Who determines the number of genders- and how?

Rolfe said:
This term is considered to be grossly offensive by a large number of women. Probably by most women who have figured out what it means (or actually heard it used). To continue to insist on using it after this has been explained is even more grossly offensive. Not born with external genitalia which were recognised as female, and raised as a girl? Not a woman.
Click to expand...

Then are many of the men in this village really women because they fit your definition of women?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/the-astonishing-village-where-little-girls-turn-into-boys-aged-1/

Thank god this boy killed himself for trying to pass himself off as a girl. It really was the best outcome for everyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Leelah_Alcorn
 
I'm not offended by cis, but I don't feel entitled to tell another woman she's wrong to be offended by it, either.

The idea that for women's athletics to survive, we might have to now call it "ciswomen's athletics" is...there's something wrong there.

Jesus, this stuff is confusing.
 
Belz... said:
That wasn't your question just now. You asked what it meant. You KNOW what it means.
Click to expand...
I was re-checking

These things seem to morph, as I am sure you are aware of.

Like 16 new pronouns here and new meanings there.
 
Belz... said:
Yeah but "cis" has been around for long before this SJW nonsense began, so the meaning should be relatively safe.
Click to expand...
Lol

The first time I heard it was last year.

But then i am a hick from an island in the middle of no where
 
ponderingturtle said:
Then are many of the men in this village really women because they fit your definition of women?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science...age-where-little-girls-turn-into-boys-aged-1/
Click to expand...


Never came across that before, that's really interesting. So the defnintion (devised to include total androgen insensitivity and Swyer's syndrome in the female category) isn't perfect because of a different abnormality.

As with total androgen insensitivity and Swyer's syndrome, rare and unusual genetic defects make a tiny number of individuals difficult to fit into any general rule. But the essential point remains.
 
Belz... said:
Yeah but "cis" has been around for long before this SJW nonsense began, so the meaning should be relatively safe.
Click to expand...


"Cis" is a term hijacked from organic chemistry. When I first heard it in this context I laughed because I thought it was an obscure joke. That would be about 20 years ago. I haven't heard it much since, but as it's infiltrating into society women are reacting against it because of its connotations.

We are women. Find another word for people who want to be women or wish they were women.
 
Rolfe said:
We are women. Find another word for people who want to be women or wish they were women.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, though I think you're being more than a bit hyperbolic when you're claiming that the goal is to erase woman identity. In fact, it's just as much nonsense as SJWs claiming that me saying that trans-women are not actual women erases their identity.
 
kellyb said:
WTF is wrong with you, Turtle?
Are you trying to get the thread shut down?
Click to expand...

Hey better he be dead than screwing with women for his fake trans fetish. The fake trans fetish is a well established position in this thread. Why should we cater to his sexual fetish and if refusing to have his sexual fetish cattered to is enough for him to kill himself how is that my problem? Rolfe has been clear than transgender people are just sexual fetishes and she refuses to see them catered to, so why was his parents refusing to cater to his sexual fetish a bad thing?
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Never came across that before, that's really interesting. So the defnintion (devised to include total androgen insensitivity and Swyer's syndrome in the female category) isn't perfect because of a different abnormality.
Click to expand...

Why are you trying to include them as women when biologically they are not and it shouldn't lie that they are on their ID? If you want sex on your ID to be biologically based why would they be female? It is almost as if going by strict biology doesn't work and people can't accept the standards that at best biologically we would have three grouping functional male, functional female and other.

If sex was so easy to determine it wouldn't be an issue of contention on what the real definition of women is to compete in women's sports.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
Hey better he be dead than screwing with women for his fake trans fetish. The fake trans fetish is a well established position in this thread. Why should we cater to his sexual fetish and if refusing to have his sexual fetish cattered to is enough for him to kill himself how is that my problem? Rolfe has been clear than transgender people are just sexual fetishes and she refuses to see them catered to, so why was his parents refusing to cater to his sexual fetish a bad thing?
Click to expand...

