Question for the Transgenders here.

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I don't know if I personally would, possibly not; but I don't think it has ever been a theme.

Err I don't know what you mean by theme... Still, to most cis people this personal conflict doesn't usually come up, because most cis folk end up never dating a trans person that they know of. Either because they dated a trans person, regardless of weather or not they knew any trans people, they never dated a trans person before they came out of the closet, or to terms with their gender identity... Along with the fact, any trans people any cis person might they dated, the cis person never knew the person they dated was trans and the relationship never went far enough for them to find out.

A lot of cis people say that they're open to dating a trans person, as the concept to them is okay in the abstract, but in practice the vast majority see of cis people being trans as a deal breaker. It's not even that they're raging transphobes, because most people aren't, it's because cis people can come up with a lot of reasons in their minds as to why dating a trans person would be an issue. Besides that there are a lot of external reasons, which frankly are all stupid as hell, why a cis person might avoid dating a trans person at all. Stupid reasons like bigoted family members and friends calling a person's sexuality into question, because they are, or have, dated a trans person.

In the end I think most examples of trans women I've seen look way too masculine to be attractive to me,

Most trans women, along with most trans people you've seen, are ones you never pegged for trans, because a lot of trans people, especially those who commit to transition pass. Passing isn't as hard as people think it is either, especially because stories about failing to pass come from trans people, both trans men and trans women, who judge their presentation harder than most cis folk will.

and I am naturally not attracted to trans men, as I am not attracted to cisgendered men.

This flies exactly counter to what you said in the first half of the sentence:

In the end I think most examples of trans women I've seen look way too masculine to be attractive to me, and I am naturally not attracted to trans men, as I am not attracted to cisgendered men.

That's a terrific double standard you got going there, because you're giving trans men a pass for being just like men, but at the same time you're invalidating the femininity of trans women.

Of course that's in part the point too, because trans men are a lot less visible than trans women, there is a lot less scrutiny directed at trans men's gender identities and presentation. Trans women on the other hand have to walk a gender presentation tight rope, because any slightly masculine mannerism, any slightly masculine gender presentation, and bam our gender identities are invalidated. Along with that if a trans woman presents too stereotypically feminine, we get accused of trying to hard, or complimented on passing so "well", which also directly invalidates our genders. The fact is a cis woman can wear mens clothes, enjoy sports, have a traditionally male only job, and have stereotypically male hobbies, and still be respected as a woman. A trans woman on the other hand, when people know when you're a trans woman, they scrutinize your gender presentation in the extreme, any slightly masculine signs are used to totally invalidate a trans woman of her womanhood. It happens to trans men too, but not nearly as much as trans women, people are always looking for an excuse to invalidate our femininity.

I don't understand why it would be hard for you to understand people being "hung up" on genitals.

Oh I didn't say it's hard for me to understand, because gender dysphoria often causes trans people to be hung up about our own genitals personally. The part that strikes me as odd is that cisgender people are hung up on other people's genitals. As if the only reason to have a romantic relationship with someone, that the only objective of romantic relationships, is sex... Which is a sentiment I only ever encounter amongst cis folk, and really that's not my experience with most cis people, just some cis people. Being that I'm asexual, but still willing to engage in intimate activities to make my partner happy, the sole objective being sex is a turn off to me. As it is for virtually everyone I've ever been involved with, single minded pursuit of sex is probably the biggest relationship killer, because it kills any inter personal relationship development besides lust.

I think those are more the point... Some people are all about the sex, which is the only reason genitals could matter, but usually genitals are a lot lower on the priorities list. I mean to the point where people who have a good relationship, they figure out away to have pleasure, despite genitals, not because of them. Trans men for example, bottom surgery is a pretty much a joke for trans men, more often not they can't perform at all biologically in a sexual way... Which means they have to rely on other means, which is kind of an advantage, a trans man is a lot more flexible in bed, because if it's too small, or too big, you just pick out a more appropriate strap-on.

I am turned on by female genitalia, but not turned on by a big ol' cock 'n' balls. The vast majority of people feel like that.

