That does not make it a slur and should not be treated as such.
You're not engaging with any of the arguments I'm making.
Of all the social media platforms Lemmy seems like the least likely place for me having to speak against misgendering people. Can you really not imagine how a transgender person would feel when the term CIS is forced upon them from the outside?
No you are not engaging with the arguments I am making. Respect for what people associate with is different from a word being a slur, or treated as such.
Going around calling people who does not want to be is disrespectful and is harrasment but it does not make a slur in a general sense.
Cisgendered is a word to describe people's gender identity, not for insulting.
Agree totally, but just FYI "cisgendered" isn't a word (nor is "transgendered").
Yeah it's not a slur just like the words male and female aren't either but they can be used with the intention to insult when directed at people not identifying as such.
I don't agree with labeling the term as such but I do agree with the core intention which is to prevent harrasment. I don't quite see what the issue is here. This will not cause trouble to anyone using the term appropriately.
How does the statement "the words 'cis' or 'cisgendered' are considered slurs on this platform" leave any room for appropriate use of those terms.
Narrator who sounds just like Ron Howard: "It doesn't."
But it will cause trouble, because it is now (treated as) a slur on Twitter. Depending on how strict they are you can't go around saying "as a cisgender" or having it in your bio.
TechCrunch reported on Tuesday that trying to publish a post using the terms “cisgender” or “cis” in the X mobile app will pop up a full-screen warning reading, “This post contains language that may be considered a slur by X and could be used in a harmful manner in violation of our rules.” It then gives you the choice of continuing to publish the post..
Like I said earlier: context matters
Weird how Nazis aren't getting any sort of popups when they post their bigotry on Twitter.
But the person isn't trans and being called cis, or even trans but objecting to being called trans, they're cis and objecting to being called cis.
Can you really not imagine how a transgender person would feel when the term CIS is forced upon them from the outside?
That's like saying the term "male" is forced upon men, or the term "human" is forced upon everyone. Cis is the defined technical term, with solid etymological roots.
But the person isn’t trans
How can you know? Just because a person looks and acts male it doesn't mean that's how they feel inside. There are plenty of closeted trans people that would find that offensive. And what does it even matter? If a person doesn't want to be labeled then any decent person would respect that wish instead doubling down and calling them "cissy" instead.
We're talking about a hypothetical example. What I'm saying it is only comparable to a cis person objecting to being called cis if your example is a trans person objecting to being called trans. Both would be wrong as they are factually correct technical terms, and thus they aren't being used as slurs.
A closeted trans person would be offended that you outed them, not that you called them trans when they are. Although, if they were closeted then you'd probably have no reason to think they were trans.
Calling someone "cissy" is almost certainly meant as an insult, though, because that's not the technical term. That's like calling a gay person a fag, or calling a black person the n word. Calling a cis gendered person cis or cisgender is like calling a gay person gay.
Rejecting a label isn't really valid when the label applies to you. You can't eat pizza and then claim you're not a pizza eater.
And, at the end of the day, the measure that matters is not whether or not you like it, it's actual harm. Calling someone cis is very unlikely to cause them harm. Calling someone a fag could lead to harm (eg Top Gear people driving through Alabama with gay writing on their trucks).
I don't think it necessarily matters even if the label technically does apply to them. I can very well imagine a black person for example taking issue with someone bringing attention to their skin color. Not because they're not indeed black but because they don't want to be described in a way that might diminish other features about them that they actually take pride over.
Or in my personal case while I'm technically part of LGBTQ I still don't want to be associated with what I consider a political movement and when asked I'd wish not to be described in that way and would absolutely be offended with people dismissing my request and labeling me as such nevertheless. Labels often are inaccurate and overly simplifying so plenty of people rather describe themselves with sentences rather than abbreviations/generalizations.
The point isn't really wether it's a correct term or not but ignoring the wish to not be called that and instead doing so with the intention to insult.
Yes, I intentionally gave examples that were open. Some black people take offense to that label, others take offense to "African American", or whatever. People take offense to all sorts of things. In the words of Stephen Fry, "So fucking what? It's just a whine.”
The point isn't really wether it's a correct term or not but ignoring the wish to not be called that and instead doing so with the intention to insult.
The term is not inherently an insult, though. You would have to alter it (eg "cissy") for it to reasonably be considered an insult by default. Merely objecting to a term that any reasonable person would see as accurate and not an insult is not enough - it would just be a whine. If it was used further after an objection, then maybe intent could be proven, but that's not what Musk is talking about here. He's banning the term altogether and saying it is inherently insulting, when it is not.
He's not banning the term. There's no problem using it as long as it's used appropriately.
TechCrunch reported on Tuesday that trying to publish a post using the terms “cisgender” or “cis” in the X mobile app will pop up a full-screen warning reading, “This post contains language that may be considered a slur by X and could be used in a harmful manner in violation of our rules.” It then gives you the choice of continuing to publish the post…
And I'm certain your tweet won't be rated in any way that limits its visibility to others...
You're not engaging with any of the arguments I'm making.
Because your argument is based on the false assumption that not liking the word means not identifying as cisgender.
