Author Topic: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!  (Read 81522 times)

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 90428
    • View Profile
Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
« Reply #660 on: August 16, 2012, 12:55:08 am »

No worries on that score.  I am more than a little dense, but once I see reason in something, it takes a lot more than that to get me to change my mind again (as far as the language goes), and I still think Garbo has her shit together.  On everything but this one subject.
How? I know I fucked up with the wording and managed to alienate a lot of people, but where specifically is this still tangled?


You said yourself it was used in frustration.  It was used as a blunt instrument.

I've thought about it, and I don't see it as being the same as what Nigel said.  I saw it as being the same thing I was saying about Southern rednecks a couple of weeks back.  It was used as a perjorative.  It wasn't a wording issue, it was simply wrong.

You're not a politician, Garbo, you haven't got enough shit smeared all over you...So "poorly phrased" doesn't work.  It was just plain wrong.  Everyone does it.  Kings do it, beggars do it.  It's a matter of whether or not you can admit that it was wrong, without waffling.  Almost nobody can.  Can you?
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Juana

  • Hideous and Otherworldly Attack Duckling of DESPAIR
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 5226
    • View Profile
Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
« Reply #661 on: August 16, 2012, 12:58:09 am »
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

"Cis" has nothing to do with sexual orientation, though. You can be a cisgender lesbian just as you can be a straight transman (or the myriad of possibilities in between!)

I guess, if "cis" seems silly, does "straight" seem silly as well?

Yeah. It does. Actually I think its kinda insulting because it indicates hetero = strait and gay = not straight; bent/twisted

So looking some more, I see how you could be a male/female who identifies as being a male/female but is homosexual. However, I still don't see any value in it. Its a label saying your inside and outside genetics match. Why make that into a label?

Labels are bad. Labels identify 100% of the person by 1% of their identity. It allows the brain mapping software to say "This person is X and therefore my interactin with them will be like my interaction with other X".

What positive value would there be to cis?
No, it doesn't, unless that's the ONLY label you have, at which point it becomes a uniform.

Positive value to it: discussion, helping trans*/queer people realize and accept what might otherwise be a bewildering difference, use in academic studies.

While we are on the topic, of gender and sexuality.
If a persons sense of gender is cut off, say they are blindfolded even though there is the obvious flaw to that example and they are enjoying sexual behaviour with someone without knowledge of what gender they are.
Is this only sensuality as opposed to sexuality?
is that an asexual cis.
What if they imagine it is a a person of the opposite gender does that make them asexual cis hetrosexual?

What? Gender is way, way not sex or sexuality.
Probably.
No. Asexuals either never or very, very rarely experience physical desires for sex.
I assume it either makes them bi or homosexual.


Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

Its a word that is worthless as a descriptor, and its common usage is pejorative or bigoted, hence its comparison to Cunt.
Criticise the ideas all you want but as a descriptor language goes the word CIS  is never going to be taken as anything other than a slur.

I'm not offended, in fact I'm doing my best to get my head around the concept in a way that is at least more fun and more interesting then the last five pages.

No, the common use is specifically relate to one aspect of gender identity (which is not worthless, actually). That's all. If it were, for all intents and purposes, ONLY a slur, I sure as fuck wouldn't use it.
/cranky


You sure fooled me
I've used it elsewhere on the board in a way that can't be taken wrongly long before I said what I said (which, again, is my bad).

Quote
Jillana Enteen wrote that "cissexual" is "meant to show that there are embedded assumptions encoded in expecting this seamless conformity."

That seems like a terrible reason to create a label.

"Some people expect conformity. So lets label their version of normal."
Source?
And I disagree (surprising, amirite?). Useful for showing that their normal is not the ONLY normal.
"I dispose of obsolete meat machines.  Not because I hate them (I do) and not because they deserve it (they do), but because they are in the way and those older ones don't meet emissions codes.  They emit too much.  You don't like them and I don't like them, so spare me the hysteria."

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 90428
    • View Profile
Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
« Reply #662 on: August 16, 2012, 01:00:23 am »
Another thing is this:  The topic was whether or not the patriarchy was bad for men as well.  It started off discussing eglatarianism.