See that's strange to me. I know a lot of heterosexual guys and lesbian women who find vaginas to be gross, or ugly for various reasons. Along with that there are lots of heterosexual women and gay guys I know who find penises to be gross, or ugly, too. That's regarding the straight and gay/lesbian cis folk I know too, along with trans folk, doesn't make them any less attracted to their preferred gender either. Sure there are plenty of people I know straight, cis, gay, trans, or other wise who do like the genitals of the gender they're attracted to, but very few people I've ever met put genitals above the person's personality in dating. The ones who do...

In my experience people who talk about being attracted to genitals fall into one of three groups: People who can't maintain a relationship because they only care about having sex. People who are extremely insecure with their sexuality, gender identity, or both. Then it's people who are in the closet, most usually because they're actually gay/lesbian. Of everyone I've ever met, unless they're bisexual, pan, or the like, they'll also talk about people, usually celebrities, they've been attracted to, who aren't of the gender they're deeply attracted to. A few I known deny such things, always vehemently, while acting like you personally insulted them, they also be the ones who talk the most about genital attraction. Now @s0denone, I'm not saying that this applies to you, but... The way you worded your attraction by saying you're attracted to "female genitalia", instead of saying women, and characterizing male genitals as "a big ol' cock 'n' balls", that certainly raises flags in my mind...

The truth is most people care more about the person, than the genitals attached to them, which honestly is the way it should be. If it turns out that the person one cares about has the wrong genitals, then you find alternative means of getting it on, if you actually care about that person. People make all sorts of allowances for the people they get romantically involved with, because it's about people loving each other, not each other's genitals....

If a transman or transwoman is pre-op and ignoring literally everything else about them, it is totally fair and rational for a heterosexual to not be attracted to them.

That's only correct if you ignore literally everything about a person except their genitals, that sort of laser focus on genitals most certainly isn't fair, or rational. Especially considering that many trans people never have bottom surgery because it's prohibitively expensive, or too primitive, or too incomplete, or they're just not alienated by the genitals they were born with. I've read some statistics where they say that at least some 60% of trans people don't get bottom surgery, and that a large number simply don't want it. In particular when it comes to trans men, getting bottom surgery just isn't in the cards, because of how primitive and impractical the surgery is. That for trans men, bottom surgery doesn't grant them a penis that will get erect, so a major reason to get bottom surgery in the first place is just out of the question.

The only logical, rational, and fair reason to not date someone over genitals is if someone wants biological children that are a product of the genetics of them and their partner. Though that screws over cisgender people who are sterile for various reasons. Still it's the only actually logical, rational, and fair reason that I've ever seen presented in these cases. Sure preference and attraction can be a factor, as can genitals, but those aren't totally rational reasons... More over they're reasons that are purely superficial in nature, because it's choosing appearance and sexual reproductive parts over, what can often be a genuine emotional interpersonal connection.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think that was the point I was trying to get to somewhere in my ramblings. Sorry it really wasn't well thought out and very stream of consciousnessy. Ultimately I was just trying to say "call people the label thy're comfortable with". I just used queer as an example because for most people I know it's a label they're comfortable with but this guy hates it so I don't use it around him. I was just using it to illustrate that they're probably isn't an easy answer to "What label should I use for X group?" Sorry if it sound like I was trying to sound authoritive on a situation I obviously know little about. My intention was purely postmodern in nature. Language and perception aren't all that simple is all I was getting at.

Perhaps this is miscommunication. When you brought up the etymological point, I took it more as an argument that "technically" there might be nothing wrong with the word, but that contextually this is not the case. This is sort of the argument sophists miss when they quote George Carlin there's nothing wrong with the word "******" (even though he immediately points out the context is what makes a word bad or not). But that would seem to be why you brought up my use of "cromulent." It wasn't a word until we made it one. I gathered the "ergo" was "just like transgenders is a slur because it's been made one."

As such, it didn't come off as authorative to me, but I did see some level of issue with the way it was stated. Or perhaps it was inference. I don't know.

Part of my contention in this thread is that I think the argument by analogy is rather absurd in the first place. Multiple people in this thread making the argument that you don't use "transgenders" are or have been members of a usergroup here called "Transgenders of Escapist." But beyond that, there's this argument that you wouldn't call so-and-so something, when...actually, yeah, you might. I know gays and queers who will call themselves and others gays and queers. At least one trans individual on this site decided that she would use "transgenders," and in the entire time it's been up it hasn't even been contentious enough to address.

