143
Please can we make this a MOTD banner text?
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
143 points (99.3% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15834 readers
526 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Genuine question: what's the best way to cut through this kind of talking point?
The best I can come up with is "terms created by marginalized people to describe how people do or do not relate to mainstream society are different from terms imposed by the majority society to coerce marginalized people into a box, and refusing a label in order to obstruct understanding isn't the same as refusing a label imposed by majority society". Like, I don't see any problem to use words used to describe the "normal" identity (cis, hetero, etc) for people that do not express any desire to deviate from the "normal" identity in any way for the sake of improving the understanding of marginalized people. But I'm not sure that's convincing to someone who doesn't already agree (perhaps not for the sake of convincing the person you're arguing with, but the onlooking bystanders).
It's just such an annoying tactic because the bad faith is usually obvious but it's hard to clearly formulate why. I guess it basically just boils down to "more allowances should be given to the people on the bottom than the people on the top", but some of the people on top never stop complaining about that.
Pig poop balls probably
you ban them for being a shithead
In my opinion, framing it as:
Either you are Cis or Trans it is a binary, if you are stating you aren't cis then you are stating you are trans.
Gender is a spectrum if you are stating you are not a man then there are many other gender expressions you could be. Hence, the need for self-identification or pronouns, the only situation I can think of in which one would need to disclose being Cis or Trans is in a medical situation or intimate relationship.
In my opinion, this makes the argument of "you are denying my self-identification of not cis is the same as me denying your self-identification of gender expression nonsensical"
"Cis is as offensive as tall or short."
i mean he genuinely doesn't identify as cis because that's not how he thinks about stuff.
agender people are (probably, shoutout to hippie parents) trans as-in not cis and non-binary by definition but a lot of us don't primarily identify as trans or NB.
we're also all earthlings but there are very few "citizen of the world" types around.