This is always your excuse. "X has been clear about Y" is a dodge, and an uncivil one at that. You've made no effort, ever, to connect your strawmen do what someone is actually saying. Your entire contribution to this forum is to demonize those who disagree with you, which is ironic given how much you complain about dehumanising minorities.

No, the problem is and always has been your utter inability to grasp nuance. People are either with you all the way, or against you all the way.

You have no place in a rational discussion.
 
kellyb said:
I'm not offended by cis, but I don't feel entitled to tell another woman she's wrong to be offended by it, either.

The idea that for women's athletics to survive, we might have to now call it "ciswomen's athletics" is...there's something wrong there.

Jesus, this stuff is confusing.
Click to expand...

Or we could call it "female" or we could keep calling it women's and just exclude those with distinct advantages due to being biologically male since the whole point is the spirit of competition between females. It was never attached to a gender identity, except by coincidence (huge overlap). We already bar people for other use of performance enhancing drugs, so there's nothing crazy in this idea.
 
Again focusing too much on the terms and labels and not enough on the distinctions people are trying to make does everyone a disservice.

Honestly this whole thing just reads like 3 or more separate... errrr axis's I guess you'd call it overlapping.

On a biological level we have the two sexes, male and female. And yes I know intersex people exist as a biological concept but they are rare, often even one off cases and I ever so wish that progressives would understand that "Exception Worshiping" is not the purest form of "Inclusion."

Then we get sexual orientation; straight, gay, bi, asexual... really does seem like it should cover everything and I have zero idea what meaningful distinction terms like pansexual and the absolute nightmare of all labels Tumblr has come up with are acually trying to say. You like sex with other genders, you like sex with your gender, you like sex with both genders (I realized I probably just answered my own question there....) or you don't like sex at all and I don't really see outside of either branding or "I want to feel special so I need a new label" (which by the way at some point we have to addreess is a lot of this) how anything else would fit in there in any meaningful sense that actually defines or describes anything new.

And now for the 3rd axis, gender identity... and the one I understand the least. Transgender, as in used in the concept of a person who wants to biologically be or plans or wants to transition biology to another biological sex... yeah I get that because there's a functional difference being described.

But pretty much after that all concepts of gender identity... do sort just stop making sense to me. Since I don't think biological men and women should have societal restrictions placed on them the idea of some special subcategory of people subverting them is meaningless to me.

Look at it this way. Let's look at once common but slightly older and archiac term that has mostly fallen out of use... crossdresser. A crossdresser was (is, I'm sure the subculture still exists in some context) a person who preferred to wear the clothing of the other gender.

See the problem? For that concept to have any meaning at all you have to agree that men and women are required by some level; social, legal, whatever to wear different clothing. If you don't, if you think men should be able to wear skirts and women to wear to wear pants and so forth... the concept stops being meaningful.

And that's basically been my whole problem with gender politics in general in the last decade or so. It's honestly seemed like a concentrated effort to bring back all the old genders roles and rules I thought we were trying to get rid of for the sole purpose of letting a subculture feel special for subverting them.
 
Thermal said:
'Trans', used in transgender/sexual, has a different meaning than translunar, transneptonian or transcontinental. So using 'cis' as the flipside is based on equivocating (I think cis is an unnecessary modifier)
Click to expand...

No, actually, the trans used for transgender hass the exact same meaning as transneptunian. Not sure what difference you think there is.
 
Belz... said:
No, actually, the trans used for transgender hass the exact same meaning as transneptunian. Not sure what difference you think there is.
Click to expand...

IIRC, transneptunian means beyond Neptune, referring to Pluto and the dwarfs. A transgender is not beyond gender, so cis is not its complement.

Nevermind. I just think cis is a pointless modifier.
 
Thermal said:
IIRC, transneptunian means beyond Neptune, referring to Pluto and the dwarfs. A transgender is not beyond gender, so cis is not its complement.
Click to expand...

"Trans" means "other" or "on the other side of". That's exactly hat "transgender" is meant to convey. It's a science term applied to gender, so both cis ("this side") and trans apply.
 