And it'd be one thing if the argument was "this is a contextual understanding," which goes back in my mind to "******." I'm perfectly fine letting black people decide if, when and how that word is used. My pasty white ass gives me about the only majority status I have, so I'm not going to interject and tell people they're wrong if they decide how to use a word that pertains to them. but I don't think I've seen that case made here, with this word.

What I see is sort of a scattershot, post-hoc rationale for why the word is bad because bad people use it. And by that logic, we need to find something other than "transgender" to call ourselves, because seriously oh my god have you seen the news recently i don't even know how transgender isn't already considered a sneer word the way politicians are mouthing it and im still talking aren't i okay ill stop.

And this irritates me, possibly more than it should, since I don't think I've ever said "transgenders" outside of this thread and referencing that group that apparently a transwoman got wrong (Remember, at best it's casual dehumanisation or whatever). Possibly because I've been trying to avoid fighting with my SO over it, because it? clear we're on different sides of this coin. But hey, I'm honest about my biases, at least. >.>

On a similar note, I'm not sure I've seen anyone here say you don't see people saying "transgendered," but...it's an argument that exists, and it's not true. I used to say it. I picked it up from other trans people. It seemed to be pretty common back in the day. I've adjusted my diction, but even then mostly because I don't want to get into a fight over the diction and my own preferences in venues where I'm not out because then I look like the equivalent of the white person telling black people when it's okay to use the n-word (because I've said it enough for one post, and people by now surely know what I mean by it). It was simpler to dodge the issue. But it's still common enough to be a point of contention.

To get back to what seems to be your actual point, rather than what I inferred, I think the problem here is that you have groups which may be at mutually exclusive ends. "Calling people what they want to be called (pardon the paraphrasing, it's late and I'm tired)" doesn't work when you declare something a blanket slur. Like, consider this parallel: right now we have two camps. Well, probably more than two camps, but let's simplify the crap out of this. You have the camp that wants to let trans people pee in whatever public facility makes them comfortable. Then you have people who want to fine or jail trans people for using the "wrong" bathroom. The former is "live and let live," and the latter is ultimately incompatible with it on every level.

And since it apparently took me 25 minutes to write that last paragraph (doesn't seem it, but it was like 2 AM just a minute ago, I swear!), I'm off to bed.

And case in point as to why it's time to go to bed, I managed to quote you and botch the header so bad I had to go quote you again and copy it to make sense of it. Everyone point and laugh.

 

[Musette]

Now, I'm not on HRT yet, but I start... well holy shit, I start tomorrow

Congratulations on starting on HRT!

Mine is still atleast a month or 2 away >.>

Honestly? For me the gender doesn't matter at all when it comes to having a partner. While I still keep looks in high regards, the personality is more important.

Thanks! I got ridiculously lucky with HRT because I'm a grad assistant at a university that gives me free health insurance, has a free counseling center capable of writing therapist letters, and offers HRT within the university's clinic. Granted, insurance pulled something sketchy when I went to buy the testosterone (because I'm starting at a low dose, it got labeled a "24-week dose" when insurance only covers "12-week" doses), but honestly, everything worked out well and so quickly that I don't mind a small hiccup like that.

Still, I hope HRT comes sooner rather than later for you! Best of luck!

(One thing I do wonder about HRT is what the spike in libido will feel like for someone who has never really had one. I haven't felt any spike this soon, but my gut tells me that even with a libido, I'll be just as asexual as I always have been. Honestly, I'd kinda like to sidestep headaches that come with trying to find a partner as a transperson, but if my orientation were to change somehow, I'd probably just suck it up and consider finding a partner.)

 

[s0denone]

Err I don't know what you mean by theme...

Sorry I got my native language mixed up in this. "Not being a theme" is me saying "I don't think it has ever been on my mind".

Still, to most cis people this personal conflict doesn't usually come up, because most cis folk end up never dating a trans person that they know of. Either because they dated a trans person, regardless of weather or not they knew any trans people, they never dated a trans person before they came out of the closet, or to terms with their gender identity... Along with the fact, any trans people any cis person might they dated, the cis person never knew the person they dated was trans and the relationship never went far enough for them to find out.

