Listen up cis people! Educate yourselves!

[BettyBooper]

Read this and be told!

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/sep/30/will-ferrell-harper-steele-netflix-documentary

We have "GC" posters on this very thread reducing and describing women as"fanny owners".
Not sure what a MCW is but if it's a non GC or trans person seems everyone's at it on here then.
Seriously Ew as someone just said in reply to you.

I refer you to pps responses to your original post.

MCW stands for male who claims to be a woman.

Ah thanks, wasn't sure what it stood for.
Assumed it meant people who were trans.
GC posters are referring to women as fanny owners.on here too, so doing the exact same thing.
Ew indeed, seems everyone's at it, reducing us to holes.
Ugh.

You haven't understood anything I said. Or what pps have said to you.
Goodnight.

No, I just don't agree with you.
I find reducing women to their body parts or referring to them as holes or fannies far more offensive than the c word.
Regardless of who's doing it.
Night night then.

Ferrel asks Steele “How are your boobs?” and then proceeds to prod her for the details of what it was like to wake up from breast augmentation surgery. He follows that up by essentially asking her if she’s going to get a vagina. I really can’t imagine anything that Steele could demand of the cis world that’s remotely comparable to that.

Steele couldn't ask a "cis" woman how her breast augmentation surgery/ tummy tuck/facelift went because....?

It's considered transphobic to ask them questions about their "transition?" Good grief.

Ferrel asks Steele “How are your boobs?” and then proceeds to prod her for the details of what it was like to wake up from breast augmentation surgery. He follows that up by essentially asking her if she’s going to get a vagina. I really can’t imagine anything that Steele could demand of the cis world that’s remotely comparable to that.

This jumped out at me as well. I'm so glad I read this article. It has been so educational and a reminder that we really do need to be constantly reevaluating our privilege. As a cis woman I can't imagine ever being subject to unwanted touching or vulgar comments about my anatomy.

Ferrell was awful in prodding Steele and asking those questions..But I have been subjected to unwanted touching, groping, assault and comments about my anatomy a million times, as has DD. Many times I have come close to being raped.

As a woman- not a cis woman- I have zero privilege. What absolute nonsense.

I don't disagree with you about the word cis. It makes me cringe. But I do wonder if your stance here is slightly hypocritical.

Why is it fair for a GC to both demand to not be called cis but at the same time refuse to use she/her pronouns for a trans woman? Isn't telling a trans person not to call you cis compelled speech? Aren't you thereby telling a trans person to adopt your belief system (or lack thereof)?

You don't have to call yourself cis but I don't think it's fair to require others don't too.

Just testing this thought as devil's advocate as I think it's important to maintain the integrity of one's argument here. Otherwise you're as bad as the TRAs.

I hope you detected that my tongue was firmly in cheek?

I did not! Sorry. I would delete if I could.

I was taken in by pp going on about cis women privilege and assumed you were the same.

All good :) I'm sorry to hear about your experience by the way. It really does shine a light how utterly inane and tone-deaf the article is

Love the sarcasm. 😄

Your thought doesn’t work though.

Because in both cases it is people with transgender identities making language demands. In both cases they are the ones demanding the language is used individually and at society level.

The difference is who they are describing and neither description act is based on material reality. Plus they have repurposed existing words to do so, it is part of the underlying queer theory to destabilise established language and social mores.

These terms are all trying to legitimise a fiction and the direction is all one way. From
one source.

It is not hypocritical to reject being recategorised by a group who are doing so on the basis of their own philosophical belief.

I think it is a bit of a flawed position because it isn't just the trans person making language demands at an individual level?

It is the person with a transgender identity making the demands though. They want to be able to describe others as well as themselves using language they have repurposed.

Telling an individual trans person "Don't call me cis" is like a trans woman saying "Don't call me male", the obvious answer to which is I can call you male because you are male.

Yes one is rooted in biological reality and the other is rooted in a belief system. But it's akin to telling a religious person that they can believe any mumbo jumbo they like but don't say the words out loud.

