TheRevanchist Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 Do not google cyst porn! It is as bad as you think!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercurial Posted June 20, 2013 Report Share Posted June 20, 2013 http://reddit.com/r/popping Don't click that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 I'm confused as to what that tumblrinaction subreddit was supposed to show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 So it's some term that won't help me find porn on tumblr? Well, at least I know. it will help if you don't want to find chicks with dicks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 You guys are being intentionally obtuse if you don't get why he said his original tweet. Or if you're just ignorant of why people hate the word cis http://reddit.com/r/tumblrinaction I addressed that in my post but to be clear, if you (by that I mean he) feel that way make a post about it on your blog where you can form your opinion and provide context. Don't post a tweet that makes you look like an absolute arsehole and back it up by tweeting things that just look worse and then making a blog post that doesn't actually clarify your position or apologise. Treading on eggshells is a very real problem worthy of discussion. Lots of people with good intentions get themselves into trouble and get attacked for it and it makes it difficult to get the discussion into the general public and normalise the issue because people fear saying the wrong thing. He's just reinforcing why people out there are hyper sensitive though by being completely insensitive himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 So "I'm cisgender." is essentially a non-provocative way of saying "I'm normal."? Or am I missing something here? Note: I'm not entirely comfortable with the way I phrased that. I hope I didn't offend anyone here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted June 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 Essentially "I'm cisgender" is to "I'm transgender" as "I'm straight" is to "I'm gay". Essentially yeah it's a way to avoid going "She's a black transgender lesbian, and I'm normal". And also a quick shortcut word during discussion instead of saying "man born as a man,with man bits, who self-identifies as a man". When it comes to LGBT, especially the T, personal identity is a big part of it. And Gabriels' views shit all over that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 Ok. In that case I kind of get where he is coming from in that it might come off as a bit pretentious especially if used outside of a gender identity conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted June 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 Given he'd been in recent bother with his "women have vaginas/people with vaginas are women" stuff, it'll have been used in gender identity conversations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 who uses it outside of that context though? Point in case, you're a clever guy and seem not to have come across it. And yes it's a shame these isn't a less scientific, more friendly sounding term for it but it is still a topic that makes people uncofortable so I guess that's why there aren't so many colloquialisms outside of insults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturnine Tenshi Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 I don't think there's any problem using "cisgender" in the context of transgender discussion. But I also don't take issue with anything Gabriel has said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 I think women have vaginas I think you call a person with a vagina a woman. This statement is basically saying to trans people "you don't exist and/or your self identity is invalid." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturnine Tenshi Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 (edited) I know what he said, Ethan. I don't take issue with what he said because I don't get offended by everything on the Internet. If that were the case, I'd be out punching anyone who uses the word "privilege" or denies the existence of reverse discrimination in the gonads. Whether those gonads make that person a man, woman, transgender or whatever you'd like to call them. Edit: People spend so much time trying to impose what they believe on others and taking offense instead of trying to understand a person or what a person has said or done. There's already enough of the circle-jerking going on where communities only care about themselves. And frankly, I'm sick of people flipping their shit whenever someone says something they don't agree with or like. Edited June 21, 2013 by Saturnine Tenshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 who uses it outside of that context though? Point in case, you're a clever guy and seem not to have come across it. And yes it's a shame these isn't a less scientific, more friendly sounding term for it but it is still a topic that makes people uncofortable so I guess that's why there aren't so many colloquialisms outside of insults. Well that's kind of my point, I've not heard the term before, and it would be easy to use the term in an effort to seem superior because you know all the gender identification terms. I don't know the context for PA bloke hearing the term. Perhaps it was delivered in a condescending manner? If the conversation went: PA Bloke: I don't have a problem if you are transgender or non-transgender. Some patronising guy: Um, I think you'll find the term is cisgender. Then I'd get why he would find the person irritating and associate that term with patronising gits. He should however have explained his annoyance on a channel that gave him more than 140 characters to work with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturnine Tenshi Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 @Thursday: https://twitter.com/juliepagano/status/347749438355283968 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 I know what he said, Ethan. I don't take issue with what he said because I don't get offended by everything on the Internet. If that were the case, I'd be out punching anyone who uses the word "privilege" or