It has come all the way around to elitism, in a weird sense.  Whose oppression was worse.  Is there some sort of score being kept?  Who's the champ?  Blacks?  Women?  Gays?  The Welsh?   The people living NEXT to the Welsh?  Anyway, are we talking about the influence of the patriarchy on men, or are we lining up to measure our burdens?

Because if we are, Dirty Old Uncle Roger has a bedtime story to tell you.  It's full of misery and woe and really rotten shit happening to people who didn't particularly deserve it, and about the guy that made it all happen.  And the people that demanded that it occur.  It's got it all. 

Or we could go back to discussing the topic in its original form.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Pope Pixie Pickle

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 4704
    • View Profile
Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
« Reply #663 on: August 16, 2012, 01:04:03 am »
:putin:

 :lulz: :horrormirth:

Putin does not like the Feminism.

Search for "Pussy Riot".
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

Yea I explained that "cis" is not a pejorative, or at least tried to.

At least the thread has got back on some kind of track.
Oh, and because I never get to be on this side of these things...


C'mon 50 pages!!!

I'm calling 45.   Just based on the history of discussions on feminism on PeeDee.

Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

it's not about genetics, its about gender identity,

You are born a dude, with dudely genitals you idenitfy with being a dude- Cis man.

You are born a ladyperson, with lady genitals, you identify with being a lady person. - Cis woman.

You are born with dude parts, identify with being a ladyperson, - Trans woman

You are born with lady parts, identify with being a dudeperson- Trans man.
its separate from sexuality, as my shitty-looking yet time consuming to create graph crudely tries to explain.


Sexuality axis
Gay
|
|
|
Gender Identity Axis
Cis-------------------Trans
|
|
|
Hetero

In the middle of the gender identity axis, lives genderqueer folks, who can and often do flip between gender identities depending on how you are feeling that day.

In the middle of the sexuality axis, there is bi- (or if you have a thing for the genderqueer folks, maybe pan-) sexual.

Ah, crap. Signora Paes (BTW I thought you were Paes in Drag, I got a confused) already explained it while I was mid post. But formatting my little axis and descriptions was EFFORT, and so fuck alla youse I'm posting it.

Heteronormative MAY seem like a clunky term, but it describes a society that automatically assumes heterosexuality as a default.  Imagine a world where everyone  "came out" as their particular position on the gender identity/sexuality and no one made any assumptions. That would be a world where the word heteronormative is redundant.

"YOU SAY CULTURAL MARXISM LIKE IT'S A BAD THING"

Faust

  • Tyrannical Overlord
  • Deserved It
  • *
  • Posts: 9827
  • The Greasy Strangler
    • View Profile
Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
« Reply #664 on: August 16, 2012, 01:06:20 am »
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

"Cis" has nothing to do with sexual orientation, though. You can be a cisgender lesbian just as you can be a straight transman (or the myriad of possibilities in between!)

I guess, if "cis" seems silly, does "straight" seem silly as well?

Yeah. It does. Actually I think its kinda insulting because it indicates hetero = strait and gay = not straight; bent/twisted

So looking some more, I see how you could be a male/female who identifies as being a male/female but is homosexual. However, I still don't see any value in it. Its a label saying your inside and outside genetics match. Why make that into a label?

Labels are bad. Labels identify 100% of the person by 1% of their identity. It allows the brain mapping software to say "This person is X and therefore my interactin with them will be like my interaction with other X".

What positive value would there be to cis?
No, it doesn't, unless that's the ONLY label you have, at which point it becomes a uniform.

Positive value to it: discussion, helping trans*/queer people realize and accept what might otherwise be a bewildering difference, use in academic studies.

While we are on the topic, of gender and sexuality.
If a persons sense of gender is cut off, say they are blindfolded even though there is the obvious flaw to that example and they are enjoying sexual behaviour with someone without knowledge of what gender they are.
Is this only sensuality as opposed to sexuality?
is that an asexual cis.
What if they imagine it is a a person of the opposite gender does that make them asexual cis hetrosexual?

