You must log in or register to comment.
Oh I didnt realise Jordan Peterson had come out as trans! 🏳️⚧️
uwu
Hmm he still uses he/him so it’s beyond me but maybe he’s just on another level of transatude that we haven’t unlocked yet
He’s a non-binary boymoder. Lots of “traditionalist” friends and family, you see, so he’s taking his time to test the waters and hasn’t even changed pronouns yet. Please be patient with him 🙏
Perhaps he’s a man in a woman’s body in a man’s body.
Instead of a skeleton inside him it’s just an entire second person. He’s a Russian nesting person.
DOOT DOOT JORDAN YOUR SKELETON WANTS OUT
maybe he’s just on another level of transatude
The many layers of TRANSCEPTION!
🏳️⚧️ 🏳️⚧️ 🏳️⚧️
Who the fuck knows. His story arc still has some life in it.
i don’t know what’s more pathetic: a) that a grown ass man still makes /c/iamverybadass threats on the internet; or b) that there are grown ass men who actually think he’s tough
People who think Jordan Peterson is very badass.
Bold of you to assume that he or his fans are grown.
Listen, everyone. It’s so simple. We just need a neutral word to describe people who are not trans. Okay, the prefix “trans” is Latin for across, so the Latin word for not across is… you’re not going to believe this.
ok ok maybe that’s not familiar enough as a prefix so it gets a reaction. we could find a familiar prefix to note that your gender is the same as what you were assigned at birth…
from now on the opposite of transgender is… homogender!
Yay, I’m a homo!
Congrats homo!
Same goes for cisfats opposed to transfats
Trans-ex?
obviously the people that object to the word object to needing a word for “non-trans”, not that they have some particular objection to the word “cis” itself.
it’s important to understand your opponents’ point of view if you want to be able to destroy it effectively
So It’s hard to get into the headspace where I could get offended by being called cis but I’ll try. Here is a metaphor that hopefully won’t be too offensive.
Imagine if vegetarians started identifying non-vegetarians en masse with the label “Omnivores”. The first critique would likely be, “But it’s normal for humans to be omnivores; It’s the neutral state!”. That’s how most people, including many allies, feel about being cis. It’s the neutral state to them and doesn’t/shouldn’t require a label.
Obviously context matters but I can see how inflection could make it sound like a slight if someone is already loaded with insecurities.
well the whole point is to make all of it “normal”. it’s normal for humans to be cis, yes, and so is to be trans. so instead of calling people “trans” and “normal”, you call them “trans” and “cis”.
and make no mistake, that’s why people oppose the term “cis”. they want to other trans people, and normalizing the term threatens the system of oppression.
That’s the obvious motivation, my comment is to illustrate how the frustration could be relatable and to humanize everyone involved. For those people who don’t value their freedoms the entire idea is just an inconvenience.
Honestly the word just has a gross sound to me. Reminds me of cysts.
Imagine if vegetarians started identifying non-vegetarians en masse with the label “Omnivores”. The first critique would likely be, “But it’s normal for humans to be omnivores; It’s the neutral state!”
I don’t see the problem. Non-vegatarians/vegans are already called omnivores and it doesn’t seem to be a problem. I wouldn’t expect them to go out of their way to label themselves as such unless they were saying something like “I’m an omniVore” as a Vore joke. Carnists is the term that’s used to be derogatory (although I think some weirdos who like to define themselves in opposition to vegans do call themselves that?). Likewise, “cissies” is a derogatory way to refer to the cis, but “cis” is just the neutral word used describe them. I wouldn’t expect people to go out of their way to proclaim their cisness, but getting upset that the term exists and people use it is mostly just a bit.
We spend immense effort getting the world to listen and allow us to be identified by how We wish to be identified. To flip the script and say we get to determine how others are identified unapologetically does not parse.
If someone wanted to identify their pronouns as “fuck n******”, I’m never going to respect their label or the person as a whole. If you make your whole identity about hating others, then you deserve to either totally ignored or mocked.
That sort of situation is the exception, not the rule.
I’ve seen them call omnivores “bloodmouths” now on lemmy because carnist wasn’t offensive enough I guess?
I’ll gladly call non-vegans, who vehemently defend eating meat and oppose anything remotely vegan, carnies to piss them off
As a lifetime vegetarian, please utilize that energy in a more useful way. Your cohort makes my life difficult.
Porque no los dos?
Because idealistic posturing is for children and getting someone to eat less meat is more helpful than creating an atmosphere where vegans/vegetarians have to spend time apologizing for the loud minority.
I’d have to disagree. Calling out unethical and hypocritical dietary choices shouldn’t be frowned upon. Sure, calling someone names isn’t the ideal way, but there’s only so much giving in to cognitive dissonance one can endure before you’re frustrated enough to call someone a carnie (which is basically not an insult if you ask me). It’s obviously striking a chord if they’re offended and getting them to think about their life choices.
I’ve heard from many vegans who have only changed their ways when exposed to the very blunt ways of vegancirclejerk, so there is definitely some merit to it. At least online where there are a lot of babies around. It’s a different thing when in person.
Mountains don’t grow in a day. We don’t feel the ground shifting under us.
I would argue the majority of people react to sharp critique by closing themselves off. I know plenty of people that started by reducing their meat intake to a few meals a week. That kind of conversion is the most likely to get results.
I don’t understand why some people get so bent out of shape over the term cisgender. Latin prefixes are even more common in English than abbreviations like AMAB.
It’s just transphobia. If you don’t have cis (wo)men and trans (wo)men, then you just have (wo)men and trans (wo)men, which implies that trans (wo)men are not (wo)men.
Got it. I didn’t understand because they make it seem like it’s an insult to be called cisgender. They’re actually just upset that it removes an avenue of bigotry.
Fucking gross.
They think it’s an insult as they use trans as one.
I live in a conservative area and when I’m at the bar I sometimes hear people using the term “liberal” as a slur. I kinda makes me laugh, but also makes me a bit sad.
I tend to think that conservative is actually a description for limited cognitive means. Progress in any form or shape needs liberal thinking as you wouldn’t find any progressing features by thinking inside the box. Ergo conservatism is inherently the bane of progress. Labeling yourself, proudly even, is just a tell-tale sign that you’re either cognitively limited or afraid of progress. The weird part though is that conservatives lacked the drive to counter the idea that reactionary or regressive thinking people (i.e mostly fanatics or fascists,monarchists ) may be called conservative. They are not by the definition of the word itself
The reasoning is simple: it’s just straight up transphobia. The term “cis” is just a neutral descriptor to pair with “trans” with no implication of being right or wrong. They’re mad at the existence of a term for the majority that doesn’t imply an insult to the minority.
Thanks. Another commenter pointed that out. They’re not really taking offense to the term so much as objecting to the concept of genders differing from biological sex. It’s awful.
There’s no reason to challenge the term otherwise. Cis is Latin for “on this side of” and trans is “across, beyond, or on the other side.” There’s really nothing objectionable about either prefix.
As someone who used to think it was an offensive term, it’s likely ignorance and because it’s often used in a deragatory and dehumanizing way on the internet.
At first I didn’t know what cisgendered or cis meant, but I definitely saw it used to describe a group of people non-cis folks didn’t like very much. Of course I eventually learned, but still had a bit of a distaste due to the initial impression.
Also, I always saw “cishet” as a cheeky way of saying “cis shit” because it was also often used negatively in the places I originally came across the term. Once someone explained it in a comment section I finally understood it wasn’t hateful terminology but instead descriptive.
You can’t stop someone from being negative but at least knowing what the words are meant to mean can help identify a bad person rather than bad word.
Interesting. I didn’t have that experience myself, but I’ve definitely seen those types of comments. I absolutely understand how that could leave a bad impression. I’ll be more mindful of educational opportunities when having discussions about it in the future. Exposure and understanding are the enemies of bigotry.
Thanks for the insight!
Bigots often have a problem with being accurately described because gaslighting is part of the strategy. Useful ignorants provide cover.
Look, I’ve never been anti-gay or anti-trans, but this kind of attitude isn’t winning over the people who are in the middle.
I’m talking about generalizing and stereotyping type statements that, even if you aren’t homo/transphobic, feel like they’re targeted at you. When someone says, to give a hyperbolic example, “cisgendered white men are bigots”, they are not actually referring to all cis white men. But if you’re cis and white, you now know they assume you’re not a good person by default.
Tribalism is never the way.
Where were you seeing this online? (How much can I blame cursed social media algorithms feeding you bullshit?)