denies the existence of reverse discrimination in the gonads. Whether those gonads make that person a man, woman, transgender or whatever you'd like to call them. Edit: People spend so much time trying to impose what they believe on others and taking offense instead of trying to understand a person or what a person has said or done. There's already enough of the circle-jerking going on where communities only care about themselves. And frankly, I'm sick of people flipping their shit whenever someone says something they don't agree with or like. Yes, because endemic, societal discrimination against a minority is totally the same thing as discrimination against an empowered majority, and should be treated that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturnine Tenshi Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 (edited) That. Edit Again: And I didn't mean to derail things with my analogy. But I did mean what I said. Fight for your cause, yeah. But if you really think attacking everyone who doesn't agree with you and/or isn't properly educated on a matter is going to further your cause, you're in for a surprise. Freedom of speech should go both ways—regardless of how insipid or wrong or even hateful it is. Though I wouldn't describe what he said as hateful. Uncaring and snarky, yes. Edited June 21, 2013 by Saturnine Tenshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 @Thursday: https://twitter.com/juliepagano/status/347749438355283968 Cheers, looks like he has a problem with the person who used the term and they way they used it in that instance, rather than having an issue with the term itself. Shame he didn't have the "do not engage" statue to hand instead of responding to the baiting and backing himself into a corner. He's not really one for admitting he is wrong is he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 Freedom of speech does go both ways. Me saying "your opinion is stupid and wrong and you should shut up" is not the same thing at all as me saying "you do not have the right to express your opinion." People can express their opinions all they way, but free speech (the ideal, not the law, the law only affects what government can do) doesn't protect them from other people reacting negatively to those opinions, it only protects them from being forcibly silenced. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturnine Tenshi Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 Right. But people do use their influence to forcibly silence a person they don't agree with. I know that comes from him being relatively famous insofar as the Internet and gaming are concerned, but PA wouldn't be the first to have their view smothered because of a group of vocal folk who were upset with their "stupid, wrong" opinion. And it wouldn't be the first time for PA, either. Dickwolves and all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 How is he being forcibly silenced? No one's deleting his tweets, or preventing him from expressing his views. It's not like an irl speech where he could be drowned out by boos to the point where no one could hear him, his comments are still there for anyone to see. Shaming someone into silence is not the same as forcibly silencing them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturnine Tenshi Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 I didn't mean to say he is in this instance. They have been in the past. I was just saying that it's not some thing that's unheard of. And again: I know what he said, Ethan. I don't take issue with what he said because I don't get offended by everything on the Internet. If that were the case, I'd be out punching anyone who uses the word "privilege" or denies the existence of reverse discrimination in the gonads. Whether those gonads make that person a man, woman, transgender or whatever you'd like to call them. Edit: People spend so much time trying to impose what they believe on others and taking offense instead of trying to understand a person or what a person has said or done. There's already enough of the circle-jerking going on where communities only care about themselves. And frankly, I'm sick of people flipping their shit whenever someone says something they don't agree with or like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 How have they been forcibly silenced in the past? Has their web host taken down the site, or what? I'm sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves, when people try to use "free speech" as a defense against any criticism of their views. And of course people are going to get offended when you take an issue that is extremely morally and personally important to them and cast it aside as a non-issue. The idea that you are (apparently) more bothered by people taking issue with his insensitive comments than you are by the comments themselves is just sickening to me. His comments were incredibly demeaning toward people who face discrimination and hate constantly, but god forbid people might have a problem with that, and express that they have a problem with it. That's taking it too far. (For the record, I do think things like that person saying "this is why I hate cis men" is taking it too far. Lumping all cis men in with his comments is just as small-minded, though less societally problematic.) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRevanchist Posted June 21, 2013 Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 So, here is what I don't get: Why are we creating more labels for people? Quote: It Kierkegaard or Dick Van Patten who said "If you label me, you negate me"? - Wayne's World To me, labeling is more aligned with segregation and the mentality of 'This sides mine and that sides yours and don't ever come 'round here again.'. I personally despise this line of thinking, especially after living in the South for one year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted June 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2013 Labels are useful for discourse. Much easier to discuss lgbt issues when you have terms such as gay, straight, trans, cis and so on. Pretty much why any labels exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.