You're viewing a single thread.
Listen, everyone. It's so simple. We just need a neutral word to describe people who are not trans. Okay, the prefix "trans" is Latin for across, so the Latin word for not across is… you're not going to believe this.
ok ok maybe that's not familiar enough as a prefix so it gets a reaction. we could find a familiar prefix to note that your gender is the same as what you were assigned at birth...
from now on the opposite of transgender is... homogender!
Yay, I'm a homo!
Congrats homo!
Same goes for cisfats opposed to transfats
Trans-ex?
obviously the people that object to the word object to needing a word for "non-trans", not that they have some particular objection to the word "cis" itself.
it's important to understand your opponents' point of view if you want to be able to destroy it effectively
So It's hard to get into the headspace where I could get offended by being called cis but I'll try. Here is a metaphor that hopefully won't be too offensive.
Imagine if vegetarians started identifying non-vegetarians en masse with the label "Omnivores". The first critique would likely be, "But it's normal for humans to be omnivores; It's the neutral state!". That's how most people, including many allies, feel about being cis. It's the neutral state to them and doesn't/shouldn't require a label.
Obviously context matters but I can see how inflection could make it sound like a slight if someone is already loaded with insecurities.
well the whole point is to make all of it "normal". it's normal for humans to be cis, yes, and so is to be trans. so instead of calling people "trans" and "normal", you call them "trans" and "cis".
and make no mistake, that's why people oppose the term "cis". they want to other trans people, and normalizing the term threatens the system of oppression.
That's the obvious motivation, my comment is to illustrate how the frustration could be relatable and to humanize everyone involved. For those people who don't value their freedoms the entire idea is just an inconvenience.
Honestly the word just has a gross sound to me. Reminds me of cysts.
Imagine if vegetarians started identifying non-vegetarians en masse with the label “Omnivores”. The first critique would likely be, “But it’s normal for humans to be omnivores; It’s the neutral state!”
I don't see the problem. Non-vegatarians/vegans are already called omnivores and it doesn't seem to be a problem. I wouldn't expect them to go out of their way to label themselves as such unless they were saying something like "I'm an omniVore" as a Vore joke. Carnists is the term that's used to be derogatory (although I think some weirdos who like to define themselves in opposition to vegans do call themselves that?). Likewise, "cissies" is a derogatory way to refer to the cis, but "cis" is just the neutral word used describe them. I wouldn't expect people to go out of their way to proclaim their cisness, but getting upset that the term exists and people use it is mostly just a bit.
We spend immense effort getting the world to listen and allow us to be identified by how We wish to be identified. To flip the script and say we get to determine how others are identified unapologetically does not parse.
If someone wanted to identify their pronouns as "fuck n******", I'm never going to respect their label or the person as a whole. If you make your whole identity about hating others, then you deserve to either totally ignored or mocked.
That sort of situation is the exception, not the rule.
I've seen them call omnivores "bloodmouths" now on lemmy because carnist wasn't offensive enough I guess?
I'll gladly call non-vegans, who vehemently defend eating meat and oppose anything remotely vegan, carnies to piss them off
As a lifetime vegetarian, please utilize that energy in a more useful way. Your cohort makes my life difficult.
Porque no los dos?
Because idealistic posturing is for children and getting someone to eat less meat is more helpful than creating an atmosphere where vegans/vegetarians have to spend time apologizing for the loud minority.
I'd have to disagree. Calling out unethical and hypocritical dietary choices shouldn't be frowned upon. Sure, calling someone names isn't the ideal way, but there's only so much giving in to cognitive dissonance one can endure before you're frustrated enough to call someone a carnie (which is basically not an insult if you ask me). It's obviously striking a chord if they're offended and getting them to think about their life choices.
I've heard from many vegans who have only changed their ways when exposed to the very blunt ways of vegancirclejerk, so there is definitely some merit to it. At least online where there are a lot of babies around. It's a different thing when in person.
Mountains don't grow in a day. We don't feel the ground shifting under us.
I would argue the majority of people react to sharp critique by closing themselves off. I know plenty of people that started by reducing their meat intake to a few meals a week. That kind of conversion is the most likely to get results.
Different strokes for different people I guess and everything I present is anecdotal at best. Whatever gets results is gucci in my books
What's the reason you're "only" vegetarian? Just curious to know
My non-negotiable medicines were developed while utilizing animals as test subjects. I own pets and I will not entertain the idea that needs to change. I'd rather avoid the confusion in naming and not debate what qualifies as vegan.
Well, as far as practicable. Medicine is exempt as far as most vegans are concerned, having pets isn't inherently non-vegan either. Shouldn't be much of a debate
Carnist and proud, you should listen to your friend