Reddit was where I came across that the most. I don’t use much social media so my exposure is relatively small.
Interesting. I don’t use social media much either (hence why it’s taken me days to see and respond here lol) but I’ve just never seen it. Not that I don’t believe you. Shit happens
At first I didn’t know what cisgendered or cis meant, but I definitely saw it used to describe a group of people non-cis folks didn’t like very much. Of course I eventually learned, but still had a bit of a distaste due to the initial impression.
How long was this “eventually”? I feel like it should be a couple minutes to search and land on the Wikipedia page.
Hmm maybe longer that it should have been, but do you really expect everyone to search for something instead of inferring the meaning based on context?
Yes? I often look up words I don’t know what they mean.
I’m gonna be real with you. I do the same shit. I don’t understand something? Well, I have a phone on me so unless it’s horribly complicated I’m about to understand it.
We aren’t normal in that respect. Most people are happy with their ignorance, or at least that’s my observation so far.
We aren’t normal in that respect
Given I got 5 down votes and no upvotes on the previous comment, you might be right.
It’s so funny when right wing talking heads decide to go for the tough guy routine.
It makes me want to call him cis to his face on camera, and then let him do whatever he wants.
At best he humiliates himself by proving that he can’t do shit about what you say to him. At worst he assaults you and you get to ride the “I got assaulted by Jordan Peterson” train for a while.
I kinda hope he tries so I have an excuse to fight back. So many of these pundit fucks need a solid punch to the jaw
You think he could do any physical damage? I’m 5’2, 120 lbs and could see myself just laughing at him
The other side of his comment is that he is willing to be pulled into a physical struggle over being labeled a gender.
What a weakass anti-philosopher / anti-therapist.
Patient: “Doctor, I feel like my coworkers are labeling me … what should I do ?”
Dr Peterson: “Have you considered beating them to death ?”
what a fucking loon
Peterson is a moron, but I also don’t like the word cis. If people are allowed to be called what they want to be, then if they want to be called straight, that should be fine
But that’s a different thing than cis. Straight is to whom you’re attracted, cis is who you are.
I don’t really get the distinction. Either way, if I say I identity as a straight white male, that should be sufficient enough for everyone to understand and move on.
I afford the same courtesy to all my LGBT brothers and sisters. I call you as you wish to be addressed.
Well, not getting the distinction is pretty important. People can’t discuss an issue without both understanding the definition of terms, or we’d just be speaking different languages to each other.
Cis and trans are both Latin prefixes.
Trans- is a Latin prefix meaning “across”, “beyond”, or “on the other side of”.
Cis- The prefix “cis-” comes from the Latin meaning “on this side,” as opposed to “trans-” which means “on the other side of” or “beyond.”
So all cisgender means is not transgender. Or transgender means not cisgender. Neither are insults that should offend, and if one does, it might be a viewpoint thing.
You are, presumably, a homo sapiens sapiens. We don’t use that term generally, and just call you human. However, both are correct labels, and they aren’t insults. If there were homo neanderthalensis around still, the distinction may come up in conversation for various reasons, and that’s when it’d be necessary to have the different labels.
Straight or gay/bi/lesbian/pan/ace/demi etc are all talking about something completely different, which is your sexual orientation. Calling you straight when we’re discussing whether you are cis or trans would be like calling you lotion or something when talking about your species. Lotion isn’t a species, so it’s pointless to the conversation, and just plain wrong.
You could of course request to be called lotion, but it’s a confusing title if someone was discussing your species, especially medically, in socially (as in social issues or norms for your species), issues that pertain to your species, medication, etc.
Now, here is where I might be skirting close to accusing you of something, but if possible, please just think deeply about it. Why is CIS unacceptable but straight acceptable? Is it possible that CIS makes you not feel “normal” as a label, while straight does?
A women which transitions to male can also be a straight white male, but they are not cis.
Calling someone cis basically just mean that they are not trans. Generally speaking a straight white male may or may not be cis.
I believe the above point is that cisgender (cissexual) is a term for one who identifies as their birth sex, as opposed to transgender.
It’s not defining of your attractions and isn’t an opposite of “straight”.
You can identify as a different race?
You know a lot of straight people don’t want to be called straight either, right? They want to be called “normal” because they see gay people as freaks and don’t understand that words like straight, gay, trans, and cis are descriptive and neutral.
