News2 mins ago
Piers Morgan Article On 'gender Fluidity'
34 Answers
I know I'm giving a link to a Daily Mail piece written by Piers Morgan (probably the two worse unofficial crimes that can be committed on Answerbank), but he's right, isn't he?
http://
Virtue signallers are very quick to point out that people have a right to decide what gender they are, which of course they do, but it doesn't make it any less absurd that one day or one hour somebody may decide they're a woman if they're a man or a man if they're a woman (can we still use words like 'man' and 'woman' without offending those who think they are neither?). Those same virtue signallers are probably the ones that use the ridiculous term 'cis gender'.
http://
Virtue signallers are very quick to point out that people have a right to decide what gender they are, which of course they do, but it doesn't make it any less absurd that one day or one hour somebody may decide they're a woman if they're a man or a man if they're a woman (can we still use words like 'man' and 'woman' without offending those who think they are neither?). Those same virtue signallers are probably the ones that use the ridiculous term 'cis gender'.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Cisgender" isn't such a ridiculous term really. It just arises from an acceptance that transgender people are real, and "non-transgender" is clearly too clunky while "normal" is too dismissive.
As for Piers Morgan's article -- it adopts the usual tone of these things: "This one person seems to hate men and therefore everyone who doesn't agree with me agrees with her and that's outrageous and now I'm going to be even more assertive of my right to exist that was never actually under threat really but who cares because ragegasm."
Not much else more to say, although I'm sure people will be along shortly to explain how grateful they are that finally someone has come along to repeat the freely-spoken doctrine of millennia that somehow they were under the illusion is now "oppressed" just because these days it no longer goes unchallenged.
As for Piers Morgan's article -- it adopts the usual tone of these things: "This one person seems to hate men and therefore everyone who doesn't agree with me agrees with her and that's outrageous and now I'm going to be even more assertive of my right to exist that was never actually under threat really but who cares because ragegasm."
Not much else more to say, although I'm sure people will be along shortly to explain how grateful they are that finally someone has come along to repeat the freely-spoken doctrine of millennia that somehow they were under the illusion is now "oppressed" just because these days it no longer goes unchallenged.
It's (potentially) dismissive the other way round: "Normal is what everyone else is and you are not."
I mean, it's possible to use "normal" and "abnormal" in a neutral, purely statistical way -- no-one can realistically deny that transgender people are in a minority -- but it's not uncommon for it to be meant in a dismissive or derogatory sense.
I'm sure you'll get used to the term. And if not, just replace "cisgender" in your head with "normal" every time you hear it. Problem solved.
I mean, it's possible to use "normal" and "abnormal" in a neutral, purely statistical way -- no-one can realistically deny that transgender people are in a minority -- but it's not uncommon for it to be meant in a dismissive or derogatory sense.
I'm sure you'll get used to the term. And if not, just replace "cisgender" in your head with "normal" every time you hear it. Problem solved.
Jim,l //I'm sure you'll get used to the term. And if not, just replace "cisgender" in your head with "normal" every time you hear it. Problem solved. //
I won't be doing that, Jim. If people have a problem it's their problem. I think it's an absolute cheek to expect the rest of the world to accept personal rebranding to accommodate the foibles of the few.
I won't be doing that, Jim. If people have a problem it's their problem. I think it's an absolute cheek to expect the rest of the world to accept personal rebranding to accommodate the foibles of the few.
100% correct Naomi.
It is now becoming ridiculous that extreme minorities can inflict such radical, and often ridiculous, change.
And I am not just talking about the trans whatever stuff.
What many of these minorities dont get is that their actions actually alienate people who otherwise probably would not give a monkeys.
It is now becoming ridiculous that extreme minorities can inflict such radical, and often ridiculous, change.
And I am not just talking about the trans whatever stuff.
What many of these minorities dont get is that their actions actually alienate people who otherwise probably would not give a monkeys.
I can't help but wonder...
If you go to the police and report an assault and they ask for a description of your assailant, should you not say "male" or "female" for fear of causing offence to someone who appears to be male but may be "identifying" as female?
The whole flipping world has gone to pot.
NoMercy (Do you mind if I "identify" as a white heterosexual female?)
If you go to the police and report an assault and they ask for a description of your assailant, should you not say "male" or "female" for fear of causing offence to someone who appears to be male but may be "identifying" as female?
The whole flipping world has gone to pot.
NoMercy (Do you mind if I "identify" as a white heterosexual female?)
Personally I'd never use the term Cis unless I had been requested to by a person , for me it seems too text book - I'd also likely address a class in a Girls School as Girls in my greeting.
However, if they raised a hand/s and asked me for a different approach I'd happily adapt it to what they felt comfortable with.
Too much time is spent getting on high horses about this when it can be easily resolved by a bit of dialogue.
However, if they raised a hand/s and asked me for a different approach I'd happily adapt it to what they felt comfortable with.
Too much time is spent getting on high horses about this when it can be easily resolved by a bit of dialogue.
To be clear and not antagonistic for a change, I want to say that in the first place people who go on about not calling pupils in girls' schools "girls" irritate me too. For different reasons, perhaps -- they give people like Piers Morgan an excuse, it seems, to lump everyone who remotely shares the same view (that gender is, in fact, not as binary as we have assumed) in the same boat, and so ignore the reasonable in terms of the unreasonable. Put another way, Morgan et al are deliberately misrepresenting the arguments by taking extreme versions of them, because of course they are -- but many miss that.
Take "cisgender". This word doesn't do anything other than serve as a useful shorthand for "people whose gender identity corresponds with their biological sex" -- a shorthand that makes sense, because nowadays we recognise that not all people are "people whose gender identity corresponds with their biological sex". No-one's identity is threatened, or devalued, or otherwise affected by inventing or using this word. It just saves having to repeat that phrase when comparing transgender people to "not transgender". That's all.
And yet apparently some people perceive it as somehow a devaluation of their identity. I can't imagine where that comes from. Only I can, because there are -- unfortunately -- a number of people, both LGBT advocates and reactionaries -- who are determined to turn acceptance of LGBT rights into some kind of zero-sum game. "LGBT people can't get equal rights unless we take away other people's." That's not true. But Morgan et al paint a picture where it is. And, sadly, they seem to have no shortage of ammunition.
Still, I don't apologise for the "aww, shame" remark. "Cisgender" is only a shorthand, carries no offence, brings no devaluation of most people's identities, and I have no time for people determined to pretend that it is so. I'm not going, to coin a phrase, to go about "treading on eggshells".
Take "cisgender". This word doesn't do anything other than serve as a useful shorthand for "people whose gender identity corresponds with their biological sex" -- a shorthand that makes sense, because nowadays we recognise that not all people are "people whose gender identity corresponds with their biological sex". No-one's identity is threatened, or devalued, or otherwise affected by inventing or using this word. It just saves having to repeat that phrase when comparing transgender people to "not transgender". That's all.
And yet apparently some people perceive it as somehow a devaluation of their identity. I can't imagine where that comes from. Only I can, because there are -- unfortunately -- a number of people, both LGBT advocates and reactionaries -- who are determined to turn acceptance of LGBT rights into some kind of zero-sum game. "LGBT people can't get equal rights unless we take away other people's." That's not true. But Morgan et al paint a picture where it is. And, sadly, they seem to have no shortage of ammunition.
Still, I don't apologise for the "aww, shame" remark. "Cisgender" is only a shorthand, carries no offence, brings no devaluation of most people's identities, and I have no time for people determined to pretend that it is so. I'm not going, to coin a phrase, to go about "treading on eggshells".
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.