Will Musk be the next Trump?

[Svartalf]

Musk is a stinky ox

[Strontium Dog]

Your tone-policing aside cis- and trans- are Latin prefixes, as is bi-. Homo is also Latin. Of course, cisgender is a redundant term for those who disavow the very existence of trans people, but to claim it's an abusive slur or a pejorative is pure self-centring hyperbole - which you seem as keen to employ as Musk.

What tone-policing? The only person who has to watch what they say around here is me.

At least you acknowledge that cis is gender jargon.

There are a great many many words that can be employed as abusive slurs. "Tory" isn't a slur in itself, for instance, but it was frequently used as a pejorative against me by the shithouse vermin at RatSkep.

Nobody is stopping anyone from describing themself as cis on Twitter, and indeed, like pronouns in the bio, it's a useful marker for the rest of us. They just won't be allowed to abuse people with it.

[Brian Peacock]

Your tone-policing aside cis- and trans- are Latin prefixes, as is bi-. Homo is also Latin. Of course, cisgender is a redundant term for those who disavow the very existence of trans people, but to claim it's an abusive slur or a pejorative is pure self-centring hyperbole - which you seem as keen to employ as Musk.

What tone-policing?

Maintaining that certain words are wrong, demanding that they should not be used, or claiming that they are personally offensive is tone-policing. Tone-policing doesn't address what people say within the context they say it, instead if focuses on the words used and decries or denigrates someone on the basis of their word selection, or, if you prefer, polices how rather than what they say. So now you know for future reference.

The only person who has to watch what they say around here is me.

Though you appear to think otherwise, this issue isn't about you. You're ideas and views are not exceptional, worthy of special regard, nor impervious to challenge or criticism. What few rules we have here are not re-written just for you, and you are not being singled out for special treatment. As I said to you relatively recently, every member should be free to take part without others invalidating their basic humanity simply because they exist or because an element of their identity &/or person doesn't adhere to the expectations of others. And to be absolutely clear, you weren't sanctioned for you remarks or views but reminded of our Play Nice rule and informed why transphobic comments will fall foul of it.

At least you acknowledge that cis is gender jargon.

Hmm. Did I? Did I really? It depends what you mean by 'jargon' I guess. If you mean jargon as specialised or technical language used among or in relation to a specific group, then it probably is. However, I suspect what you really mean something more like 'gibberish', 'nonsense', or 'gobbledegook' - in which case I disagree.

But is it really any more 'jargon' than 'atheist' is in relation to 'theist'? In a world where people do transition from presenting and living their lives as male/female to living their lives as female/male a term like cisgender is just a descriptive term, one with exactly the same kind of relationship to transgender as 'atheist' has to 'theist', and vice versa. It is no more loaded question to ask if people identify as/with atheist or theist than to ask if they identify as/with cis, trans, or non-binary - it's just a point of information about one aspect of a person's identity which says very little about the whole person on its own: are they a atheist football fan, a non-binary Country Music lover, are they a theist who is kind to animals, are they a transgender person with a sense of humour, etc etc?

Musk's tweet said people with be banned from twitter for referring to others as cis or cisgender. IMO, for a self-identifying cisgender person to find the term cisgender offensive is as silly as an atheist claiming that calling them an atheist is an unacceptable personal affront. Such a decree automatically denudes the term itself from all context, and all possible context, as well as assuming that the terms are, and can only ever be, used in bad faith. This decree clearly speaks to Musk's attitude towards trans and trans-allied people as a group, and perhaps to your attitudes too?

There are a great many many words that can be employed as abusive slurs. "Tory" isn't a slur in itself, for instance, but it was frequently used as a pejorative against me by the shithouse vermin at RatSkep.