Fair enough, I suppose. No girlfriend I have had, I can confidently say, has been transgender, but I guess it isn't impossible for a night out for it to have happened? Though I remain very skeptical about that, and it would obviously have to be post-OP )

A lot of cis people say that they're open to dating a trans person, as the concept to them is okay in the abstract, but in practice the vast majority see of cis people being trans as a deal breaker. It's not even that they're raging transphobes, because most people aren't, it's because cis people can come up with a lot of reasons in their minds as to why dating a trans person would be an issue. Besides that there are a lot of external reasons, which frankly are all stupid as hell, why a cis person might avoid dating a trans person at all. Stupid reasons like bigoted family members and friends calling a person's sexuality into question, because they are, or have, dated a trans person.

A lot of people don't date black people, asian people. Some don't date conservative, some don't date liberals.
I'm not sure why not wanting to date a transgender is worse than any of those. Or more irrational.

Most trans women, along with most trans people you've seen, are ones you never pegged for trans, because a lot of trans people, especially those who commit to transition pass. Passing isn't as hard as people think it is either, especially because stories about failing to pass come from trans people, both trans men and trans women, who judge their presentation harder than most cis folk will.

A fair point. I suppose it is possible for me to have encountered transgenders simply without knowing, but given they are a massive minority in our society and I have this idea that I could see the difference, I am unsure whether to buy it.
There is one transgender person in my circle of friends - or rather, she is nothing more than an acquiantance. She is a post-op male-to-female. She has some quite masculine traits and is really into fitness for some inexplicable reason, which makes her look only more masculine, because she is actually pretty buff.

This flies exactly counter to what you said in the first half of the sentence:
That's a terrific double standard you got going there, because you're giving trans men a pass for being just like men, but at the same time you're invalidating the femininity of trans women.

While I can see how you reached that conclusion, I don't think it is a fair representation. I am not attracted to masculine-looking women regardless of their gender background, while I am attracted to feminine looking women. I am not attracted to men of any sort, be they feminine or masculine.
I have yet to encounter a person who has made me question any of that.

Of course that's in part the point too, because trans men are a lot less visible than trans women, there is a lot less scrutiny directed at trans men's gender identities and presentation. Trans women on the other hand have to walk a gender presentation tight rope, because any slightly masculine mannerism, any slightly masculine gender presentation, and bam our gender identities are invalidated. Along with that if a trans woman presents too stereotypically feminine, we get accused of trying to hard, or complimented on passing so "well", which also directly invalidates our genders. The fact is a cis woman can wear mens clothes, enjoy sports, have a traditionally male only job, and have stereotypically male hobbies, and still be respected as a woman. A trans woman on the other hand, when people know when you're a trans woman, they scrutinize your gender presentation in the extreme, any slightly masculine signs are used to totally invalidate a trans woman of her womanhood. It happens to trans men too, but not nearly as much as trans women, people are always looking for an excuse to invalidate our femininity.

I don't know anything about that, so I'll take your word for it.

Oh I didn't say it's hard for me to understand, because gender dysphoria often causes trans people to be hung up about our own genitals personally. The part that strikes me as odd is that cisgender people are hung up on other people's genitals. As if the only reason to have a romantic relationship with someone, that the only objective of romantic relationships, is sex... Which is a sentiment I only ever encounter amongst cis folk, and really that's not my experience with most cis people, just some cis people. Being that I'm asexual, but still willing to engage in intimate activities to make my partner happy, the sole objective being sex is a turn off to me. As it is for virtually everyone I've ever been involved with, single minded pursuit of sex is probably the biggest relationship killer, because it kills any inter personal relationship development besides lust.

I think those are more the point... Some people are all about the sex, which is the only reason genitals could matter, but usually genitals are a lot lower on the priorities list. I mean to the point where people who have a good relationship, they figure out away to have pleasure, despite genitals, not because of them. Trans men for example, bottom surgery is a pretty much a joke for trans men, more often not they can't perform at all biologically in a sexual way... Which means they have to rely on other means, which is kind of an advantage, a trans man is a lot more flexible in bed, because if it's too small, or too big, you just pick out a more appropriate strap-on.

