Could you please help me form a coherent response

[EinsteinsArousedSausagesHCB]

Hello all,

I have a tendency to waffle so apologies in advance for the length.

I have lurked on the FWR boards for quite a while now. I mainly lurk as many of you are so very coherent and much more well informed than me. Therefore although I enjoy reading and learning from you all, I often have nothing substantial to add.

But I have learnt a lot of valuable things from you all. As such, today on another forum, I took the plunge and told all and sundry that I was gender critical and that I found the term 'cis' to be offensive. This was part of a larger discussion, I didn't just blurt it out willy nilly.

A TW then responded with a large and somewhat contradictory post. Surprisingly however, they ended with saying that they agreed with my points.

Probably naively on my part, I thanked them and told them that although I agreed with much of their post, I disagreed with some. But that it felt refreshing to have a coherent discussion on the topic without any preconceptions.

Typically the tone then turned, demanding to know what exactly I disagreed with as it's important that they are able to educate themselves but they of course will disregard anything hate filled. They sounded a little erratic at this point.

Now I know how I want to respond. Which is calmly and with actual proven facts. But I am unsure of the actual data. I know that I have read much of it countless times here, but for the life of me, I cannot remember which threads nor can I find exactly what I am looking for when using the search function.

So if I list some of the points that they made which I know are incorrect (and if I include a run down of what I know in brackets), I was hoping that perhaps some of you would be willing to provide me with a little more substance?

Paraphrasing;

1. Cis is not an offensive term it's just a descriptor. Also they have no idea where it originated but it is definitely not offensive. (Cis suggests that I am a subset of woman. I am not. I am a woman because my biology dictates so. My biological sex needs no label.)

2. TM have it easier than TW including an example of male privilege where the TM is promoted at work after transition whereas the TW is now overlooked. (I believe that this is incorrect as the TM is still at a biological disadvantage. Also the TM may have been offered the position on merit. However if it is as they say, the TM has had the social disadvantage of being a woman before transitioning. Whereas the TW would have had the advantage of male privilege up to transition.)

3. The old chestnut that TW are the most vulnerable of society, only to be trumped by the black TW who is the epitome of the most vulnerable in society. (I know that this is incorrect yet spouted a lot. I saw a wonderful post on here a couple of months back which wonderfully refuted this with facts and figures but I cannot find it!)

There is more, but I think just responding to these 3 points is enough. And for those of you still with me...

Cis is sometimes used as a slur. As in "die cis scum".

I do spend time on conversations like this - but not because I think I'll change their mind.

If I'm arguing with someone like this, I'm doing it for the lurkers. Every line the TRA feeds me with lies or half-truths is an opportunity to debunk it, so others can see this nonsense for what it is.

That was my initial thoughts. Although I don't feel that I am necessarily well versed or educated enough to be the one debunking, hence the thread. But I am finding it difficult to sit back while watching only the one unchallenged view holding court, while I know that those eager to learn more are being hoodwinked.

If I'm arguing with someone like this, I'm doing it for the lurkers. Every line the TRA feeds me with lies or half-truths is an opportunity to debunk it, so others can see this nonsense for what it is.

Thank you. Lurking was how I formed my opinion on this. Comparing the different arguments is revelatory when you get down to the basics.

On reflection, given what you say about the silence of others, I would tackle head on the thing that at first made you want to respond.

Typically the tone then turned, demanding to know what exactly I disagreed with as it's important that they are able to educate themselves but they of course will disregard anything hate filled.
...
It's just difficult not to respond after the suggestions that any disagreement is likely coming from a hate filled place.

I'd go back with something like "Hate-filled? Not something my friends usually anticipate from me! What kind of thing are you worried I will come out with?!"

This TW is trying to bully you into silence with implied accusations. Bollocks to that. It's the bullying that scares the lurkers. Calling it out is powerful, even if your TW friend does not go on to spell out this anticipated hatefulness, it helps others to see you not debating the merits of the word cis but challenging a very very offensive implication about your character in an inoffensive way.

Well I returned to the forum after arming myself with the useful advice and info provided by you wonderful lot.

In my absence I had been @'d a few times, before my perceived offensive with the term cis was discussed at length. The suggestion being that 'cis' was problematic purely because I said so yet it was unclear as to why.

With that I in mind, I felt that I wanted to clarify my position on cis so that it could in no way be misconstrued from a lurkers perspective. Huge thank you to CharlieParley and needaMNnamegenerator.

But not before stating that I was perplexed as to which part of my posts would insinuate that my opinions may be blatantly offensive or that I lack a moral core. And that it would be helpful if they could highlight those areas for me.

The immediate response from a male poster began with; I don’t mind cis as such. Obviously it can be used as an insult, but so can everything.......

And; It seems like the language is in flux right now, and I don’t have a particular drum to bang...

I feel no further need to respond to those insightful posts.

But I do really enjoy the discussion here and want to applaud you all for your tireless efforts. I have also enjoyed researching further on some of the points you have helpfully provided me with here. So thank you.

Can you link to the discussion?

See, it totally depends what they mean by 'hate'. Perhaps they need to define that first. If disagreement = hate, you're wasting your time, I think. Likewise if 'actual violence' = 'You disagreed with me!' forget it.

Finding hate in someone's post and being upset by it and feeling all fluttery in your tummy seems to absolve people from engaging their brain and reasoning like an adult human, I find. It's more likely to result in anger and threats of actual 'actual violence.'

@JellySlice

There was a brilliant thread last year about the futility of engaging with narcissists. Because we GC women are willing to engage with TRAs we answer point by point, but simply get dragged unwillingly and unwittingly into stoking, and this validating, the narcissists rage.

Not sure what to suggest, though.

Absolutely agree. And it's extraordinary how so many of them are narcissists.

@Skyliner001

Can you link to the discussion?

I would prefer not to if posters do not mind. I appreciate that may be frustrating after all this help, but my concern that after reading here it would be easy to link my profiles.

I will say that the purpose of the forum is not to discuss the trans agenda. It is the forum of a company that is often promoted by MN, with their products being offered as prizes at times.

I mainly use the forum itself purely to enable product testing and reviewing.

However they have just unveiled a brand new updated forum, as such they are open to suggestions from members. As part of the new-look forum, a few trusted posters, who have reached a certain level, will have the ability to assist in moderation of the site and implement the TG.

As with most places, I would say that there is 'royalty' whose views tend to be noted above others.

A prolific male poster, who will very likely be appointed the role of moderator and whose views are certainly noted by the powers that be, was specifically asking a single trans person how best to tackle 'offensive' wording, and what words should be applied as a replacement rather than a general deletion.

This made me uneasy in itself, for a number of reasons that I am sure you will understand without the need for elaboration.

I also disagreed on some of the discussion that followed, and also noted how freely 'cis' was used while discussing the censorship of other words.