What? Gender is way, way not sex or sexuality.
Probably.
No. Asexuals either never or very, very rarely experience physical desires for sex.
I assume it either makes them bi or homosexual.


Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

Its a word that is worthless as a descriptor, and its common usage is pejorative or bigoted, hence its comparison to Cunt.
Criticise the ideas all you want but as a descriptor language goes the word CIS  is never going to be taken as anything other than a slur.

I'm not offended, in fact I'm doing my best to get my head around the concept in a way that is at least more fun and more interesting then the last five pages.

No, the common use is specifically relate to one aspect of gender identity (which is not worthless, actually). That's all. If it were, for all intents and purposes, ONLY a slur, I sure as fuck wouldn't use it.
/cranky


You sure fooled me
I've used it elsewhere on the board in a way that can't be taken wrongly long before I said what I said (which, again, is my bad).
Because of the context in which you have used it in this thread, if I find it elsewhere it's going to cause serious reservations as to your impartiality on the subject and lack of prejudice on what you described as cis men.
I'm not saying that to shock or upset you, it's merely something that is. Personally I see it as a shame that my first exposure to the term is used as a slur.
Narrator: In time you will know the tragic extent of my failings

May you find your worth in the waking world.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

  • Probably
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 11430
    • View Profile
Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
« Reply #665 on: August 16, 2012, 01:11:05 am »
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

"Cis" has nothing to do with sexual orientation, though. You can be a cisgender lesbian just as you can be a straight transman (or the myriad of possibilities in between!)

I guess, if "cis" seems silly, does "straight" seem silly as well?

Yeah. It does. Actually I think its kinda insulting because it indicates hetero = strait and gay = not straight; bent/twisted

So looking some more, I see how you could be a male/female who identifies as being a male/female but is homosexual. However, I still don't see any value in it. Its a label saying your inside and outside genetics match. Why make that into a label?

Labels are bad. Labels identify 100% of the person by 1% of their identity. It allows the brain mapping software to say "This person is X and therefore my interactin with them will be like my interaction with other X".

What positive value would there be to cis?
No, it doesn't, unless that's the ONLY label you have, at which point it becomes a uniform.

Well, thats true for the individual who is identifying themselves as X. However, when we're labeling someone else, then yeah... the brain works on "This person is X, therefore they will act like other X's I've met" its the connection between the word and the idea, the reality and the semantic connection we have in our brain. Its the core problem with labels.


Quote
Positive value to it: discussion, helping trans*/queer people realize and accept what might otherwise be a bewildering difference, use in academic studies.

Uh... so 'lets make up a label for those guys, so these guys will feel better'?
Quote
Quote
Jillana Enteen wrote that "cissexual" is "meant to show that there are embedded assumptions encoded in expecting this seamless conformity."

That seems like a terrible reason to create a label.

"Some people expect conformity. So lets label their version of normal."
Source?
And I disagree (surprising, amirite?). Useful for showing that their normal is not the ONLY normal.

Source is the wiki article you linked to which links to the original source. But the other definitions listed in that wiki seem equally bad to me... but as I stated above, I'm generally against labels whenever possible.

If we're scientists/psychologists writing a paper on a specific topic talking about a graph as Pixie so nicely posted, I can get it. But using it in a discussion like this seems really not great (to me)
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

Faust

  • Tyrannical Overlord
  • Deserved It
  • *
  • Posts: 9827
  • The Greasy Strangler
    • View Profile
Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
« Reply #666 on: August 16, 2012, 01:11:58 am »
:putin:

 :lulz: :horrormirth:

Putin does not like the Feminism.

Search for "Pussy Riot".
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

Yea I explained that "cis" is not a pejorative, or at least tried to.

At least the thread has got back on some kind of track.
Oh, and because I never get to be on this side of these things...


C'mon 50 pages!!!

I'm calling 45.   Just based on the history of discussions on feminism on PeeDee.

Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

it's not about genetics, its about gender identity,

You are born a dude, with dudely genitals you idenitfy with being a dude- Cis man.