Someone is clearly uncomfortable in their body.
Is he/she saying they transitioned?
How wonderful!
Poor snowflake can’t handle three little letters :(
Imagine needing to other someone so badly that you have a tantrum because someone created a name for the “default” category. Peterson views trans people as so subhuman he doesn’t even want there to be a word for non-trans people.
Bitch this whole thing started because _your side _ couldn’t handle him using three letters
With all due respect (none), what the hell are you talking about?
Not in any way agreeing with the take, but I’d imagine they mean MtF vs Female and FtM vs Male.
Those are normal terms used by the trans community…
Lad seems like a Peterphile.
I imagine they’re referring to Peterson misgendering someone using him/her, perhaps the Elliot Page debacle. A stupid and unrelated comment, to be sure.
I think people were just aware that he made inappropriate comments about Elliot’s breasts, called him a sinner, and called his physician a criminal, before absolutely losing his shit and having a very public meltdown about getting his tweets removed for being harassing and derogatory.
The only bitch in here is the person trying and failing to defend Jordan Peterson. I just can’t believe I actually saw one of his ten fans in the wild. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is one of his alts.
What thing?
Him coming to prominence and speaking up about the rediculesness of modern leftist politics
Be specific so you can be properly owned
He gained traction by openly fighting against forced speech in the form of ‘personal pronouns’. He used ‘he’ to adress a male-to-‘female’ trans person and people lost their minds, which is quite funny now that you all make fun about “three letters”.
One is actually backed by every single major medical and psychological institution in the country and has been consistently studied by the medical field for a century, the other is people upset by a word that isnt even derogatory
Is the term ‘cis’ an insult now? Or am I not spending enough time reading people whining over politics?
Bigoted reactionaries, like Elon and Jordan, want to make cis a slur so they can ban its usage and prevent inclusive vocabulary. They’re not actually offended by it.
They’re not actually offended by it.
I’m not too sure about that. Some people just want something to be offended over and end up making stuff up so they can be upset.
Transphobes have been trying to turn it into one for a while, so they can play victim about it.
The biggest thing I can think of is it sounds like sis. As in sissy.
If you’re down voting my observation please do go ahead and explain why. Am I factually wrong in the way the word sounds?
Time to revert to the old Latin pronunciation of /kis/ and start calling Peterson specifically “keesgender”
Lol go for it.
Thats not what it means though, and I’m willing to wager most people upset about it know that. If someone is offended by how qn adjective sounds…I truthfully cant really say anything to that
Read it as cheese and you’ll insult the lactose intolerant.
The biggest thing I can think of is it sounds like sis. As in sissy.
Yeah. I can’t really control how a word sounds, though, and if you’re triggered because it sounds like “sissy”, that’s due to toxic masculinity, which is still a you problem. I’m not your therapist.
Culture war nonsense. Try not to spend much time at all if you can.
They’ll pick anything to get more airtime. I remember them going after Jill Biden for using the prefix Dr but not in the medical sense.
They don’t believe the words they’re saying and playing this fake intellectual debate to keep attacking the liberals.
Not really, but there are some particularly crazy/militant/extreme people in the left and trans community who use it like it is.
Often not on it’s own, usually in phrases like “cishet white male”. Usually implying that the simple existence of this particular combination of uncontrollable personal traits is inherently problematic. Sometimes outright stating it. Sometimes literally calling for genocide or eugenics, or saying that it is entirely impossible to be a cishet white male and also be a good person.
It’s the type of behavior that young men see that drives them into shit like Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, etc.
I’d imagine the people saying these things think it is fair or payback for the sexists, racists, bigots, etc that call for the same for their group. Payback for the reprehensible behavior they have had to endure. Hearing similar things directed at them may have driven them into the arms of extremist shit stirrers on their side.
Makes for a shitty, shitty cycle of reciprocal attack on people defined as “other”.
Personally, I don’t think the target makes a difference. It’s reprehensible behavior either way. Go find a healthier output for your hurt. There are times where being the bigger person or taking the high road is not effective, but that should never be the assumed default or a situation to look forward to.
All that said, anyone arguing that those extremists are somehow leaders in the wider community is more interested in fanning the flames than anything else.
You see, “cis” implies the existence of “trans” and some people just really don’t like the fact that they exist. Despite the it being fact.