It's the right of a person to speak in the language of their belief system

It's different to government agencies etc kowtowing to GI and publishing nonsense about pregnant people or what have you

It is the person with a transgender identity making the demands though. They want to be able to describe others as well as themselves using language they have repurposed.

My response was into a pp making a demand

Why does any person have to accept someone else’s philosophical labeling of them or themselves?

“It's the right of a person to speak in the language of their belief system”

No one is stopping them speaking with laws. But society has the freedom to reject ‘cis’ as they would reject being categorised as a heretic because they don’t believe in the person who is labeling them’s religion.

If people who believe in the word ‘cis’ wish to use it amongst themselves, they can have at it. And they do.

But not one person has to accept a person with a philosophical belief categorising them as ‘cis’. Nor does anyone have to accept that any male is female and use female language for them.

Because we don’t have to accept a group of people demanding society changes the language protocols to suit that group.

Yes. A woman was rejecting a group’s recategorisation of her using meaningless terms and repurposed language.

The group demanded and the woman rejected.

It depends what you mean by ‘It's the right of a person to speak in the language of their belief system’

Religious groups have religious ceremonies, wear religion based clothing and symbols and are free (in most countries) to talk about their religion, even being able to stand on a street corner and preach to the general population.

What they don’t get to do is demand that government, health services, education and the arts and education industries parrot their beliefs as the truth.

When was the last time you were invited to add your religion to your email signature, or read a health advice leaflet that insisted that prayer was an essential part of the treatment process, or be threatened with social services if you did not affirm your child’s newly found beliefs which could result in them taking unnecessary drugs and having damaging and permanent surgical procedures?

I'm not cis or whatever but I do like Will Ferrell. I'll take a look, thanks. Sounds interesting!

For the philosophical belief to work, the people who seek to redefine themselves have forceably redefined all people.

It isn’t them saying ‘people with transgender identities’ and ‘people without transgender identities’. It is them declaring everyone has this thing they belief in - a gender identity. That is what this word ‘cis’ means.

But then it fails even more when it then also means in the term ‘cis woman/girl’ includes male people with particular medical conditions that mean their bodies go through male puberty to virilise.

Religious people can call other people non-believers of their religion and this is a material fact. It is real and it is meaningful. I doubt people would reject that. It is a null option.

’cis’ is not a null option. ‘Cis’ is not describing the lack of belief because it demands that everyone has a gender identity. It is enforcing belief on the recipient of that label.

That makes it rejectable in a way that the phrase ‘person without a transgender identity’ is not. And yes, of course everyone in a free society can reject any meanings of any words they which. We are talking about people using the words cis in the public sphere on this thread. Where those using the language expect to be understood and their message communicated.

Hmmm I’m not sure I’m convinced.

I’m not saying they have to accept a label. Pps argument goes further than that - seems to imply that trans person must also not use label.

It just struck me as a bit contradictory that pp was saying don’t pull me into your belief system with your cis language, but isn’t that in itself instructing trans person to speak in terms of pp’s political viewpoint?

Isn’t it problematic to compel speech at an individual level (which is what I read pp’s post to mean, and sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick here)?

Like I say, I don’t fundamentally disagree with the underlying principle but I think the argument is flawed and possibly ultimately does a disservice to pp’s position?

Perhaps I’m getting a bit too caught up in syntax and being too literal but I think pps argument would be better if rather than saying ‘don’t call me cis’ she said ‘the word “cis” is redundant and damaging because xyz and I reject it for that reason'

“It just struck me as a bit contradictory that pp was saying don’t pull me into your belief system with your cis language, but isn’t that in itself instructing trans person to speak in terms of pp’s political viewpoint?”

Another way to look at it is a person using ‘cis’ is demanding belief in their philosophical belief for the message to be communicated, while those rejecting the term are demanding material reality is observed and acknowledged.

If a person rejects material reality which is the the case with using ‘cis’, the burden isn’t on society to accommodate that rejection of material reality in language protocols when discussing materially real matters.

And why should society accommodate linguistically a demand to deny material reality when discussing materially real matters?