While that all sounds well and good, it doesn't really work in the real world, I'm afraid.
Just because I want sex in my relationship I am not some kind of deviant; in fact I'm sure it is quite the contrary: Those who are not interested in sex are the minority.
I would never date a woman I couldn't sleep with. Not because it is the only thing that matters, but because it DOES matter.
I am not asexual and would never have a partner who was asexual either. Sex is about mutual enjoyment, and if it is only me standing tall and my partner doing it out of obligation, then that is a total dealbreaker for me, too.

See that's strange to me. I know a lot of heterosexual guys and lesbian women who find vaginas to be gross, or ugly for various reasons. Along with that there are lots of heterosexual women and gay guys I know who find penises to be gross, or ugly, too. That's regarding the straight and gay/lesbian cis folk I know too, along with trans folk, doesn't make them any less attracted to their preferred gender either. Sure there are plenty of people I know straight, cis, gay, trans, or other wise who do like the genitals of the gender they're attracted to, but very few people I've ever met put genitals above the person's personality in dating. The ones who do...

Fair enought, I suppose I don't google pictures of a vagina to get off. What turns me on is the implication of a vagina. The impending act.
Given I am not gay, a dick is a turnoff. I am not sure why that would surprise you, or anyone.

In my experience people who talk about being attracted to genitals fall into one of three groups: People who can't maintain a relationship because they only care about having sex. People who are extremely insecure with their sexuality, gender identity, or both. Then it's people who are in the closet, most usually because they're actually gay/lesbian. Of everyone I've ever met, unless they're bisexual, pan, or the like, they'll also talk about people, usually celebrities, they've been attracted to, who aren't of the gender they're deeply attracted to. A few I known deny such things, always vehemently, while acting like you personally insulted them, they also be the ones who talk the most about genital attraction. Now @s0denone, I'm not saying that this applies to you, but... The way you worded your attraction by saying you're attracted to "female genitalia", instead of saying women, and characterizing male genitals as "a big ol' cock 'n' balls", that certainly raises flags in my mind...

What raises flags? What the fuck are you on about.
We were discussing genitalia SPECIFICALLY, which is why I said "female genitalia" and not "women". I said "a big ol' cock 'n' balls" in an attempt to inject a bit of humour into it; to poke fun at crazy situation: That you apparently don't understand that a straight man wouldn't want to sleep with someone who has a dick. That you don't understand that is frankly mindblowing.

The truth is most people care more about the person, than the genitals attached to them, which honestly is the way it should be. If it turns out that the person one cares about has the wrong genitals, then you find alternative means of getting it on, if you actually care about that person. People make all sorts of allowances for the people they get romantically involved with, because it's about people loving each other, not each other's genitals....

You're an admitted "asexual". Whatdo you know about what "most people" want?
"Most people" are not asexual. Sex is a big part of most relationships. I'm sorry, but there is not other way of going about this. The fact that you have decided to call my sexuality into question because I stated as much, is fucking disgusting.

That's only correct if you ignore literally everything about a person except their genitals, that sort of laser focus on genitals most certainly isn't fair, or rational. Especially considering that many trans people never have bottom surgery because it's prohibitively expensive, or too primitive, or too incomplete, or they're just not alienated by the genitals they were born with. I've read some statistics where they say that at least some 60% of trans people don't get bottom surgery, and that a large number simply don't want it. In particular when it comes to trans men, getting bottom surgery just isn't in the cards, because of how primitive and impractical the surgery is. That for trans men, bottom surgery doesn't grant them a penis that will get erect, so a major reason to get bottom surgery in the first place is just out of the question.

The only logical, rational, and fair reason to not date someone over genitals is if someone wants biological children that are a product of the genetics of them and their partner. Though that screws over cisgender people who are sterile for various reasons. Still it's the only actually logical, rational, and fair reason that I've ever seen presented in these cases. Sure preference and attraction can be a factor, as can genitals, but those aren't totally rational reasons... More over they're reasons that are purely superficial in nature, because it's choosing appearance and sexual reproductive parts over, what can often be a genuine emotional interpersonal connection.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
It is NOT superficial to want a partner you can enjoy having sex with. The fact that you would say something like that... Well, it falls perfectly in line with earlier things in the post I'm replying to, so I suppose it isn't that surprising.
It is wrong, though. Very, very wrong. And silly. To even suggest such a thing.

 

[Something Amyss]

(One thing I do wonder about HRT is what the spike in libido will feel like for someone who has never really had one. I haven't felt any spike this soon, but my gut tells me that even with a libido, I'll be just as asexual as I always have been. Honestly, I'd kinda like to sidestep headaches that come with trying to find a partner as a transperson, but if my orientation were to change somehow, I'd probably just suck it up and consider finding a partner.)

Libido and testosterone aren't exactly a 1:1 thing. So you may still not have any real libido of which to speak. The flip side of that it could have a rather marked effect. However, testosterone levels aren't quite the sexual indicator they're made out to be.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

...wait, 'the gays' is wrong to say now? Fuck, now I'll have to think of something else to call me and my partners. 'Three Guys, a Girl and a small dog' maybe? Though that has some awful implications with the dog...

I dunno. Identity politics never made much sense to me when it came to broad-sweeping terms, and got soured pretty quickly when other gay people kept insisting I needed to call myself 'Homosexual' instead of gay. Like, please yourself with whatever you want to label yourself with, but when you're trying to paint others with the same brush is when I get miffed. 'Call yourself what you like and tell everyone to fuck off' is probably unrelated to the topic of the thread though.

Speaking of, to the OP: While I'm not transgender (my gender is best described as 'I don't care'), I'd say I'd still be attracted to Transfolk regardless. A dude's a dude, doesn't matter if he's got a different set of equipment to what I'm used to.

Plus, you know, bi/poly/whatever-romantic, so, that's a thing. Don't gotta bump uglies to be attracted to someone, right?

 

[happyninja42]

Well, seeing as you are the first person to ever say that the word transgender is now an offensive term, and I've heard several members of that community use the term simply to describe themselves in a plural fashion, when talking about broad impacting issues, or just in general as a descriptor. I think it's more accurate to say that you specifically are offended by the term? I may only be a cis, but I have spoken to several members of your community, and I've read articles by many of them, and listened to multiple discussions of their issues on vlogs and podcasts. And not once, have any of them mentioned "by the way, we don't like the term transgender." Not once. And most of these interviews I've watched are, what some might call Trans Issues 101 discussions. Where it's a trans person explaining stuff to a cis about their issues.

I made the relevant portion bold because it's incorrect and misleading...

Transgender is not an offensive term, but transgenders as a plural is. It's tacking on an s so you don't have to refer to transgender people as people, it's a classic dehumanization tactic that hate groups. Now I'm not saying you're a bigot or anything like that, because I've seen you post enough and I know you're not a bigot, transphobe, or anything like that. The word transgeders, that's with an 's' at the end when used as a plural, only entered the lexicon when anti-transgender forces started using for the bathroom debate, as a derogatory way way of classifying transgender people.

To be absolutely clear the word transgenders is like saying 'the gays', or 'the blacks', or similar. They're terms designed to refer to a group while avoiding referring to the group in question as people.

Sorry for the confusion on this point. It's not 'transgender' that's an offensive term, it's purely 'transgenders that's the derogatory term.

So the word transgender is like moose now? Both plural and singular? Does your community not use a single word to describe the plurality of your group? Transpersons? Transpeople? Seriously, it's just the plural of the word. You keep mentioning "it's like saying the gays or the blacks" well it's also just like saying "the democrats" or "the republicans" or any other large group that has a single term that is used to identify them. Sure you can use "the democrats" in a negative way, but it doesn't automatically mean it's negative. And to decide that any time someone uses the word, regardless of the context in how they are using it, the word is still derogitory, is....eh, you know what. Fuck it. I really don't care at this point. this topic got so derailed in seconds as to be almost a record i think. I am genuinely tired of this, and frankly don't care to try and sift through the derailed posts in this thread to continue it as a discussion.

Apparently, from the gist I got, Stephanie is apparently in the minority of people who are trans, in that she only likes cis gender. Fine, question answered.

Mods, please lock the thread, I have my answer. Thank you all for your contribution.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Well, seeing as you are the first person to ever say that the word transgender is now an offensive term, and I've heard several members of that community use the term simply to describe themselves in a plural fashion, when talking about broad impacting issues, or just in general as a descriptor. I think it's more accurate to say that you specifically are offended by the term? I may only be a cis, but I have spoken to several members of your community, and I've read articles by many of them, and listened to multiple discussions of their issues on vlogs and podcasts. And not once, have any of them mentioned "by the way, we don't like the term transgender." Not once. And most of these interviews I've watched are, what some might call Trans Issues 101 discussions. Where it's a trans person explaining stuff to a cis about their issues.