Because it can be used as an exclusionary term to minimize cis voices. Stay with me, this isn’t going where you think.
When trans folks engage in community discussions, it’s very typical for cis people to insert themselves into the conversation so they can tell trans people who they are and aren’t, what they should and shouldn’t do. This actually happens with a lot of minority groups hoping to have serious discussions in public. Black folks hear about all lives matter or black-on-black violence, atheists here from religious proselytizers, etc.
So when trans folks - very rightly - let cis people know not to talk over them in their own communities, bigots believe -very wrongly- that their rights are being abused. Therefore the conclusion that “cis” is “discriminatory.” See also “anti-white racism” “Men’s Rights,” etc.
All of these grievance perspectives are based on real-world difficulties, but provided without context. There are certain specific situations where it may be disadvantageous to be male, white, and cis. But those specific circumstances are not a part of systemic bias. If you don’t care about context, and you don’t care about systemic bias (particularly because it tends to benefit you), it’s easy to view these isolated situations as a cause for victimhood.
I have a penis.
Anything can be an insult in politics.
It was meant as an insult, sort of. It was meant to reverse the verbal power dynamic in calling someone trans.
It was meant to make the oppressor feel oppressed and learn from the experience.
But CIS bigots go full on victim mode without the “oh is this what it is like for you ?” empathy moment that some people can experience.
Republicans only can experience empathy for their children, and Republicans can only feel empathy if it happens in the open and their peers talk about it. Then all the sudden the Republican is heartfelt in their sorrow for their personal ratings dip.
No it wasn’t.
It’s very simple. You have a word for somebody whose gender identity is different from what they were assigned at birth; so, you also need a word for the opposite of that (somebody whose gender identity is the same as what they were assigned at birth). And no, you can’t just call those people “normal”.
The word wasn’t created in order to reverse a power dynamic or make an oppressor feel oppressed. It was created because you needed a word there.
Backing up the “normal” part of your comment. What’s normal anyway? What’s deemed to be normal by society. So of course you need a term. Especially in an age where people are informed enough and primed to know about these subjects compared to 10ish years ago. Claiming that CIS is exclusionary is so silly
It never occurred to me that was the intention. It is quite funny when people get together to come up with some clever idea but forget to tell the target audience. I saw it, understood it meant “not trans,” and moved on. I also don’t get involved in a ton of gender discussions. There seems to be an over abundance of focus on it for reasons unclear to me.
Oh, so you’re trans? Okay, will call you that, then.
I have never heard cis being used as a slur.
Where does this come from?
Probably X-Men judging by the use of the term mutant.
thanks!
I actually have. Mind I don’t have a problem with the word in particular but I’ve read it used as a slur on the Internet and in real life.
It’s all about intention imo. Many people use it just to clearly communicate but some also use it with hatred.
Lol sure bud, def not a weird concocted scenario
It is not. There are many queer people that were wronged by society. It is understandable why they would have hatred in their hearts.
But I guess I’m just a liar on the Internet. Have a nice one.
The only time I’ve seen it as an insult was on Tumblr. And then the phrase, “cisgender shitlord,” was eventually added to the meme pile, too
We usually call ‘em clankers.
Some people are just looking for something to be upset about.
Maybe it’s just factually inaccurate and he doesn’t want there to be anyone mistaking him as cissexual.
It’s impossible to use it as a slur, as cis people are not oppressed.
That sounds sensible on first thought…but it’s easy to find slurs that are for non-oppressed people’s.
The French, for example.
It’s not sensible in any way, you can have slurs for anyone.
Someone not being oppressed doesn’t make them suddenly incapable of being oppressed or held down.
A slur is any word that is used to insult someone based on their immutable characteristics (race, gender, sexuality, religion, ableness, etc.). There is NO requirement of oppression.
Extremely shallow analysis, certain words have a much different history than others and theres a lot of bad faith implications going on herea
Would you say cracker and the nword are on the same level?
Interesting abuse of the relative privation fallacy
E: oh, it’s a burner account.
“Plus power” is not how cooquial definitions work. Speak colloquial if you want go talk to normies
Jeez, could you be more of a blatant troll?
Any word said with enough hatred is a slur
Of course that being said I’ve never ever heard cis used like that either
deleted by creator
Botox in the brain. Not even once.
Look a lot of us wish we weren’t cis but them’s the breaks
did he just come out as trans ?
