Cisgender has its origin in the Latin-derived prefix cis-, meaning 'on this side of', which is the opposite of trans-, meaning 'across from' or 'on the other side of'.
.
Hetero- comes from the Greek word ἕτερος [héteros], meaning "other party" or "another"
.
Y'all are so fucking obsessed with demonising the LGBTQIA community, that you can't even do your own fucking research to check the facts.
Cishet is literally "default", so chill the fuck out.
I'm perfectly happy to mind my own damn business.
The issue is people trying to force their own labels on me. A legitimate occurrence in my neck of the woods.
Sound familiar?
...are you saying you're trans and gay?
.
It's not labelling you, it's just a more scientific term for someone that's not trans, and who is straight. I never once said that *you* are cishet, because I haven't asked you how you identify.
1. "Chill the fuck out" - everyone in this comment chain seemed perfectly chilled prior to this tbh.
.
2. No one demonized anyone. There wasn't a single aggressive or attacking comment in this chain prior to you showing up. No one demonized the Lbtq. At WORST there was a somewhat mild conspiracy concept.
.
3. Cishet is literally a label. It is used for labelling people. I'm not a cishet. I'm a straight woman. And you're not trying to convince the majority of the population [the "defaults" ] to accept a label because it's more "scientific."
You identify as a straight, assigned female at birth, woman, correct?
Then you're, by definition, cishet.
It's not me forcing a label on you, it's literally what you're labelling yourself as.
.
That's like me saying that I don't "identify" as "bisexuell", just because that word is in a different language. It still means the same thing. I still identify as bisexual, the word is just in german.
.
I like labelling *myself*, personally. I have OCD and I'm on the autistic spectrum, so I like having my identities in neat little boxes.
.
"gay people want being straight to be less normalized and much more confusing" ah yes, a perfectly innocent sentence, not at all implying that we're against the straight people.
It's as much as a label than "straight woman", except that one suits you better and you use it to describe yourself, despite both terms existing and being synonyms. And obviously I'm not one to tell people to conform to labels given by others, it's just that here they factually mean the same. Still no one's telling you to use the word. Whether you're straight or heterosexual isn't much of a concern. (I'm not intentionnally repeating lydia, I just typed slowly)
Anyways, language has always evolved with society, new words appear because they fit a need at a given point in time (about 20 years ago apparently), I didn't personnally need it, clearly you didn't either, but also clearly enough people did for it to emerge, and more time will say if it will stick or not. You can reject the word, but that won't make it disappear. It will disappear in due time, maybe in two years, maybe in two centuries, maybe later, like all words. That's just quite interesting to see their birth and evolution.
Or maybe we don't want to define ourselves by whatever new and arbitrary label pops up.
I am what I am.
You are what you are.
I'm not telling you what you are.
Do not tell me what I am.
Maybe you aren't against normal people. You don't speak for everyone. My exposure to the LGBT whatever is the toxic bullshit pervading the PNW. I'm sure your experience is different.
I am what I am.
You are what you are.
Friends?
Indeed, I'm not gonna be against any group of people based on dumb characteristics like this.
My experience does differ, good call: lgbtq+ I know or talk to are all pretty chill, the very vast majority of posts I see are too. As in any groups it's the craziest ones that are the easiest to perceive from the outside, especially since today's society polarizes things superfast, so I get it can be annoying.
So yeah, no one's telling others how to define themselves, those are good terms.
I say sure, friends!
Cishet and heterosexual female are not "synonymous." If they were synonymous they wouldn't have needed to invent a new term to try and label me (and people like me) with. And it IS a label they're using FOR me. I am not CisHet. I am a straight woman. A heterosexual female. Something I already established and yet the person claiming how tolerant the Lbtq community is, is also the one person ignoring that, and instead telling me what I am.
.
I do enjoy the irony.
.
"You can reject the world but that won't make it disappear"
.
Funny, that's literally what people are trying to do with this type of terminology haha. Reject the world. Make the standing definitions and realities disappear.
.
Again, I DO enjoy the irony.
Considering they are far from the majority, time will tell if they will make it "disappear" from this corner of the world, try as they might. So far their attempts at making it "disappear" largely consist of saying it hurts their feelings, and then trying to have people who disagree with them silenced and/or destroyed.
.
A somewhat effective tactic, but the pendulum does swing back 'round eventually.
.
And it will be sad because it's not what either side wants.
Do you think words that are synonymous are born at the same time like twins? And indeed, the two aren't exactly synonymous because cishet covers men too, my mistake on that one.
Still, some terms exist that define people outside of a community because they're convenient, for instance since I'm not Jewish I'm a goy and while I wouldn't spontaneously use the term it exists and the definition fits me, saying "I'm not a goy I'm an agnostic" would be semantically wrong. I don't use it but I don't attack it.
If a sufficient number of people are deeply offended by this I guess it will change indeed, but I'm really not betting on this.
Literally didn't say that lol. I said they aren't synonymous.
.
For cishet to exist, the definition of the words "man" "woman" and "heterosexual" have to be altered. I would have thought you'd have picked up on that
.
If goy means anyone that isn't Jewish that's not the same thing at all, and it makes for a poor comparison.
.
Goy from your description would mean anyone who isn't Jewish.
.
Jewish people use it to refer to people who aren't Jewish. Simple enough. Could apply to Muslims, Christians, Catholics, etc too.
.
But here's the major difference:
Jewish people didn't try and change the definition of the word Muslim (for example) to suit their purposes.
.
Jewish people didn't lay siege on the word Muslim and say "hello fellow Muslims, I am also a Muslim, AND I'm Jewish. And since I am now a Muslim, YOU are now subcategorized as this word."
And people didn't then try and tell Muslims "they're right, if they want to say Muslim now means this, and they want to be Muslim, then they are now Muslim, and YOU are now this specific sect of Muslim, and You must accept THEIR definition of Muslim even though it's incorrect to what muslim means. And you should just calm down, and accept this. It's only a word."