What does it matter what anonymous people on the internet say if you are secure in your own views and honest about your reasons for holding them? Some people have called me a "Marxist" for similar reasons here, and I put that down either to their ignorance about my actual views, or to my inability to adequately articulate them in context. That said, even though I don't identify as a "Marxist" some of my views are, shall we say, Marxist-adjacent - so sometimes there's probably an element of overlap as well as genuine confusion about the details. What is frustrating though is when "Marxist" or "Tory" is applied simply to invalidate without any apparent need for further explanation - as if the labelling is sufficient explanation in and of itself. Perhaps that was you experience at that other forum?

It strikes me that there's a feature of public discourse around LGBTQ+ issues that applies terms like 'trans' or 'cis' as if these labels say something significant and meaningful about the whole person - as if the label itself identifies exactly what type or kind of person they are, and thus the application of the label justifies the denigration of the people to whom that label is applied.

Again, perhaps this was your experience with the term "Tory" at that other forum(?) I've noticed that exact form of lazy assumption-making in relation to veganism and vegans - a label that applies to one aspect of a person's identify and life, but is all-too-commonly used as if it says everything that can possibly be said about a person's identify and life. The challenge I have for you is to ask yourself if you deploy the term 'trans' in exactly the same way the term 'Tory' was once deployed against you - as a catch-all assumption to describe the totality of someone's being, and then as an excuse to invalidate their identify as a whole person and to subsequently denigrate them on that self-same basis?

Nobody is stopping anyone from describing themself as cis on Twitter, and indeed, like pronouns in the bio, it's a useful marker for the rest of us. They just won't be allowed to abuse people with it.

I think that's a fine sentiment, and a good and reasonable approach to adopt - but only if goes both ways. This is something else you might like to think about.

[Tero]

Gender is mostly a cultural term. The biological term is sex. Sex is clear in most XX and XY people. Other variations are known.

[Strontium Dog]

This is what everything on this issue, absolutely everything, boils down to:

without others invalidating their basic humanity

Nobody's humanity is being invalidated. Their worldview is. People can believe whatever they want, live however they want, and it doesn't stop them from being people, but no other person should be compelled to validate those beliefs.

People's beliefs are constantly belittled and invalidated on these forums, and have been since day one. Yet a certain subset of beliefs are protected from criticism.

It's got to the point where I know I'm walking a moderation tightrope just writing an anodyne, inoffensive, reasoned, neutral post like this one. This is the fear that people are operating under. Thank goodness for people like Elon Musk.

[JimC]

It's got to the point where I know I'm walking a moderation tightrope just writing an anodyne, inoffensive, reasoned, neutral post like this one.

People here or elsewhere may robustly challenge your posts, but you are nowhere near being sanctioned via moderation here.

[BarnettNewman]

God I hope so. They can be cell buddies.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Brian Peacock]

[pErvinalia]

This is what everything on this issue, absolutely everything, boils down to:

without others invalidating their basic humanity

Nobody's humanity is being invalidated. Their worldview is.

That's not what you did when you called trans mentally ill, though, was it?

[Strontium Dog]

This is what everything on this issue, absolutely everything, boils down to:

without others invalidating their basic humanity

Nobody's humanity is being invalidated. Their worldview is.

That's not what you did when you called trans mentally ill, though, was it?

How would saying that a person was mentally ill invalidate their humanity?

A quick search shows that you have called plenty of people mentally ill over the years.

[pErvinalia]

This is what everything on this issue, absolutely everything, boils down to:

without others invalidating their basic humanity

Nobody's humanity is being invalidated. Their worldview is.

That's not what you did when you called trans mentally ill, though, was it?

How would saying that a person was mentally ill invalidate their humanity?

When the thing in question is integral to their being, that is invalidating their humanity.

[Strontium Dog]

When the thing in question is integral to their being, that is invalidating their humanity.

It isn't, and no it isn't. Hope that helps.

[NineBerry]

Denying science. Religious Zealot

[Strontium Dog]

Hey, that's my line.

[pErvinalia]

When the thing in question is integral to their being, that is invalidating their humanity.

It isn't, and no it isn't. Hope that helps.

Well it's bigoted, that's for sure.