"It Doesn't Happen!" (e.g. trans women wrecking women's sports)

[Little Dragon]

Except for a fully transitioned trans woman
who has all the brain, plumbing & hormones
of a woman. To refer to her as a "biological
male that identifies as woman" is absurd
& abusive because it is not merely to identify.

I would find it offensive. If I were a transwoman. To be described as a biological male that identifies as a woman.
I'd be fine with just, woman. If you need extra details about my biology, then that's on a need to know basis surely?

 

[Soandso]

Indeed, why do they focus on gender and sexuality so much, these people that rail against any deviation from their parochial and subjective worldviews?

Could they be sexually repressed authoritarians, projecting their fears and insecurities and of course, self loathing, onto others?
I judge that some must be.

What other rationale could there be?
For opposing trans and gay rights?

Oh I don't pretend to know. As humans we have our convictions and it takes much to shake us from them, if nothing else. Regardless, time marches on. Those of us who don't accept and embrace change will be left behind and unable to identify or adapt to the world we find ourselves in. It's a tale as old as time, and it's certainly not unique to this day and age

 

[Kfox]

I find it interesting that many folks who are upset at the way language changes to incorporate different concepts focus on gender

Why does this surprise you? People will often have a problem with people whom they disagree with giving them a label to live under. What it comes down to is are trans women real women. People who believe they are have no problem with the Cis label; those who believe they are not and want a distinction between them and trans people will often find the label offensive.

 

[Kfox]

Except for a fully transitioned trans woman
who has all the brain, plumbing & hormones
of a woman. To refer to her as a "biological
male that identifies as woman" is absurd
& abusive because it is not merely to identify.

I said nothing about referring to them as a biological man that identifies as a woman, I said referring to them as transwomen regardless of whether they are fully transitioned or not.

 

[Soandso]

Why does this surprise you? People will often have a problem with people whom they disagree with giving them a label to live under. What it comes down to is are trans women real women. People who believe they are have no problem with the Cis label; those who believe they are not and want a distinction between them and trans people will often find the label offensive.

Surprised? No. "Interesting" was the word I used. Don't misconstrue what I write, please

As for the second bit, you do realize that if you find "cis" offensive, that's on you. It's not meant with ill intent and is simply clarifying language. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it

I'm reminded of things some Christian friends have told me of that I didn't like all that much. When I'm told "I'll pray that you find your way back to Jesus," I know that it comes from a place of caring. I mean, I could confront them about how I find that offensive and dismissive of my beliefs, but they'd just look at me weirdly and I'd probably lose a friend. What's the point?

 

[Revoltingest]

I said nothing about referring to them as a biological man that identifies as a woman, I said referring to them as transwomen regardless of whether they are fully transitioned or not.

Unless the context requires it,
I just call'm "women".

 

[Little Dragon]

When I'm told "I'll pray that you find your way back to Jesus," I know that it comes from a place of caring.

It puzzles me when people say similar things to me, just because I speak english and identify as european british. It's not like I ever knew this Jesus. So there is no going back to where you've never been.

 

[Revoltingest]

It puzzles me when people say similar things to me, just because I speak english and identify as european british. It's not like I ever knew this Jesus. So there is no going back to where you've never been.

You believe in Jesus, but are in denial.
(I've been told this...more or less.)

 

[Little Dragon]

You believe in Jesus, but are in denial.
(I've been told this...more or less.)

It's insulting that they apparently think there is no other possible alternative worldview. Until you realize why they think that!

 

[Soandso]

It puzzles me when people say similar things to me, just because I speak english and identify as european british. It's not like I ever knew this Jesus. So there is no going back to where you've never been.

Different denominations have different beliefs on this. Some believe that being Christian is the default state of being and that anything other than that is being "led astray by the world" for example. In my case, most of my life was spent as a Christian, so it was meant in the literal sense

 

[Soandso]

You believe in Jesus, but are in denial.
(I've been told this...more or less.)

Thankfully I was never told it with that intent, otherwise I might feel differently. Those aren't actually "friends"

 

[Little Dragon]

Different denominations have different beliefs on this. Some believe that being Christian is the default state of being and that anything other than that is being "led astray by the world" for example. In my case, most of my life was spent as a Christian, so it was meant in the literal sense

Ah. My friend at university was/is a muslim and he told me that in Islam, all children are born muslim, irrespective of race or nationality.
I found this quite strange and somewhat egotistical, but also I found some respect for the seemingly inclusive and equitable nature of that theological position!

 

[Revoltingest]

It's insulting that they apparently think there is no other possible alternative worldview. Until you realize why they think that!

A Christian gal once told me that
Christianity isn't religion....it's reality.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thankfully I was never told it with that intent, otherwise I might feel differently. Those aren't actually "friends"

I tolerate such characterizations of me.
But I also provide them with the alternative view.