You are born a ladyperson, with lady genitals, you identify with being a lady person. - Cis woman.

You are born with dude parts, identify with being a ladyperson, - Trans woman

You are born with lady parts, identify with being a dudeperson- Trans man.
its separate from sexuality, as my shitty-looking yet time consuming to create graph crudely tries to explain.


Sexuality axis
Gay
|
|
|
Gender Identity Axis
Cis-------------------Trans
|
|
|
Hetero

In the middle of the gender identity axis, lives genderqueer folks, who can and often do flip between gender identities depending on how you are feeling that day.

In the middle of the sexuality axis, there is bi- (or if you have a thing for the genderqueer folks, maybe pan-) sexual.

Ah, crap. Signora Paes (BTW I thought you were Paes in Drag, I got a confused) already explained it while I was mid post. But formatting my little axis and descriptions was EFFORT, and so fuck alla youse I'm posting it.

Heteronormative MAY seem like a clunky term, but it describes a society that automatically assumes heterosexuality as a default.  Imagine a world where everyone  "came out" as their particular position on the gender identity/sexuality and no one made any assumptions. That would be a world where the word heteronormative is redundant.
Wait a minute, I've seen this thing before

I wrote this thing off as absurdism and only specific context means anything with it.

I think I am becoming a gender/sexuality nihilist.
Narrator: In time you will know the tragic extent of my failings

May you find your worth in the waking world.

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 90428
    • View Profile
Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
« Reply #667 on: August 16, 2012, 01:13:40 am »
:putin:

 :lulz: :horrormirth:

Putin does not like the Feminism.

Search for "Pussy Riot".
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

Yea I explained that "cis" is not a pejorative, or at least tried to.

At least the thread has got back on some kind of track.
Oh, and because I never get to be on this side of these things...


C'mon 50 pages!!!

I'm calling 45.   Just based on the history of discussions on feminism on PeeDee.

Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

it's not about genetics, its about gender identity,

You are born a dude, with dudely genitals you idenitfy with being a dude- Cis man.

You are born a ladyperson, with lady genitals, you identify with being a lady person. - Cis woman.

You are born with dude parts, identify with being a ladyperson, - Trans woman

You are born with lady parts, identify with being a dudeperson- Trans man.
its separate from sexuality, as my shitty-looking yet time consuming to create graph crudely tries to explain.


Sexuality axis
Gay
|
|
|
Gender Identity Axis
Cis-------------------Trans
|
|
|
Hetero

In the middle of the gender identity axis, lives genderqueer folks, who can and often do flip between gender identities depending on how you are feeling that day.

In the middle of the sexuality axis, there is bi- (or if you have a thing for the genderqueer folks, maybe pan-) sexual.

Ah, crap. Signora Paes (BTW I thought you were Paes in Drag, I got a confused) already explained it while I was mid post. But formatting my little axis and descriptions was EFFORT, and so fuck alla youse I'm posting it.

Heteronormative MAY seem like a clunky term, but it describes a society that automatically assumes heterosexuality as a default.  Imagine a world where everyone  "came out" as their particular position on the gender identity/sexuality and no one made any assumptions. That would be a world where the word heteronormative is redundant.
Wait a minute, I've seen this thing before

I wrote this thing off as absurdism and only specific context means anything with it.

I think I am becoming a gender/sexuality nihilist.

Filing systems for people.    :lulz:  Isn't that GREAT?

Learn what you are.  Look at our chart and find out what box you go in.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Juana

  • Hideous and Otherworldly Attack Duckling of DESPAIR
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 5226
    • View Profile
Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
« Reply #668 on: August 16, 2012, 01:16:25 am »

No worries on that score.  I am more than a little dense, but once I see reason in something, it takes a lot more than that to get me to change my mind again (as far as the language goes), and I still think Garbo has her shit together.  On everything but this one subject.
How? I know I fucked up with the wording and managed to alienate a lot of people, but where specifically is this still tangled?


You said yourself it was used in frustration.  It was used as a blunt instrument.

I've thought about it, and I don't see it as being the same as what Nigel said.  I saw it as being the same thing I was saying about Southern rednecks a couple of weeks back.  It was used as a perjorative.  It wasn't a wording issue, it was simply wrong.

You're not a politician, Garbo, you haven't got enough shit smeared all over you...So "poorly phrased" doesn't work.  It was just plain wrong.  Everyone does it.  Kings do it, beggars do it.  It's a matter of whether or not you can admit that it was wrong, without waffling.  Almost nobody can.  Can you?
I'm not denying that it was wrong. I've said it a couple times already. I do try to stand on my feet and keep my knuckles off the ground.

I'm not sure how you're not seeing how I used it to criticize the set of ideas it was intended to (eta: which matters less, I admit, since it was wrong anyway). I used "cis" to eliminate transmen. I used "man" to indicate who the oppressor was in that situation. I used "tears" in order to indicate that I think feeling attacked for being asked to think about or change oppressive behavior was silly and out of place.
Was it the wrong thing to say? Yes, and not just because it fucked up the thread. It's not a phrase I'll say again because it was wrong.


But I think the criticism - that men who otherwise want to help but freak out when asked to think about/change their shitty behavior are out of line - is still valid.


Because of the context in which you have used it in this thread, if I find it elsewhere it's going to cause serious reservations as to your impartiality on the subject and lack of prejudice on what you described as cis men.
I'm not saying that to shock or upset you, it's merely something that is. Personally I see it as a shame that my first exposure to the term is used as a slur.
Which is 100% valid and I don't begrudge you or anyone else for it.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2012, 01:22:55 am by Secret Agent GARBO »
"I dispose of obsolete meat machines.  Not because I hate them (I do) and not because they deserve it (they do), but because they are in the way and those older ones don't meet emissions codes.  They emit too much.  You don't like them and I don't like them, so spare me the hysteria."

Juana

  • Hideous and Otherworldly Attack Duckling of DESPAIR
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 5226
    • View Profile
Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
« Reply #669 on: August 16, 2012, 01:21:45 am »
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

"Cis" has nothing to do with sexual orientation, though. You can be a cisgender lesbian just as you can be a straight transman (or the myriad of possibilities in between!)

I guess, if "cis" seems silly, does "straight" seem silly as well?

Yeah. It does. Actually I think its kinda insulting because it indicates hetero = strait and gay = not straight; bent/twisted

So looking some more, I see how you could be a male/female who identifies as being a male/female but is homosexual. However, I still don't see any value in it. Its a label saying your inside and outside genetics match. Why make that into a label?

Labels are bad. Labels identify 100% of the person by 1% of their identity. It allows the brain mapping software to say "This person is X and therefore my interactin with them will be like my interaction with other X".

What positive value would there be to cis?
No, it doesn't, unless that's the ONLY label you have, at which point it becomes a uniform.

Well, thats true for the individual who is identifying themselves as X. However, when we're labeling someone else, then yeah... the brain works on "This person is X, therefore they will act like other X's I've met" its the connection between the word and the idea, the reality and the semantic connection we have in our brain. Its the core problem with labels.


Quote
Positive value to it: discussion, helping trans*/queer people realize and accept what might otherwise be a bewildering difference, use in academic studies.

Uh... so 'lets make up a label for those guys, so these guys will feel better'?
Quote
Quote
Jillana Enteen wrote that "cissexual" is "meant to show that there are embedded assumptions encoded in expecting this seamless conformity."

That seems like a terrible reason to create a label.

"Some people expect conformity. So lets label their version of normal."
Source?
And I disagree (surprising, amirite?). Useful for showing that their normal is not the ONLY normal.

Source is the wiki article you linked to which links to the original source. But the other definitions listed in that wiki seem equally bad to me... but as I stated above, I'm generally against labels whenever possible.

If we're scientists/psychologists writing a paper on a specific topic talking about a graph as Pixie so nicely posted, I can get it. But using it in a discussion like this seems really not great (to me)
I'm going to address this really quick and then run 'cause I have to go.

It's useful discussing privilege. It's useful for internal labels. It's useful for understanding systems.

Uh... so 'lets make up a label for those guys, so these guys will feel better'?
*shrug* okay. I found it useful for that. Not everyone will.

The first bit deserves more discussion than I have time for. I'll come back to it.
"I dispose of obsolete meat machines.  Not because I hate them (I do) and not because they deserve it (they do), but because they are in the way and those older ones don't meet emissions codes.  They emit too much.  You don't like them and I don't like them, so spare me the hysteria."

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 90428
    • View Profile
Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
« Reply #670 on: August 16, 2012, 01:23:14 am »
But I think the criticism - that men who otherwise want to help but freak out when asked to think about/change their shitty behavior are out of line - is still valid.

Sure.  But remember that to some degree, the medium IS the message...In this case, the choice of words contaminated the message.

And I've known some pretty misogynist gay men that weren't cis at all.  And we've seen that misandry is quite the same.  It's not related in any way to what your own orientation or gender or any of that shit happens to be, but rather what your perception of the quality in question is.  Otherwise, there'd be no such thing as a "self-loathing homosexual" or "self-loathing Black person".

What you and Nigel were describing is "threatened privilege", I think.  This can be displayed among people who say silly-ass shit like "If Gays marry, then all marriages become meaningless" (I wonder what THEIR home life is like?).  Or it can be seen among men who view feminism as "ball-busting"...Or hell, among women who think that the rise of feminism means they can't be feminine anymore (ludicrous, but very common), and therefore reject it.

It can REALLY be seen on Fox News, when they get all torqued up about Iran having its own opinions, or the fact that one of Those People got elected president.  And it's the same fucking thing, no matter what wrapper it comes in.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Faust

  • Tyrannical Overlord
  • Deserved It
  • *
  • Posts: 9827
  • The Greasy Strangler
    • View Profile
Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
« Reply #671 on: August 16, 2012, 01:25:08 am »

No worries on that score.  I am more than a little dense, but once I see reason in something, it takes a lot more than that to get me to change my mind again (as far as the language goes), and I still think Garbo has her shit together.  On everything but this one subject.
How? I know I fucked up with the wording and managed to alienate a lot of people, but where specifically is this still tangled?


You said yourself it was used in frustration.  It was used as a blunt instrument.

I've thought about it, and I don't see it as being the same as what Nigel said.  I saw it as being the same thing I was saying about Southern rednecks a couple of weeks back.  It was used as a perjorative.  It wasn't a wording issue, it was simply wrong.

You're not a politician, Garbo, you haven't got enough shit smeared all over you...So "poorly phrased" doesn't work.  It was just plain wrong.  Everyone does it.  Kings do it, beggars do it.  It's a matter of whether or not you can admit that it was wrong, without waffling.  Almost nobody can.  Can you?
I'm not denying that it was wrong. I've said it a couple times already. I do try to stand on my feet and keep my knuckles off the ground.

I'm not sure how you're not seeing how I used it to criticize the set of ideas it was intended to. I used "cis" to eliminate transmen. I used "man" to indicate who the oppressor was in that situation. I used "tears" in order to indicate that I think feeling attacked for being asked to think about or change oppressive behavior was silly and out of place.
Was it the wrong thing to say? Yes, and not just because it fucked up the thread. It's not a phrase I'll say again because it was wrong.


But I think the criticism - that men who otherwise want to help but freak out when asked to think about/change their shitty behavior are out of line - is still valid.


Because of the context in which you have used it in this thread, if I find it elsewhere it's going to cause serious reservations as to your impartiality on the subject and lack of prejudice on what you described as cis men.
I'm not saying that to shock or upset you, it's merely something that is. Personally I see it as a shame that my first exposure to the term is used as a slur.
Which is 100% valid and I don't begrudge you or anyone else for it.
It's refreshing to see you say it, and I'll do my best to keep an open mind if I do come across it. In response to the bolded part:

People don't learn that way, its not a natural way to change ones mental behaviour. It's why learn by experience will always beat textbook rote learning. It's frustrating but it is a natural defence mechanism built into people when confronted with things about themselves they don't want to hear, you cant just say it you have to social engineer them so they think they have realised it about themselves.
Narrator: In time you will know the tragic extent of my failings

May you find your worth in the waking world.

Pope Pixie Pickle

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 4704
    • View Profile
Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
« Reply #672 on: August 16, 2012, 01:47:26 am »
eh they are spectrums, rather than boxes. Its a fancy way of saying , or at least in my case "hello I'm pixie, I'm heteroflexible, like to fap over dudes with beards and dresses and am a bit of a tomboy, and have had occasional sex with women" which would put me a little bit away from straight on the axis, and I've floated around the gender identity spectrum from Cis woman to a little bit into genderqueer country, although I refer and think of myself as a ladyperson and am by that point currently in Cis-woman land. the fact that I wanted to be a boy-person as a very young kid and wanted to be able to pee standing up and facing the loo is pretty irrelevant now. I tried it, and it was messy.  :lulz:  I'd like to find a way of peeing outside that doesn't involve me peeing on the legs of my jeans and shoes though.

Least that's the way I look at them, when I don't side eye the whole concept of a gender binary and set behaviours and traits determined by genitalia you were born with as being a needlessly restrictive pile of bullshit.

I think I said earlier upthread, that the reason I don't get pissed off by these terms is that despite my take on a gender binary being a bullshit social construct is that in the broader picture,  the world at large enforces a gender binary, so the terms like trans or genderqueer are a tool for those who don't feel particularly attuned to the gender identity that goes with the genitalia you were born with that helps them figure out what the fuck is going on with them as individuals.

Biological sex does not equal gender, is the basics of that concept, really. 
"YOU SAY CULTURAL MARXISM LIKE IT'S A BAD THING"

Signora Pæsior

  • International SlutLord; Promiscuous Advocate of Mischief
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
    • View Profile
Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
« Reply #673 on: August 16, 2012, 02:05:46 am »
Jesus christ, it's not a bigoted term any more than trans* is. It's a specialized word, that's all. Did I use it in a way that can be construed as bigoted? I suppose so, if you're not willing to see that it's about criticizing IDEAS rather than sex or gender (I really do not want to have to start this over again; I've explained it like twice already). Are there people who do use it like that and paint a broad brush over all cis men? Absolutely. I used it poorly to describe what Nigel called the 'tragedy of the oppressor', that's all.

I don't understand its value at all... I don't care if people want to use it, but it seems like a pretty useless label.

"trans" = your inside genetics and outside genetics don't match
"homosexual' = your sexual preference is for the same sex
"cis" = your inside genetics and outside genetics match and your sexual preference is for the opposite sex.

err... the first two I get, the third seems silly to me.

"Cis" has nothing to do with sexual orientation, though. You can be a cisgender lesbian just as you can be a straight transman (or the myriad of possibilities in between!)

I guess, if "cis" seems silly, does "straight" seem silly as well?

Yeah. It does. Actually I think its kinda insulting because it indicates hetero = strait and gay = not straight; bent/twisted

So looking some more, I see how you could be a male/female who identifies as being a male/female but is homosexual. However, I still don't see any value in it. Its a label saying your inside and outside genetics match. Why make that into a label?

Labels are bad. Labels identify 100% of the person by 1% of their identity. It allows the brain mapping software to say "This person is X and therefore my interactin with them will be like my interaction with other X".

What positive value would there be to cis?

Fair enough. And I'm not a fan of "straight" for much the same reason, though I haven't really found a decent alternative.

Most of the time I see "cis" used, it's trying to pull the dichotomy away from being "normal/trans" to "cis/trans". Something to do with giving all gender identities a label makes them all normal. Whether it works or not I don't know, but I have no issue being labelled a cis pansexual woman if the situation calls for it.
Petrochemical Pheremone Buzzard of the Poisoned Water Hole

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 90428
    • View Profile
Re: Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!
« Reply #674 on: August 16, 2012, 02:08:01 am »

Fair enough. And I'm not a fan of "straight" for much the same reason, though I haven't really found a decent alternative.


People?  Alongside all the other people?
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.