Not any more than "right-handed" is superfluous just becausae 90% of humans are right-handed. It just has a more limited use.

Handed means nothing. If you say "I am handed" no one knows what you are talking about. If you say "I am female" everyone knows. Everyone is born male or female and some spend a certain amount of time transitioning Modifying themselves) to the other gender so they are called transgender. In my opinion, once they get there they are just that gender and no longer trans. I can be on a trans-continental trip but once I get there the trip is over and I am just on the other side of the continent.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Men are modified females. They were all females until testosterone was introduced and modified them.

Oh Jesus Christ...

And how and why exactly should that affect anything at all? In what possible real world, day to day context should that impact anything being discussing about sexual and gender roles and relationship in real life?

 

[qayak]

The entire argument against its use isn't on language grounds really, it's all about denying that trans women are women.

Women ARE women no matter how they got there. The labels "trans" and "cis" are what separates them.

 

[qayak]

Oh Jesus Christ...

And how and why exactly should that affect anything at all? In what possible real world, day to day context should that impact anything being discussing about sexual and gender roles and relationship in real life?

Who said it affects anything? It is clarification of a point I made about labels that I was asked to give.

 

[Belz...]

Men are modified females. They were all females until testosterone was introduced and modified them.

What in the blue hell are you talking about? Children are not all females, and neither are foetuses at any point of their development. Children are already differentiated, and foetuses start halfway before a certain point.

Handed means nothing. If you say "I am handed" no one knows what you are talking about. If you say "I am female" everyone knows.

I didn't say anything about "handed". How are you missing my point so utterly? The point is that if you want to refer to right-handed people specifically, we have a term for that even though most people are right-handed. The English language could very easily have not had any term for right-handed people but one for left-handed people, but having one for both is useful when you want to know which hand you favour. This isn't rocket science.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Who said it affects anything? It is clarification of a point I made about labels that I was asked to give.

And this is labels and distinctions for the sake of labels and distinctions, not for clarity or inclusion.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I agree with you. Only one needs a modifier and one already exists, "trans." Cis is superfluous.

Only if you refuse to call trans women women and trans men men. It is just like this BS heterosexual as if that is a real thing, you have normal people and gays.

100 Years ago no one was heterosexual it is a silly meaningless term.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Would you say the same thing about "straight" (meaning heterosexual)?

Isn't the only modifier we need the word "gay"? Why do we need a modifier for the rest of us?

Exactly there are normal people and gays. Simple. You are either a man or a gay man. Straight and heterosexual are totally meaningless and have no role in discussions of sexuality.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I've heard the occasional homophobe complain about it, but it's pretty rare.

Most likely because it has been around long enough that they are not claiming that they are making things that don't exist up with language.