It has multiple usages. According to a quick google etymology search it means "across" in latin, which in astrological context apparently means "beyond". Makes sense to me. Even for gender it makes sense as "beyond sex" ie different than just one's sex.

cis IS a pointless modifier 99% of the time, because almost all discussions about men and women aren't about making such a distinction. Sometimes, the distinction is necessary and having a convenient, easy-to-understand (at least to anyone who took high school chemistry) label for this is ideal.
 
Rolfe said:
"Cis" is a term hijacked from organic chemistry. When I first heard it in this context I laughed because I thought it was an obscure joke. That would be about 20 years ago. I haven't heard it much since, but as it's infiltrating into society women are reacting against it because of its connotations.

We are women. Find another word for people who want to be women or wish they were women.
Click to expand...

OK, so you are actually a transphobe. That's unfortunate.

"Cis" is not offensive or derogatory. That's ridiculous.
 
Cleon said:
OK, so you are actually a transphobe.
Click to expand...

Could you point to what in Rolfe's post identifies her as a transphobe? Because from where I stand, you seem to simply be labeling someone who disagrees with you on one aspect of this topic thus without justification.

But then, you're the one who accused me of defending child molesters because I argued that the word "pedophile" didn't fit the particular case we were discussing in that thread, so I don't expect much in terms of justification.
 
Thermal said:
(I think cis is an unnecessary modifier)
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Only one needs a modifier and one already exists, "trans." Cis is superfluous.

I also think the labels "male" and "female" are reversed because of ignorance. The two labels make it appear that the "fe" in female is the modifier but it is males that are modified.

I read through some of the language used by proponents of multi-genders and it is extremely muddled. Some definitions given have a disclaimer immediately following them saying "This isn't really the definition because there is so much more to it than that."

It seems to me that language is designed to express, and clarify, concepts and the language used does the exact opposite.
 
pharphis said:
It has multiple usages. According to a quick google etymology search it means "across" in latin, which in astrological context apparently means "beyond". Makes sense to me. Even for gender it makes sense as "beyond sex" ie different than just one's sex.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't use either 'across' or 'beyond' to describe a transgender's situation though, so I guess that's why it seems a little equivocal.

cis IS a pointless modifier 99% of the time, because almost all discussions about men and women aren't about making such a distinction. Sometimes, the distinction is necessary and having a convenient, easy-to-understand (at least to anyone who took high school chemistry) label for this is ideal.
Click to expand...

It can have a use in certain contexts, true. That it gets pulled into discussion as a necessary modifier is when I question the usage. A guy being told to refer to himself as a binary cishet male is creating a needless subset.
 
Thermal said:
I wouldn't use either 'across' or 'beyond' to describe a transgender's situation though, so I guess that's why it seems a little equivocal.
Click to expand...

Neither would I. The modifier 'trans' to me is better described as 'spanning.' Trans-gender then means all the area between the two extreme points of male and female.
 
qayak said:
I also think the labels "male" and "female" are reversed because of ignorance. The two labels make it appear that the "fe" in female is the modifier but it is males that are modified.
Click to expand...

What do you mean?

It's superfluous in that role.
Click to expand...

Not any more than "right-handed" is superfluous just becausae 90% of humans are right-handed. It just has a more limited use.
 
Matthew Best said:
Would you say the same thing about "straight" (meaning heterosexual)?

Isn't the only modifier we need the word "gay"? Why do we need a modifier for the rest of us?
Click to expand...

Odd how you never find anyone whining that "heterosexual" is derogatory.
 
Once again, humans are utterly confused by the difference between using of language to define things in the real world, and using of language to invent things that don't exist in the real world.
 
Belz... said:
It just means that they don't correspond to usual gender expectations. Trans-woman is just short for "transgender woman".
Click to expand...

Yes. I know. But across-gender, beyond-gender, on-the-other-side-of-gender all make absolutely no sense (I didn't see the stand-alone 'other' while flipping through definitions for trans).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom