Is CIS a legal term?

I don't believe for a second yo udidnt read the interaction about it offending me yesterday.

You seem to think that having uttered the magic words "I am very offended" that the conversation has ended, as no-one would be so crass as to have views that offend you.

Maybe explain what you object to, or try to understand what point the other person was trying to make. It's an important life skill.

You were appreciating the post that a page ago I said was really hurtful and offensive to me due to its personal nature.

Sticking the boot in, for want of a better word. Like I said, my engagement with Artichoke was over when she wrote it and its over with you for promoting it and cheering it on.

Again, I started at page 12 and that is the very first post I read. I then immediately posted my agreement with it.

It may pain you to hear, but I agree with the substance of artichoke’s words, even if it offends you.

Sadly, you don’t have any control on a public forum about who posts, when and how they post.

Cis is a term used by men who think that being a women is about performing to gender stereotypes. I will fight against someone saying that about me. I’m 60 and not about to start to conform with someone else’s bigoted view of what a women should look like, think, be interested in, be “good at” . I thought that’s what feminist fought against back in 60s and 70s. We momentarily got there in about 1980 and now the men are deciding to put us back in their little boxes.

You were appreciating the post that a page ago I said was really hurtful and offensive to me due to its personal nature.

Sticking the boot in, for want of a better word. Like I said, my engagement with Artichoke was over when she wrote it and its over with you for promoting it and cheering it on.

Or should I not be posting my agreement with posts in case I offend another poster? Are we at that position now too?

So, we must control our speech for risk of offense and we must control our agreement with posts in the same way? And this is not coercive how?

You can believe what you want.

It is not a nested quote. It is copy and pasted. The post sits at the top of page 12. I had no idea who posted the statement cut and pasted there.

Frankly, your quote in that post is irrelevant to my appreciation of artichokes words. I was appreciating the post about the coercive nature of language being controlled by emotional manipulation.

Why would I post otherwise? What motivation are you now attributing to me?

It was my post, quoted, so yes it is to do with me.

I don't believe for a second yo udidnt read the interaction about it offending me yesterday.

It just sums you up that you've requoted the one post you know i found offensive yesterday. Our engagement stops here.

By the way, I am busy and in a completely different time zone so I have dipped in and out of threads on MN lately. So, as I have not responded to nested quotes, I had no idea who wrote what. I decided to go back a couple of pages and read forward.

Either way, isn’t it presumptuous to think that my response to that post had anything to do with you?

beautyisthefaceisee:
"And i never said or claimed he was unique, or anything of the sort."

I think maybe you misunderstood; probably me being unclear. I will try to explain.

You said, "Only for one group of people. I bet you can't give me an example of any other time you behave/speak like that about people."

It was the "one group of people" made me mention being 'unique'. I gave examples of lots of other (groups of) people we might behave towards or speak like that about (sc. hurting their feelings in telling the truth). I wondered if perhaps your friend might feel less upset to know lots of others are (quite reasonably, I suggest) told the truth even though it might upset them.

Does that make sense now?

As for 'he' and 'she': Long ago I and some others adopted the habit of using 'she' in the way we had been told other authors used 'he' - as a generic referring pronoun neutral regarding the sex of its referent. This was a small move to redress the balance of 'he' referring to a generic scientist, say, or philosopher, whatever: "If you ask a scientist, he will ..., " or "As for any philosopher in the Western tradition, if he thinks that ..." ... No, we thought, if we need a neutral pronoun, let's use 'she'. And we did.

This was a small (not to say tiny) feminist move of long ago. It still survives in some of our published writings.

With this in mind, I am sorry to say I had not really taken note of the sex of your friend. Perhaps this was remiss of me, but anyway my 'she' was by way of an attempt to be neutral in this minor feminist way rather than as an explicit engagement in the pronoun war. (Of course you and I will take opposite sides in that conflict too. But, well, one thing at a time, hein?)

It just sums you up that you've requoted the one post you know i found offensive yesterday. Our engagement stops here.

I thought ‘our’ engagement stopped threads ago. However, this is not your thread and you are free to engage with whoever you like.

You are posting on a public forum and what you post can be analysed, interpreted, questioned and interacted with by anyone signed up on this forum. As long as it is within the guidelines.

However, I agree with the post I interacted with, hence my post. I agree that there seems to be coercion at play by some people to control other people’s language. And that it often takes form of emotional manipulation.

Your engagement with me or not, doesn’t change the fact I agree with artichoke and please do feel free to scroll on past all my posts.

Or apologies if I have misread it and we are being told that trans people may or may not believe they can change sex, but everyone must act as if they can change sex in every aspect of life to protect them.

Because, that is coercion.

Or has there been a disconnect on what the term coercion means on MN? Has the meaning of ‘coercion’ been destabilised as well?

It just sums you up that you've requoted the one post you know i found offensive yesterday. Our engagement stops here.

the "humans cant change sex" debacle what you are effectively saying is trans isn't a thing, and you know it.

I keep thinking that some posters are very keen to narrowly define trans people and still believe they are righteous.

We know there are many trans people who absolutely know they cannot change sex. They publicly state it. We are constantly told by trans activists, not all trans activities are trans people of course, that trans people are not denying their biological sex.