 

[Alien826]

Well, because trans people and cis people exist. If I'm speaking on topics where we need to isolate them as people groups and speak about them in the same context, such as in topics involving sports, differentiating people using labels such as "cis" or "trans" avoids confusion when we are talking about what categories people belong to

Now, ones mileage may vary. Older folks don't use "cis" oftentimes, so I have to use "biological" with them for clarity's sake. For instance, I have a friend who has very masculine features, but she's a cis woman. I used to work with her, and people at work would sometimes ask me if she was trans. If they were younger, I'd just tell em she's cis. For older coworkers, though, I'd have to tell them she's "biologically female" or "biologically a woman." Not a fan

This reminds me of when digital watches first came in. They realized that there was no word for a conventional watch. It had never been needed as there had only been one kind of watch, one with hands. Anyway, they came up with "analog" which makes sense if you think about it.

 

[Little Dragon]

This reminds me of when digital watches first came in. They realized that there was no word for a conventional watch. It had never been needed as there had only been one kind of watch, one with hands. Anyway, they came up with "analog" which makes sense if you think about it.

A good analogy.

 

[Alien826]

Unless the context requires it,
I just call'm "women".

Hopefully that's where it ends up. Consider the following

Black man
Gay man
Trans woman

Think for a moment about why, in average conversation (meaning where the extra word is not necessary to fit the subject of the conversation), the words "man" and "woman" aren't enough. Why do we need to zero in on these aspects of the person?

 

[Kfox]

As for the second bit, you do realize that if you find "cis" offensive, that's on you. It's not meant with ill intent and is simply clarifying language. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it

I’m reminded of an old white man I used to work with years ago who said there were 2 different types of black people; regular black people who behave in a way that he approves of; and N*** (the N-word) for black people whose behavior he disapproved of.
He said this with no ill intent, that’s just how he felt. So even though I was offended by his views, it wasn’t enough for me to refrain from using the word in order to fix it; my problem was the fact that he might use that word to describe me.

I'm reminded of things some Christian friends have told me of that I didn't like all that much. When I'm told "I'll pray that you find your way back to Jesus," I know that it comes from a place of caring. I mean, I could confront them about how I find that offensive and dismissive of my beliefs, but they'd just look at me weirdly and I'd probably lose a friend. What's the point?

I remember I was once in a room full of Christians, and a black Christian whom I knew for years upon finding out I was a non-believer said from a place of caring; “I had no idea you were Atheist! Heck; as far as I’m concerned based on your behavior, you are more of a Christian than many of these so-called Christians claiming to be one.
I responded with “suppose a white man told you based on your behavior you are more of a white man than many of these so-called white men claiming to be white? Would you call that a compliment? He immediately saw the offensiveness of his words.

I will bet if you told these Christian friends of yours you hope some day they find their way out of the shackles of Christianity and into the freedom of non-belief; they would have seen how offensive they were being.

 

[Kfox]

This reminds me of when digital watches first came in. They realized that there was no word for a conventional watch. It had never been needed as there had only been one kind of watch, one with hands. Anyway, they came up with "analog" which makes sense if you think about it.

The difference is, when digital watches came out, there was not a significant percentage of the population claiming they were not real watches.

 

[Soandso]

I’m reminded of an old white man I used to work with years ago who said there were 2 different types of black people; regular black people who behave in a way that he approves of; and N*** (the N-word) for black people whose behavior he disapproved of.

I've heard that in the past, too. Thankfully people aren't so vocal with that "sentiment" these days from what I've seen

He said this with no ill intent, that’s just how he felt.

There's a big difference between a word like "cis" which is a newer word with little baggage used for clarification purposes and the n-word which has a very long and steeped history. Totally different roots and totally different intentions

So even though I was offended by his views, it wasn’t enough for me to refrain from using the word in order to fix it; my problem was the fact that he might use that word to describe me.

Do you still associate with this man? I assume not. Freedom of speech is supposed to be a protected right in this country. The consequences of his speech was that you most likely went out of your way not to associate with him outside of work as much as possible. Seems to be working as intended, from what I can see. Cancel culture isn't a new thing by any means

I remember I was once in a room full of Christians, and a black Christian whom I knew for years upon finding out I was a non-believer said from a place of caring; “I had no idea you were Atheist! Heck; as far as I’m concerned based on your behavior, you are more of a Christian than many of these so-called Christians claiming to be one.
I responded with “suppose a white man told you based on your behavior you are more of a white man than many of these so-called white men claiming to be white? Would you call that a compliment? He immediately saw the offensiveness of his words.

Sounds reasonable. Doesn't seem to be what I notice from what I've seen of your interactions here, though

My point this whole time is that times and language are changing, and many people such as myself are using words that I guess you find offensive, but if things continue as they are right now then that will just be the way English evolves. What then? Will you eventually stop being offended and just accept the word's usage or is it just so offensive to you that you would just continue to feel the way you do now? Is the word "cis" really on the same level as the n-word? Is it THAT offensive?

I will bet if you told these Christian friends of yours you hope some day they find their way out of the shackles of Christianity and into the freedom of non-belief; they would have seen how offensive they were being.

Eh, if we are talking about my personal situation, I would probably just affirm their preconceived notions that I had "fallen from God" and that I needed their prayers more than ever. Not only that, but they might try to get my family to talk to me about it - which I most definitely don't want to happen considering my brother is the only person who knows about my atheist beliefs. These are people who've known me and my family since I was a child, so its a little more complicated than that, unfortunately