How does cishet require for the meaning of heterosexual to change? (especially since it does contain the notion of "het")
And, this is a question about a ton of things in linguistics, why should society adapt to the words and not the other way around? You can say that trans are a minority, yet a sufficient number of people consider this word relevant for it to have become more maintstream, it has a relevance in our society. It has also prompted a lot of thought on gender on several levels.
Yeah and cishet means anyone who isn't lgbtq+, which is exactly why I made this comparison.
Maybe it didn't happen exactly with Muslims, but enter Martin Luther, who considered himself a Christian even though authorities did not. He said their definition was wrong and effectively divided Christianism into Catholicism and Protestantism. The definition of what Christianism means can differ between these two groups, Catholics didn't calm down indeed at first, yet here we are, both are Christians.
And how is it bad to be a subcategory? We're all a subcategory of everything depending on the parameter we consider. As a woman, I'm a subcategory of human; that doesn't make me a lesser human. It would be opression if we opposed "cis women" to "women", but every woman having an adjective (used when necessary only ofc) puts everyone on the same level of consideration.
Ps: I got it for the synonymous part, my bad. I focused on the first part, i.e. if they were synonymous a new term wouldn't have been needed. The sentence as a whole seems to imply it was coined with malicious intentions by "them", while it appeared in a scientific article written by someone I'm still going to call a cis man specialising in psychoanalysis and sex research.
While I'm on history, the term gender exists since 1955, and has been put back into question for nearly 40 years; that's normal for abstract concept.
·
Edited 2 years ago
deleted
· 2 years ago
Last time on Cishet Rage we talked about pronouns, join us today as we tackle: adjectives!
Lawl I love how the "tolerant" and enlightened in this comment thread are the first ones that are referring to any conversational discourse as an attack or rage :P and the first ones to resort to passive aggression for that matter (or flat out aggression)
.
But that's usually the way it goes :P
As for how the meaning of heterosexuality changes, if you change the definition of the base words heterosexual refers to, then heterosexuality, by extension, ALSO changes.
.
I don't know enough about Martin Luther king and I won't pretend to.
.
I do find it interesting that you actually think it would be acceptable for the Jewish population to lay claim to the term "Muslim," and then dictate TO Muslims what it means. But just because YOU find that acceptable (for some bizarre reason) in no way means Muslims themselves should be forced to comply with it. Nor would most of them want to I'd wager.
.
I also never said it was bad to be a subcategory? I said it's wrong to take peoples identity from them, subvert an entire language (and all the ripple effects that go with that) and force them to submit to your new label -- especially if this extremely far-reaching insanity is, by your own admission, redundant.
It's also largely nonsensical. You can argue when the term gender came into existence if you like - it won't change the fact that the concept of it has existed since the beginning of life itself.
.
It also won't change the fact that changing the definition of the word "woman" and "man" to be "anyone who identifies as a woman or a man" is now rendering both those words obsolete.
.
If there are no identifying characteristics that set men and women apart individually, Then those words mean nothing. It's the exact same thing as calling them "human/people."
.
So we are now replacing man/woman with the definition of "human." Which means that cishet now means "human born human who identifies as a human and is attracted to fellow humans."
Regardless of which, like I said:
If people are allowed to tell me they find it offensive if they identified as a zither 6 minutes ago, but now they changed bracelets and identify as a zipper, and how dare I not cater to their desperate delusions of importance...
.
If people are allowed to say they can identify as whatever they want and we must accept that...
.
If this is the world YOU are claiming must be accepted as the new norm
.
Then who are you to tell anyone else that they should be fine with being labelled something they've already expressed distaste towards? That they've already said doesn't apply to them?
Not gonna argue about aggressivity with someone who said "extra stupidity" in the first comment on this post.
.
If that makes it better, to preserve the original meaning of heterosexuality we can say it’s being attracted to cis of the opposite gender. The concept hasn’t actually changed.
.
Don’t take this as me being snobish, but: Martin Luther King is « I have a dream » man, advocated for Black rights in the 60s. Not Martin Luther, a monk that questioned and rejected the Catholic dogma during the XVIth century.
.
About religion: I used "goy" to show the existence of terms used by a minority to describe others. You took it upon yourself to compare religion to gender by making an absurd parallel, and I rolled with it to say it didn't even work historically.
Now for more constructive points:
I’m not saying that the concept of gender hasn’t existed since the beginning of times ; it has. I’m just saying that it has been theorised fairly recently, and this definition is still evolving. It’s like consciousness : we have all experienced this since we came here, but we still don’t know much about it, and first definitions aren’t set in stone.
The possibility of identifying as man despite being born a woman shows on the contrary that the concept of man and woman is still relevant, and deeper than basic organs, it goes with another set of factors that has been less taken into account. Feeling like a man means there's much more to man than just genitals, at least culturally, but maybe even beyond this. It doesn't negate it like you say but can open an interesting field of discussion that would also tell more about feminity and masculinity in general.
Your last comment tackles a key point: no one is saying you’re not a straight woman, that’s the whole thing.
You keep using a « them vs me » rhetoric, saying your identity is « taken from you », you use words like « lay siege », « subvert », « submit ». But we’re not on a crusade to pretend you’re not a straight woman. Despite what you stated, we didn’t ignore it. You say you are, we believe you. No one is trying to convince you you’re not a straight woman. You are, good for you.
Expressing it differently is, as lydia said, simply like translating it in another language. Whether you agree or not with the word cishet (and no one is also forcing you to use it, we’re just saying that for now it factually exists), it does describe the identity you agree with for yourself (going back to the definition, you are a woman, so you do identify as the female gender you were assigned at birth, and you are attracted to men, so the opposite gender).
It is in no way arguing with the REALITY of your identity. As such, it’s fundamentally different than giving people the identity you have chosen for them, insinuating you know who they are better than they do.
If it’s still not clear, I can give a comparison.
"Not gonna argue with someone"
[Spends 2 more comments arguing]
.
But let's dissect that anyway :D
You're talking about my comment that was aimed at no one in particular, that expresses nothing but an opinion that I find a label being used to define ME stupid... as not only "rage" but also an "attack"? Who, exactly, did I attack?
.
I think the term " thot" is stupid too. Sorry for attacking everyone that wants to use that label lol
.
.
Meanwhile the claim that people are making things confusing is on par with comparing an entire group of people to beelzebub himself lol
.
I know who Martin Luther King and Martin Luther are. I said I don't know enough about that particular scenario, so I can't comment on it
You literally compared goy (religion) to cishet (gender politics) and brought religion into this first, so once again, that's an excruciatingly disingenuous take. But alright, whatever take helps you comment the night away I suppose
.
And in case you missed it: everyone in this thread is using them vs me rhetoric.
.
The "cishets" and the "straights" are "demonizing" and "raging" lol.
.
And why, exactly, shouldn't we? I disagree with the label they invented for me. Lydia informed me that it doesn't matter, because that will be what I am because they decided it be so. That, by action, is a them vs me scenario. Although I'm not sure why you assume it is a "me" scenario. It is an "us" scenario. Other people have expressed the same views - even IN this very thread. Not pretending I speak for them... any more than you pretend you speak for "them"
The simple fact is we already had terms to distinguish trans people from biological people.
.
Trans.
.
That's literally the point of that term. Lydia said themself that heterosexual men and women are the.. What was the word they used? It wasn't the "default" but anyway.
.
So now we once again have redundancy for the point of what, exactly? Feelings? What makes their feelings on the issue more relevant than anyone else's?
.
If the terms and labels truly mean so little, why do you feel the need to foist them on others and reject the ones in existence? Seems fairly hypocritical, but that does sound about right for all the times I've had this "discussion"
It literally is arguing with the reality of my identity by implicating (or outright stating) that the definition of woman (literally a key feature in my "identity" if you recall) does not, as stated above and below, mean anything at all.
.
I will disagree with you:
Feeling like a man does not make you a man. It may make you act in ways considered more traditionally "masculine." You may even prefer to LOOK like a man and present as a man.
.
And there is literally nothing necessarily wrong with that.
.
But feeling like a man does not make you a man.
.
Once again, if you choose to go with the logic "a man is anyone who feels like a man" then we have followed the circular yellow brick road through oz and discovered "man" now has a meaning no different from "human."
.
There is no trait separating men from women. The words have no purpose and no meaning.
I am what I am. A man. Who is attracted mostly to women.
I do not need any other labels. I reject any outsider's attempt to assign or label anything.
I am a man. And that means something.
I am attracted to women, and that means something too.
I am not a human attracted to humans, that is far too broad and says nothing about me.
I am not a cishet male. I reject the label and will not answer to it or to anyone who wishes to impose it on me.
I'm gonna keep it short, I picked goy to illustrate a word describing people who are not in a minority, given by this minority. The fact that it was religion wasn't the point.
Having trans and default/normal marks one as a sort of pariah. (trans/biological doesn't so let's use this if you prefer)
"reject the ones in existence" sure, I literally said you're a straight woman. As for what a woman is, a definition adapting doesn't mean being devoid of meaning.
My point was that it exists a notion of "feeling like a man" despite being a woman if you want, which is interesting in itself as it leads to wondering what makes this feeling exist (what does it mean to feel like a man). If, following your logic, man meant human for anyone then the whole trans community wouldn't exist, they wouldn't go from human to human.
Rejecting it is like saying "I'm not a paralian I just live by the sea".
But then, not answering is your choice entirely.
Ps, I said I wouldn't argue about aggressivity, not that I would drop the discussion. If you know who the Martin Luther's are, good. You mixed them up so I just wanted to make it clear.
And I also won't make an analysis of your rhetorics but famousone's comments weren't rage, just disagreement.
1. You used an example involving minority religions, and I ran with it. If you didn't expect that making a statement comparing religious terminology to gender terminology would result in a rebuttal comparing religious terminology to gender terminology, then my advice would be to avoid comparing the two in the first place.
.
Either way it's irrelevant -- you could have compared races, cultures, whatever. A white person suddenly declaring they are Asian, and that Asian people are to be referred to as "original-asian."
.
.
2. I didn't mix the Martin Luther's up, I just used a shorter version of "King's" name. I assumed that because you had referenced him originally it would be fine, but I can see how it would cause confusion. Probably would have been better to go with MLK, but that makes me think of MGK,
3. A definition adapting doesn't mean it's devoid of meaning, correct. But THESE definitions DO devoid man and woman of meaning. If the definition is "whoever feels like this" and the "feeling" is whatever people say on a given day (recently heard people describe pregnancy as feeling masculine for example), then man and woman mean nothing at all.
.
Oak trees exist. Pine trees exist. Oak trees produce acorns, pine trees needles. If you deny that acorns are a trait that set oak trees apart -- that the pine tree says it's cones are acorns now -- and change the definition of "acorn" to "anything that says it's an acorn" than acorn now ceases to have a meaning beyond "some kind of seed produced by some tree." Congratulations you have now redefined the word to mean "seed," and made an acorn now a type of seed that is a type of seed that is produced by a type of tree that produces a type of seed.
The trans community does exist - never said otherwise. That's why there is the term transgender to begin with - to explain there are men and there are women. Many of them clearly defined. And then there are trans men and transwomen, who were born with the traits of one gender, but prefer to live with and adopt the traits of another.
.
If you say a woman is a woman who feels like a woman and a woman is a man who feels like a woman we now have no defining trait that separates men and women to begin with. Saying there are people who wish to be another gender is not contradictory in any way to my point.
4. My comments weren't rage either they were also disagreement. Perhaps slightly less polite disagreement, but disagreement nonetheless. I never claimed to be polite. Bit of a bitch, actually. The only genuine rage I saw was in Lydia's initial comment
@dash224 lol Hi5!
.
I think there probably are or were more non-politically correct females on this site. Sadly a lot of the less PC people either lost interest in the site (not them exclusively mind you), or for many of the ones I've encountered here, they often admit at some point that they just don't find the pile-on and endless rhetoric worth it
.
Either way you're not out here all by yourself offending people with your existence, no worries :P
1. A white person can become Asian through naturalization. And I agree that it would be wrong to require Asians be called natural Asians, but distinguishing Asians and "new Asians" would be a form of ostracisation, which the "woman - trans woman" terminology does. Either the ostracisation remains, or both are Asians, or both can get their little adjective.
2. Yes, I get you referred to MLK, and he wasn't the right guy.
3. If acorn then had no meaning, why would the pine tree declare it bears acorns?
1. No. Not at all. Asian is a race. Pure blood heritage. A white or a black or a Hispanic cannot become Asian. They could become Japanese, Chinese, Indian, or whatever if they jump through the right hoops. But they will always be a White. A Black. A Hispanic. Who just became a naturalized citizen of whatever country.
I am Squaxin by blood, and American by birth. I will never have different blood. I will never have a different birth.
We call ourselves Indians because we're sick and goddamned tired of other people trying to label us "Indigenous" or "Native-American" for their own goddamned convenience. So we call ourselves what we know we are. And resent anyone who tries to call us something different, something we're not, and especially those who try to impose on us, or claim to be one of us.
You can argue that particular issue if you like - I am talking literally about a person not born in Asian, who has no Asian heritage, who did not grow up in Asia, suddenly claiming:
1. I am asian
2. The definition of Asian must now be altered to fit MY standard.
.
^ this is literally a real life thing that happened btw, and the same people claiming you can change gender are outraged. But continue arguing you can change race as well if you like - and if you're not going to, kindly explain how you find that any different
.
Calling them "new Asians" is ostracization in your mind, but telling the original Asians "this person is now a full fledged Asian, Asian now means something else entirely, and YOU must now be referred to as traditional-asian so we don't hurt their feelings" isn't ostracization? What a bizarre way to justify hypocrisy
And once again:
The term woman loses it's meaning if it becomes "anyone who says I'm a woman."
.
There are no traits separating women from men. They don't exist.
.
There has to be a definitive difference between the words or they are synonymous.
.
Same for the acorn thing. I literally can't understand why I've had to go over this 6 or 7 times now.
.
If "acorn" is used to refer to both a seed that is an acorn and a seed that ISN'T an acorn, than the word acorn no longer means "acorn" specifically at all. It just means *"seed" or "nut" perhaps We already have words that means seed/nut. 10 points to whoever can guess what word it is. If a
.
.
*(I'm fairly sleep deprived so feel free to argue schematics if I used the wrong terminology to classify acorns and pine cones)
.
.
For Martin Luther -- ahh okay, that is definitely my bad then. Fair enough, apologies for the confusion there. Not sure why I thought you meant King. I don't know enough about the other Martin Luther either, clearly
To quote someone who said it better than me:
"Saying the definition of a woman is anyone who feels like a woman is a circular definition that leads nowhere."
.
What is a woman? Someone who says I feel like a woman.
.
What differentiates that in any way from a man? Either there are differences between the genders, or there aren't.
.
If there aren't, then sex ed needs a complete restructuring because we apparently shouldn't require fluid from a particular type of human to be injected inside the body of a particular type of other human to reproduce.
.
If there ARE, then we end up back at women and men are different, requiring separate terminology (and health resources...), and that trans men and women do not fully fit into those categories.
.
This does not make trans men and women any less than anyone else. But it does mean they are not the same. Which is something I thought everyone used to be aware of, but apparently not. And that's the entire point of the trans prefix.
I don't really have the energy to walk around in circles anymore.
.
I will say it seems like this conversation has proven dash right after all -- the point of cishet may not be to create confusion, but it has certainly accomplished the task rather expertly
For the record, my point still stands, pumpkin.
A·sian
/ˈāZHən/
adjective
adjective: Asian
relating to Asia or its people, customs, or languages.
noun
noun: Asian; plural noun: Asians
a native of Asia or a person of Asian descent
Clearly we don't seem to understand each other on that definition thing. You avoided my question and instead repeated yourself, it is indeed useless to go around this again in these circumstances.
.
Race is the result of history/heritage, while gender is not. Biologically, transwomen's neural networks are closer to ciswomen; transwomen seem to have had lower prenatal testosterone levels than cismen, while transmen have had higher prenatal T than ciswomen. There's a strong correlation between biology and transgender behavior, that I've yet to read about on "transracial" ppl.
.
Disingenuous, I said a marked difference between the two groups would be ostracisation. Full-fledged Asians - traditional Asians is not what I suggest and would indeed be an ostracisation. Then, if you had new Asians - traditional Asians, both of them would coexist as Asians without one being excluded from that group, so no ostracism.
Ok famousone, I found another one obviously on Merriam-Webster, which I routinely use, but looking into it further they don't seem to bear the most common definition indeed. I stand corrected!
I sincerely suggest you elaborate on whatever question it is you're talking about before accusing me of avoiding it. Or is the issue merely that you dislike my answer?
.
Race is literally not the result of history? - it's the result of biology and location. People with specific characteristics pass those down to their children - NOT through osmosis, but through genetic reproduction. And celebrating a different culture in no way makes you part of that race. If it did, people wouldn't be bitching about cultural appropriation all the time.
.
But, again, if you're fine with people changing their gender and can accept that, then you have no leg to stand on when it comes to trasnracialism either. Those people just *feel* more Asian. Maybe tomorrow I'll feel more like I'm Latina and who is anyone to tell me I'm not?
And you have literally redefine the definition of Asian to now mean "anyone who feels Asian."
.
Which literally is the same as saying "any human in existence." It's a meaningless word.
.
And what is your point with the testosterone and estrogen levels? No one said they didn't have that going on (assuming your study is correct - other studies have found transgenderism is often connected to abusive backgrounds so I'm not sure where we're going with this).
.
There ARE women that have higher testosterone levels than men but it:
1. Isn't common
2. Isn't the only defining characteristic.
.
It's an anomaly, not a standard.
.
I genuinely am at a loss as to how someone so quick to whip out definitions to prove their point seems to have no grasp on the concept that words have meanings.
You claim the words "woman" and "man" are not synonymous with "human." You claim they are also not synonymous with each other. And you also claim that any human on the planet can fall under either of those definitions at any moment, should they say the words "I feel like this."
.
So define it.
.
Define woman. Define man.
.
Make it clear. Lay out what separates these groups from each other. How do we tell them apart? What characteristics separate women from man to such a degree that they are deserving of their own words?
.
Saying "a woman is someone who feels feminine" is dead-end logic as well, since then you have to define femininity.
I don't dislike it, I just read it 3 times in a row
.
History, as in it's the result of a process, through time, through generations. Not cultural history... Biological history if you will, that bears your ancestor's history, every step making all of your DNA, as opposed to a biological flipping of a coin.
.
My point was, biologically there are indicators that seem to indicate it's not only "in the head" but runs deeper, which isn't the case in "transraciality". (I've even seen that the ratio of identical twins being trans is significantly higher than all the other types of siblings) I have also seen the ones you're referring to, and I don't think the two undermine each other.
.
Woman: person who wouldn't prefer having a penis, man: person who wouldn't prefer having a vagina. (in super short. I'm tired af and I have other things to do atm)
Those definitions seem completely subjective
Are you saying that a biological male, so possessing primary and secondary sexual characteristics (and of age obviously), should compete in women's sports if he says that he wouldn't prefer having a penis?
It seems like you're at least laying the philosophical foundations for such an argument?
I mean you could say that sports are "male and female", not "men's and women's", but it is common parlance to refer to them as "men's and women's"
When the men's room is full I would prefer not having a penis.
I like women. I'm not going to take to bed someone "who would prefer not having a penis".
If someone steps to me, I'm going to treat them differently, all else being equal, differently if they're a man or a woman.
I'm a man. Not "someone who prefers having a penis".
Jfc, reframing to to "whether they prefer having a penis" is demeaning and something that actually turns me wholly against whoever wants to define people by that.
I remember hearing about a human who would "prefer not having a penis" disrobing in a change room for those-who-possess-vaginas. There were children in the room. The vagina-havers I'm sure had to have very long talks with their children about why it's fine for strangers with penises to disrobe in front of them in such a place, because the stranger with a penis really wishes the penis wasn't there. Or maybe the vagina-lacker just claims they do for the purpose of disrobing in front of vagina-havers and children. Fuck knows that's happened multiple times before.
.
I remember a couple years ago when that same act would have gotten that person arrested for multiple reasons.
.
A vagina-haver expressed distress at the situation and was informed there was nothing to be done because the human-who-wishes-their-penis-wasn't takes precedent over everyone else
It's almost like nearly every culture throughout human history dividing humans into "man" and "woman" had reasons for doing so
.
But at least no one feels ostracized, I suppose
.
Except, you know. The vagina-havers and penis-havers who do.
.
.
And no, I wouldn't have sex with someone who "prefers to have a penis." I'd prefer to have 30 million dollars and the ability of flight.
That doesn't make me a millionaire or an angel/bird-person/superhero.
.
that guy would prefer to be Asian and look like some kpop idol or something. He had surgery and made the claim. That doesn't make him Asian or the kpop idol.
Wait I want to change my answer. I'd prefer to be a dragon.
.
Based on this preference, sadly, anyone who fucks me will now be guilty of bestiality, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make
I literally slept last week.
.
.
...... Am I supposed to be doing it more?
3Reply
deleted
· 2 years ago
I’m gonna tell you guys a secret… cishet isn’t a part of the lbgtq+ community, it’s literally just a way to refer to someone who is outside of the community. Because a straight person might be trans and a cis person might be gay.
.
Hetero- comes from the Greek word ἕτερος [héteros], meaning "other party" or "another"
.
Y'all are so fucking obsessed with demonising the LGBTQIA community, that you can't even do your own fucking research to check the facts.
Cishet is literally "default", so chill the fuck out.
The issue is people trying to force their own labels on me. A legitimate occurrence in my neck of the woods.
Sound familiar?
.
It's not labelling you, it's just a more scientific term for someone that's not trans, and who is straight. I never once said that *you* are cishet, because I haven't asked you how you identify.
.
2. No one demonized anyone. There wasn't a single aggressive or attacking comment in this chain prior to you showing up. No one demonized the Lbtq. At WORST there was a somewhat mild conspiracy concept.
.
3. Cishet is literally a label. It is used for labelling people. I'm not a cishet. I'm a straight woman. And you're not trying to convince the majority of the population [the "defaults" ] to accept a label because it's more "scientific."
Then you're, by definition, cishet.
It's not me forcing a label on you, it's literally what you're labelling yourself as.
.
That's like me saying that I don't "identify" as "bisexuell", just because that word is in a different language. It still means the same thing. I still identify as bisexual, the word is just in german.
.
I like labelling *myself*, personally. I have OCD and I'm on the autistic spectrum, so I like having my identities in neat little boxes.
.
"gay people want being straight to be less normalized and much more confusing" ah yes, a perfectly innocent sentence, not at all implying that we're against the straight people.
Anyways, language has always evolved with society, new words appear because they fit a need at a given point in time (about 20 years ago apparently), I didn't personnally need it, clearly you didn't either, but also clearly enough people did for it to emerge, and more time will say if it will stick or not. You can reject the word, but that won't make it disappear. It will disappear in due time, maybe in two years, maybe in two centuries, maybe later, like all words. That's just quite interesting to see their birth and evolution.
I am what I am.
You are what you are.
I'm not telling you what you are.
Do not tell me what I am.
Maybe you aren't against normal people. You don't speak for everyone. My exposure to the LGBT whatever is the toxic bullshit pervading the PNW. I'm sure your experience is different.
I am what I am.
You are what you are.
Friends?
My experience does differ, good call: lgbtq+ I know or talk to are all pretty chill, the very vast majority of posts I see are too. As in any groups it's the craziest ones that are the easiest to perceive from the outside, especially since today's society polarizes things superfast, so I get it can be annoying.
So yeah, no one's telling others how to define themselves, those are good terms.
I say sure, friends!
.
I do enjoy the irony.
.
"You can reject the world but that won't make it disappear"
.
Funny, that's literally what people are trying to do with this type of terminology haha. Reject the world. Make the standing definitions and realities disappear.
.
Again, I DO enjoy the irony.
.
A somewhat effective tactic, but the pendulum does swing back 'round eventually.
.
And it will be sad because it's not what either side wants.
Still, some terms exist that define people outside of a community because they're convenient, for instance since I'm not Jewish I'm a goy and while I wouldn't spontaneously use the term it exists and the definition fits me, saying "I'm not a goy I'm an agnostic" would be semantically wrong. I don't use it but I don't attack it.
If a sufficient number of people are deeply offended by this I guess it will change indeed, but I'm really not betting on this.
.
For cishet to exist, the definition of the words "man" "woman" and "heterosexual" have to be altered. I would have thought you'd have picked up on that
.
If goy means anyone that isn't Jewish that's not the same thing at all, and it makes for a poor comparison.
.
Goy from your description would mean anyone who isn't Jewish.
.
Jewish people use it to refer to people who aren't Jewish. Simple enough. Could apply to Muslims, Christians, Catholics, etc too.
.
But here's the major difference:
Jewish people didn't try and change the definition of the word Muslim (for example) to suit their purposes.
.
Jewish people didn't lay siege on the word Muslim and say "hello fellow Muslims, I am also a Muslim, AND I'm Jewish. And since I am now a Muslim, YOU are now subcategorized as this word."
And, this is a question about a ton of things in linguistics, why should society adapt to the words and not the other way around? You can say that trans are a minority, yet a sufficient number of people consider this word relevant for it to have become more maintstream, it has a relevance in our society. It has also prompted a lot of thought on gender on several levels.
Yeah and cishet means anyone who isn't lgbtq+, which is exactly why I made this comparison.
Maybe it didn't happen exactly with Muslims, but enter Martin Luther, who considered himself a Christian even though authorities did not. He said their definition was wrong and effectively divided Christianism into Catholicism and Protestantism. The definition of what Christianism means can differ between these two groups, Catholics didn't calm down indeed at first, yet here we are, both are Christians.
Ps: I got it for the synonymous part, my bad. I focused on the first part, i.e. if they were synonymous a new term wouldn't have been needed. The sentence as a whole seems to imply it was coined with malicious intentions by "them", while it appeared in a scientific article written by someone I'm still going to call a cis man specialising in psychoanalysis and sex research.
While I'm on history, the term gender exists since 1955, and has been put back into question for nearly 40 years; that's normal for abstract concept.
.
But that's usually the way it goes :P
.
I don't know enough about Martin Luther king and I won't pretend to.
.
I do find it interesting that you actually think it would be acceptable for the Jewish population to lay claim to the term "Muslim," and then dictate TO Muslims what it means. But just because YOU find that acceptable (for some bizarre reason) in no way means Muslims themselves should be forced to comply with it. Nor would most of them want to I'd wager.
.
I also never said it was bad to be a subcategory? I said it's wrong to take peoples identity from them, subvert an entire language (and all the ripple effects that go with that) and force them to submit to your new label -- especially if this extremely far-reaching insanity is, by your own admission, redundant.
.
It also won't change the fact that changing the definition of the word "woman" and "man" to be "anyone who identifies as a woman or a man" is now rendering both those words obsolete.
.
If there are no identifying characteristics that set men and women apart individually, Then those words mean nothing. It's the exact same thing as calling them "human/people."
.
So we are now replacing man/woman with the definition of "human." Which means that cishet now means "human born human who identifies as a human and is attracted to fellow humans."
If people are allowed to tell me they find it offensive if they identified as a zither 6 minutes ago, but now they changed bracelets and identify as a zipper, and how dare I not cater to their desperate delusions of importance...
.
If people are allowed to say they can identify as whatever they want and we must accept that...
.
If this is the world YOU are claiming must be accepted as the new norm
.
Then who are you to tell anyone else that they should be fine with being labelled something they've already expressed distaste towards? That they've already said doesn't apply to them?
.
If that makes it better, to preserve the original meaning of heterosexuality we can say it’s being attracted to cis of the opposite gender. The concept hasn’t actually changed.
.
Don’t take this as me being snobish, but: Martin Luther King is « I have a dream » man, advocated for Black rights in the 60s. Not Martin Luther, a monk that questioned and rejected the Catholic dogma during the XVIth century.
.
About religion: I used "goy" to show the existence of terms used by a minority to describe others. You took it upon yourself to compare religion to gender by making an absurd parallel, and I rolled with it to say it didn't even work historically.
I’m not saying that the concept of gender hasn’t existed since the beginning of times ; it has. I’m just saying that it has been theorised fairly recently, and this definition is still evolving. It’s like consciousness : we have all experienced this since we came here, but we still don’t know much about it, and first definitions aren’t set in stone.
The possibility of identifying as man despite being born a woman shows on the contrary that the concept of man and woman is still relevant, and deeper than basic organs, it goes with another set of factors that has been less taken into account. Feeling like a man means there's much more to man than just genitals, at least culturally, but maybe even beyond this. It doesn't negate it like you say but can open an interesting field of discussion that would also tell more about feminity and masculinity in general.
You keep using a « them vs me » rhetoric, saying your identity is « taken from you », you use words like « lay siege », « subvert », « submit ». But we’re not on a crusade to pretend you’re not a straight woman. Despite what you stated, we didn’t ignore it. You say you are, we believe you. No one is trying to convince you you’re not a straight woman. You are, good for you.
It is in no way arguing with the REALITY of your identity. As such, it’s fundamentally different than giving people the identity you have chosen for them, insinuating you know who they are better than they do.
If it’s still not clear, I can give a comparison.
[Spends 2 more comments arguing]
.
But let's dissect that anyway :D
You're talking about my comment that was aimed at no one in particular, that expresses nothing but an opinion that I find a label being used to define ME stupid... as not only "rage" but also an "attack"? Who, exactly, did I attack?
.
I think the term " thot" is stupid too. Sorry for attacking everyone that wants to use that label lol
.
.
Meanwhile the claim that people are making things confusing is on par with comparing an entire group of people to beelzebub himself lol
.
I know who Martin Luther King and Martin Luther are. I said I don't know enough about that particular scenario, so I can't comment on it
.
And in case you missed it: everyone in this thread is using them vs me rhetoric.
.
The "cishets" and the "straights" are "demonizing" and "raging" lol.
.
And why, exactly, shouldn't we? I disagree with the label they invented for me. Lydia informed me that it doesn't matter, because that will be what I am because they decided it be so. That, by action, is a them vs me scenario. Although I'm not sure why you assume it is a "me" scenario. It is an "us" scenario. Other people have expressed the same views - even IN this very thread. Not pretending I speak for them... any more than you pretend you speak for "them"
.
Trans.
.
That's literally the point of that term. Lydia said themself that heterosexual men and women are the.. What was the word they used? It wasn't the "default" but anyway.
.
So now we once again have redundancy for the point of what, exactly? Feelings? What makes their feelings on the issue more relevant than anyone else's?
.
If the terms and labels truly mean so little, why do you feel the need to foist them on others and reject the ones in existence? Seems fairly hypocritical, but that does sound about right for all the times I've had this "discussion"
.
I will disagree with you:
Feeling like a man does not make you a man. It may make you act in ways considered more traditionally "masculine." You may even prefer to LOOK like a man and present as a man.
.
And there is literally nothing necessarily wrong with that.
.
But feeling like a man does not make you a man.
.
Once again, if you choose to go with the logic "a man is anyone who feels like a man" then we have followed the circular yellow brick road through oz and discovered "man" now has a meaning no different from "human."
.
There is no trait separating men from women. The words have no purpose and no meaning.
I do not need any other labels. I reject any outsider's attempt to assign or label anything.
I am a man. And that means something.
I am attracted to women, and that means something too.
I am not a human attracted to humans, that is far too broad and says nothing about me.
I am not a cishet male. I reject the label and will not answer to it or to anyone who wishes to impose it on me.
Having trans and default/normal marks one as a sort of pariah. (trans/biological doesn't so let's use this if you prefer)
"reject the ones in existence" sure, I literally said you're a straight woman. As for what a woman is, a definition adapting doesn't mean being devoid of meaning.
My point was that it exists a notion of "feeling like a man" despite being a woman if you want, which is interesting in itself as it leads to wondering what makes this feeling exist (what does it mean to feel like a man). If, following your logic, man meant human for anyone then the whole trans community wouldn't exist, they wouldn't go from human to human.
Rejecting it is like saying "I'm not a paralian I just live by the sea".
But then, not answering is your choice entirely.
And I also won't make an analysis of your rhetorics but famousone's comments weren't rage, just disagreement.
.
Either way it's irrelevant -- you could have compared races, cultures, whatever. A white person suddenly declaring they are Asian, and that Asian people are to be referred to as "original-asian."
.
.
2. I didn't mix the Martin Luther's up, I just used a shorter version of "King's" name. I assumed that because you had referenced him originally it would be fine, but I can see how it would cause confusion. Probably would have been better to go with MLK, but that makes me think of MGK,
.
Oak trees exist. Pine trees exist. Oak trees produce acorns, pine trees needles. If you deny that acorns are a trait that set oak trees apart -- that the pine tree says it's cones are acorns now -- and change the definition of "acorn" to "anything that says it's an acorn" than acorn now ceases to have a meaning beyond "some kind of seed produced by some tree." Congratulations you have now redefined the word to mean "seed," and made an acorn now a type of seed that is a type of seed that is produced by a type of tree that produces a type of seed.
.
If you say a woman is a woman who feels like a woman and a woman is a man who feels like a woman we now have no defining trait that separates men and women to begin with. Saying there are people who wish to be another gender is not contradictory in any way to my point.
.
I think there probably are or were more non-politically correct females on this site. Sadly a lot of the less PC people either lost interest in the site (not them exclusively mind you), or for many of the ones I've encountered here, they often admit at some point that they just don't find the pile-on and endless rhetoric worth it
.
Either way you're not out here all by yourself offending people with your existence, no worries :P
2. Yes, I get you referred to MLK, and he wasn't the right guy.
3. If acorn then had no meaning, why would the pine tree declare it bears acorns?
I am Squaxin by blood, and American by birth. I will never have different blood. I will never have a different birth.
We call ourselves Indians because we're sick and goddamned tired of other people trying to label us "Indigenous" or "Native-American" for their own goddamned convenience. So we call ourselves what we know we are. And resent anyone who tries to call us something different, something we're not, and especially those who try to impose on us, or claim to be one of us.
2: a person of Asian descent"
1. I am asian
2. The definition of Asian must now be altered to fit MY standard.
.
^ this is literally a real life thing that happened btw, and the same people claiming you can change gender are outraged. But continue arguing you can change race as well if you like - and if you're not going to, kindly explain how you find that any different
.
Calling them "new Asians" is ostracization in your mind, but telling the original Asians "this person is now a full fledged Asian, Asian now means something else entirely, and YOU must now be referred to as traditional-asian so we don't hurt their feelings" isn't ostracization? What a bizarre way to justify hypocrisy
The term woman loses it's meaning if it becomes "anyone who says I'm a woman."
.
There are no traits separating women from men. They don't exist.
.
There has to be a definitive difference between the words or they are synonymous.
.
Same for the acorn thing. I literally can't understand why I've had to go over this 6 or 7 times now.
.
If "acorn" is used to refer to both a seed that is an acorn and a seed that ISN'T an acorn, than the word acorn no longer means "acorn" specifically at all. It just means *"seed" or "nut" perhaps We already have words that means seed/nut. 10 points to whoever can guess what word it is. If a
.
.
*(I'm fairly sleep deprived so feel free to argue schematics if I used the wrong terminology to classify acorns and pine cones)
.
.
For Martin Luther -- ahh okay, that is definitely my bad then. Fair enough, apologies for the confusion there. Not sure why I thought you meant King. I don't know enough about the other Martin Luther either, clearly
"Saying the definition of a woman is anyone who feels like a woman is a circular definition that leads nowhere."
.
What is a woman? Someone who says I feel like a woman.
.
What differentiates that in any way from a man? Either there are differences between the genders, or there aren't.
.
If there aren't, then sex ed needs a complete restructuring because we apparently shouldn't require fluid from a particular type of human to be injected inside the body of a particular type of other human to reproduce.
.
If there ARE, then we end up back at women and men are different, requiring separate terminology (and health resources...), and that trans men and women do not fully fit into those categories.
.
This does not make trans men and women any less than anyone else. But it does mean they are not the same. Which is something I thought everyone used to be aware of, but apparently not. And that's the entire point of the trans prefix.
.
I will say it seems like this conversation has proven dash right after all -- the point of cishet may not be to create confusion, but it has certainly accomplished the task rather expertly
A·sian
/ˈāZHən/
adjective
adjective: Asian
relating to Asia or its people, customs, or languages.
noun
noun: Asian; plural noun: Asians
a native of Asia or a person of Asian descent
.
Race is the result of history/heritage, while gender is not. Biologically, transwomen's neural networks are closer to ciswomen; transwomen seem to have had lower prenatal testosterone levels than cismen, while transmen have had higher prenatal T than ciswomen. There's a strong correlation between biology and transgender behavior, that I've yet to read about on "transracial" ppl.
.
Disingenuous, I said a marked difference between the two groups would be ostracisation. Full-fledged Asians - traditional Asians is not what I suggest and would indeed be an ostracisation. Then, if you had new Asians - traditional Asians, both of them would coexist as Asians without one being excluded from that group, so no ostracism.
.
Race is literally not the result of history? - it's the result of biology and location. People with specific characteristics pass those down to their children - NOT through osmosis, but through genetic reproduction. And celebrating a different culture in no way makes you part of that race. If it did, people wouldn't be bitching about cultural appropriation all the time.
.
But, again, if you're fine with people changing their gender and can accept that, then you have no leg to stand on when it comes to trasnracialism either. Those people just *feel* more Asian. Maybe tomorrow I'll feel more like I'm Latina and who is anyone to tell me I'm not?
.
Which literally is the same as saying "any human in existence." It's a meaningless word.
.
And what is your point with the testosterone and estrogen levels? No one said they didn't have that going on (assuming your study is correct - other studies have found transgenderism is often connected to abusive backgrounds so I'm not sure where we're going with this).
.
There ARE women that have higher testosterone levels than men but it:
1. Isn't common
2. Isn't the only defining characteristic.
.
It's an anomaly, not a standard.
.
I genuinely am at a loss as to how someone so quick to whip out definitions to prove their point seems to have no grasp on the concept that words have meanings.
.
So define it.
.
Define woman. Define man.
.
Make it clear. Lay out what separates these groups from each other. How do we tell them apart? What characteristics separate women from man to such a degree that they are deserving of their own words?
.
Saying "a woman is someone who feels feminine" is dead-end logic as well, since then you have to define femininity.
.
History, as in it's the result of a process, through time, through generations. Not cultural history... Biological history if you will, that bears your ancestor's history, every step making all of your DNA, as opposed to a biological flipping of a coin.
.
My point was, biologically there are indicators that seem to indicate it's not only "in the head" but runs deeper, which isn't the case in "transraciality". (I've even seen that the ratio of identical twins being trans is significantly higher than all the other types of siblings) I have also seen the ones you're referring to, and I don't think the two undermine each other.
.
Woman: person who wouldn't prefer having a penis, man: person who wouldn't prefer having a vagina. (in super short. I'm tired af and I have other things to do atm)
Are you saying that a biological male, so possessing primary and secondary sexual characteristics (and of age obviously), should compete in women's sports if he says that he wouldn't prefer having a penis?
It seems like you're at least laying the philosophical foundations for such an argument?
I mean you could say that sports are "male and female", not "men's and women's", but it is common parlance to refer to them as "men's and women's"
I like women. I'm not going to take to bed someone "who would prefer not having a penis".
If someone steps to me, I'm going to treat them differently, all else being equal, differently if they're a man or a woman.
I'm a man. Not "someone who prefers having a penis".
Jfc, reframing to to "whether they prefer having a penis" is demeaning and something that actually turns me wholly against whoever wants to define people by that.
.
I remember a couple years ago when that same act would have gotten that person arrested for multiple reasons.
.
A vagina-haver expressed distress at the situation and was informed there was nothing to be done because the human-who-wishes-their-penis-wasn't takes precedent over everyone else
.
But at least no one feels ostracized, I suppose
.
Except, you know. The vagina-havers and penis-havers who do.
.
.
And no, I wouldn't have sex with someone who "prefers to have a penis." I'd prefer to have 30 million dollars and the ability of flight.
That doesn't make me a millionaire or an angel/bird-person/superhero.
.
that guy would prefer to be Asian and look like some kpop idol or something. He had surgery and made the claim. That doesn't make him Asian or the kpop idol.
.
Based on this preference, sadly, anyone who fucks me will now be guilty of bestiality, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make
.
.
...... Am I supposed to be doing it more?