Maybe it is clear to readers that there is an extreme trans activist group who do deny the statement ‘trans people cannot change sex’? Or maybe some people choose to ignore those trans people that inconveniently don’t fit their narrow definition of ‘trans’?

Either way, it seems we are again either seeing some people forcibly attribute beliefs to all trans people (which is ignoring some, maybe even the majority as we have no evidence otherwise, trans people’s true belief and understanding about themselves) or, we are seeing some people recategorise trans people to exclude those trans people who understand and publicly say they understand humans cannot change sex. Or both.

Yes. This.

"Sorry about your trans friend. But, well, she is by no means as unique as you claimed. Does that help? Maybe?" He.

And i never said or claimed he was unique, or anything of the sort.

Nah

The flags are all part of the dogma, essentially a type of modern religious symbolism. I say type as flags in themselves and banners are complex.

I can easily afford respect to the ideology and the individuals if it weren't for the enforcement of acceptance and pictures of and actual violent threats.

We had what I later realised were trans flag ice cream cones in an ice cream parlour recently. Unfortunately the image of a trans baseball bat held in threatening ways was too similar for me to fancy one.

Kids had no clue and liked the white chocolate and pink and blue sherbet stripes.

I don't believe there is a god. I fully accept that others do.

Equivlent

I'm not trans. I fully accept that others are.

The literal equivalent would be me saying "there is no such thing as Christians".

Religions aren't forcing us to believe what they do.

Cis is dogma that I don't subscribe to.

Indeed you can decide to be offended by what Artichoke wrote, however, anyone looking at that post objectively would find nothing remotely nasty or offensive in it.

I did ask what it was about the post you considered so terrible, care to enlighten me?

@VestofAbsurdity il decide what I find offensive, thanks

I don't believe there is a god. I fully accept that others do.

Equivlent

I'm not trans. I fully accept that others are.

The literal equivalent would be me saying "there is no such thing as Christians".

Those two examples are not equivalent though.

The first is about beliefs. People believe all kinds of things, some real, some demonstrably false.

”I’m not trans” is not a statement about belief, it’s a statement of a fact, or would be, if we had a coherent definition of trans.

If we assume “trans” means “person who is undergoing medical treatment to make them appear more like the opposite sex” then “I am not trans” is a factual statement that you are not undergoing that treatment.

My problem is with the newly introduced idea that “trans” is some kind of unique internal personality and is not related to any physical act. I don’t believe there is some unique personality type that should override sex when it comes to rights and laws.

I’m not sure how “People can’t change sex” relates to “There is no such thing as Christians” though. One is a statement of fact, one is a straightforward falsehood.

Does your transman friend believe people can change sex? If so, your friend has been sold a lie. Those pointing out that it is a lie are not to blame. Those who told the lie are.

Transitioning physically might arguably be a treatment that helps some people (though the evidence for it is poor). Lying to people that they can change sex and leaving them with the fallout when they discover it’s not true is not a pathway that helps anyone, and indeed is extremely destructive.

Some examples.

1. My own children. I often told them (and others) the truth about themselves when they were mistaken about the world and their place in it. Often it caused them pain and distress. They got over it. That's part of a parent's job.

1. I had a friend/colleague with a bad drinking problem. She used to ring me up late at night. "You're drunk," I'd say. "No I'm not," she'd reply, "It's really hurtful for you to say that." I knew I was being hurtful. Was I wrong to tell her the truth? Now she's happy I did. (She still has a drink problem. Always will.)

1. Another friend with mental health issues, exacerbated though not caused by psychotropic recreational drugs. I explained to him on more than one occasion that, no, he was not an alien sent from another planet. "But you're attacking my truth!" Sure enough. I was. Telling him the truth hurt. He was my friend, though. Friends tell each other the truth, when push comes to shove.

1. As a union rep, I sometimes had to explain to colleagues I was representing against management that - although of course I was on the colleague's side - actually management was right and they weren't really pulling their weight in some aspect of their job, so we needed to deal with this. Always hard to accept truth like that, painful indeed. But, again, necessary in some circumstances? I think so.

... There are lots of other possible scenarios.

"Does my bum look big in this?" - "Erh, well ..."

"I'm more than pulling my weight in this relationship."- "Well, actually ..."

"I'm the reincarnation of a Princess of Egypt ..." (Response left as an exercise.)

It's true some soi-disant trans people are psychologically delicate and easily hurt. Perhaps, just perhaps, it might, ceteris paribus as it were, be better for them if we were to tiptoe around the truth about human biology etc.

But other things are determinedly not equal: some self-styled trans people are vicious narcissists. And of course there are grades in between. And, moreover, societal mores and legal matters also depend on the 'truth vs lies' discourse here.

So, all-in-all, Tell the truth and shame the devil! applies, I'm afraid. Sorry about your trans friend. But, well, she is by no means as unique as you claimed. Does that help? Maybe?

Cis = construction industry scheme.

It's a bit like PAYE for subcontractors in the construction industry.

It may be relevant to some women but not all.

I'm a gender atheist so cis isn't part of my belief system.

It's not law as we have a secular society.

I imagine a sob story of a pile on has now been told. Where those evil transphobes on MN just trotted out their right wing dog whistles about "you can't change sex" and it not being "safe" for the true believer.