If you identity as the same sex that you were assigned at birth, you identify as cisgender. That's just how gender and language works.
Your arguments seem pretty disingenuous to me. Of course nobody is saying it's ok to misgender someone so I'm not sure why you're pretending that has anything to do with this. If I call someone straight when they are not or vice versa, I'm an asshole, but that doesn't make the word straight a slur that warrants banning from the platform. The act of deliberately misrepresenting someone's sexuality might but not the word itself.
That does not make it a slur and should not be treated as such.
You're not engaging with any of the arguments I'm making.
Of all the social media platforms Lemmy seems like the least likely place for me having to speak against misgendering people. Can you really not imagine how a transgender person would feel when the term CIS is forced upon them from the outside?
No you are not engaging with the arguments I am making. Respect for what people associate with is different from a word being a slur, or treated as such. Going around calling people who does not want to be is disrespectful and is harrasment but it does not make a slur in a general sense.
Cisgendered is a word to describe people's gender identity, not for insulting.
Agree totally, but just FYI "cisgendered" isn't a word (nor is "transgendered").
Yeah it's not a slur just like the words male and female aren't either but they can be used with the intention to insult when directed at people not identifying as such.
I don't agree with labeling the term as such but I do agree with the core intention which is to prevent harrasment. I don't quite see what the issue is here. This will not cause trouble to anyone using the term appropriately.
How does the statement "the words 'cis' or 'cisgendered' are considered slurs on this platform" leave any room for appropriate use of those terms.
Narrator who sounds just like Ron Howard: "It doesn't."
But it will cause trouble, because it is now (treated as) a slur on Twitter. Depending on how strict they are you can't go around saying "as a cisgender" or having it in your bio.
Like I said earlier: context matters
Weird how Nazis aren't getting any sort of popups when they post their bigotry on Twitter.
But the person isn't trans and being called cis, or even trans but objecting to being called trans, they're cis and objecting to being called cis.
That's like saying the term "male" is forced upon men, or the term "human" is forced upon everyone. Cis is the defined technical term, with solid etymological roots.
How can you know? Just because a person looks and acts male it doesn't mean that's how they feel inside. There are plenty of closeted trans people that would find that offensive. And what does it even matter? If a person doesn't want to be labeled then any decent person would respect that wish instead doubling down and calling them "cissy" instead.
We're talking about a hypothetical example. What I'm saying it is only comparable to a cis person objecting to being called cis if your example is a trans person objecting to being called trans. Both would be wrong as they are factually correct technical terms, and thus they aren't being used as slurs.
A closeted trans person would be offended that you outed them, not that you called them trans when they are. Although, if they were closeted then you'd probably have no reason to think they were trans.
Calling someone "cissy" is almost certainly meant as an insult, though, because that's not the technical term. That's like calling a gay person a fag, or calling a black person the n word. Calling a cis gendered person cis or cisgender is like calling a gay person gay.
Rejecting a label isn't really valid when the label applies to you. You can't eat pizza and then claim you're not a pizza eater.
And, at the end of the day, the measure that matters is not whether or not you like it, it's actual harm. Calling someone cis is very unlikely to cause them harm. Calling someone a fag could lead to harm (eg Top Gear people driving through Alabama with gay writing on their trucks).
I don't think it necessarily matters even if the label technically does apply to them. I can very well imagine a black person for example taking issue with someone bringing attention to their skin color. Not because they're not indeed black but because they don't want to be described in a way that might diminish other features about them that they actually take pride over.
Or in my personal case while I'm technically part of LGBTQ I still don't want to be associated with what I consider a political movement and when asked I'd wish not to be described in that way and would absolutely be offended with people dismissing my request and labeling me as such nevertheless. Labels often are inaccurate and overly simplifying so plenty of people rather describe themselves with sentences rather than abbreviations/generalizations.
The point isn't really wether it's a correct term or not but ignoring the wish to not be called that and instead doing so with the intention to insult.
Yes, I intentionally gave examples that were open. Some black people take offense to that label, others take offense to "African American", or whatever. People take offense to all sorts of things. In the words of Stephen Fry, "So fucking what? It's just a whine.”
The term is not inherently an insult, though. You would have to alter it (eg "cissy") for it to reasonably be considered an insult by default. Merely objecting to a term that any reasonable person would see as accurate and not an insult is not enough - it would just be a whine. If it was used further after an objection, then maybe intent could be proven, but that's not what Musk is talking about here. He's banning the term altogether and saying it is inherently insulting, when it is not.
He's not banning the term. There's no problem using it as long as it's used appropriately.
And I'm certain your tweet won't be rated in any way that limits its visibility to others...
Because your argument is based on the false assumption that not liking the word means not identifying as cisgender.
If you identity as the same sex that you were assigned at birth, you identify as cisgender. That's just how gender and language works.
Your arguments seem pretty disingenuous to me. Of course nobody is saying it's ok to misgender someone so I'm not sure why you're pretending that has anything to do with this. If I call someone straight when they are not or vice versa, I'm an asshole, but that doesn't make the word straight a slur that warrants banning from the platform. The act of deliberately misrepresenting someone's sexuality might but not the word itself.