Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'd have to see.  It looks pretty knotted up.

In fact, it looks like everything that's been explained to me in the last 2 days has been bullshit.

That's more than a little extreme, and comes across as a cop-out.

I rephrased in a later post.  On this page.

ETA:  reply 592, last page.

What I learned is still correct.  That's not the issue.

OK, I'm catching up now.

I think one thing to remember is that everybody makes mistakes. One of the worst mundane tragedies that happens to almost everyone is the fundamental attribution error; when someone words something badly or does something that is generally out of character for them, and the other person revises their entire concept of them negatively based on that one mistake or interaction.

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.

[Faust]

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.

[Signora Pæsior]

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?

[AFK]

I'm gonna add that the word "cis" doesn't try to define what "woman" or "man" means to you. Or how you express it. Or what it means in other cultures.

And who the fuck is Jayne Mansfield?

A poor cis-man's Marilyn Monroe.


Not the guy who sings The Beautiful People.

[Faust]

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.

Isn't that the word hetronormative, another redundant cumbersome word.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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?

I would think that the very idea of eglatarianism would be to remove labels, not add them.

I spent some time bouncing around google, and I have not seen one single example of "cis" that wasn't being used as a club to beat someone with.

[Faust]

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?

There was no room on the character sheet for that class selection. How do we roll for it and how many points can we spend in it?

Straight does seem silly.

[Salty]

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?

There was no room on the character sheet for that class selection. How do we roll for it and how many points can we spend in it?

Straight does seem silly.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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?

[Juana]

How did you search for it, Rog? Because here's a couple of examples I got using "cisgendered" which are consistent with the common usage and general search results, although "cis man" still got similar results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
http://www.basicrights.org/uncategorized/trans-101-cisgender/
http://queerdictionary.tumblr.com/post/9264228131/cisgender-adj

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.

No, that's intersexuality. Which is a difference between your physical and phenotypical sexes (XX and XY are the usual, but you get XXY, etc. and sometimes other things go wrong with the process of making a male, and bodies tend to default to female when that happens). Trans* is that the gender that is culturally expected of your body is not the one you are. Which may or may not have anything at all to do with your junk.

Correct.

Your sexuality has nothing to do with your gender. Cis is not a fancy way of saying heteronormative (heterosexual man born in a male body and a heterosexual woman born in a female body, among other things). It's a way of saying "man born in a male body" and "woman born in a female body". There are cis lesbians and cis gay men and cis heterosexuals, asexual, bisexuals, etc. etc. Cis is a word used to describe one part of the gender sphere or continuum or whatever your preferred word is, that's all.

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

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?

I'm gonna add that the word "cis" doesn't try to define what "woman" or "man" means to you. Or how you express it. Or what it means in other cultures.

And who the fuck is Jayne Mansfield?

Made a bazillion dollars playing ditzy blond characters. Usually was falling out of her clothes, talking in a high, squeaky voice and crossing her eyes like she had brain trauma.  It was a long time ago.

http://houseofglambeauty.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/sophia_and_jayne.jpg

THAT GAL! Didn't she have, like, a pink-and-hearts house or something?

[Faust]

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?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What positive value would there be to cis?

Jargon.

[Faust]

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

[Faust]

What positive value would there be to cis?

Jargon.

And a way of adding another gender pronoun divide where there wasn't one.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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."