I made the relevant portion bold because it's incorrect and misleading...

Transgender is not an offensive term, but transgenders as a plural is. It's tacking on an s so you don't have to refer to transgender people as people, it's a classic dehumanization tactic that hate groups. Now I'm not saying you're a bigot or anything like that, because I've seen you post enough and I know you're not a bigot, transphobe, or anything like that. The word transgeders, that's with an 's' at the end when used as a plural, only entered the lexicon when anti-transgender forces started using for the bathroom debate, as a derogatory way way of classifying transgender people.

To be absolutely clear the word transgenders is like saying 'the gays', or 'the blacks', or similar. They're terms designed to refer to a group while avoiding referring to the group in question as people.

Sorry for the confusion on this point. It's not 'transgender' that's an offensive term, it's purely 'transgenders that's the derogatory term.

So the word transgender is like moose now? Both plural and singular? Does your community not use a single word to describe the plurality of your group? Transpersons? Transpeople? Seriously, it's just the plural of the word. You keep mentioning "it's like saying the gays or the blacks" well it's also just like saying "the democrats" or "the republicans" or any other large group that has a single term that is used to identify them. Sure you can use "the democrats" in a negative way, but it doesn't automatically mean it's negative. And to decide that any time someone uses the word, regardless of the context in how they are using it, the word is still derogitory, is....eh, you know what. Fuck it. I really don't care at this point. this topic got so derailed in seconds as to be almost a record i think. I am genuinely tired of this, and frankly don't care to try and sift through the derailed posts in this thread to continue it as a discussion.

Apparently, from the gist I got, Stephanie is apparently in the minority of people who are trans, in that she only likes cis gender. Fine, question answered.

Mods, please lock the thread, I have my answer. Thank you all for your contribution.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/transgender

Do you see how it says 'adjective' there? Maybe that will answer why people aren't treating it like a noun.

So... I suggest being a bit more knowledgeable before trying to lecture people about plurals.

 

[The Lunatic]

I find it rather odd that people insist on there being so many terms that are offensive to refer to people who identify as transgendered, yet the term "Cis" which is seemingly used exclusively as a slur and is most known for being one is insisted upon not being an offensive term.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

@Lunatic: can you actually back up your claim that it is almost exclusively used as a slur and is most known for being one?

I first saw it years ago and saw it used for years with no controversy. Seems like certain over sensitive people then heard it used on tumblr and felt offended for no real reason and have created an absurd and false narrative about it being a slur.

 

[WindKnight]

@Lunatic: can you actually back up your claim that it is almost exclusively used as a slur and is most known for being one?

I first saw it years ago and saw it used for years with no controversy. Seems like certain over sensitive people then heard it used on tumblr and felt offended for no real reason and have created an absurd and false narrative about it being a slur.

Well, they like having a monopoly on deciding what terms get used to describe others, when someone decides a term to describe them, and they get upset and offended.

And instead of considering that maybe this is how other people feel like when they do it, and maybe they should stop doing it, they want everybody else to consider their feelings and stop it right now and still be ok with them doing it.

 

[The Lunatic]

@Lunatic: can you actually back up your claim that it is almost exclusively used as a slur and is most known for being one?

I first saw it years ago and saw it used for years with no controversy. Seems like certain over sensitive people then heard it used on tumblr and felt offended for no real reason and have created an absurd and false narrative about it being a slur.

Can you actually back up the claim that "Transgendered" is a slur and is almost exclusively used as such as is known as one?

Seems like a certain over sensitive people heard it on Pol, felt offended for no real reason and have created and absurd and false narrative about it being a slur.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

That's interesting, Lunatic. I never claimed anything was a slur. So you can't actually defend your position and can only fight strawmen? I think that settles this, don't you? It would seem you're just making things up based in how you *feel* the situation is. I simply asked for evidence of your claims and you try to deflect by attacking something I haven't even commented on!

 

[The Lunatic]

That's interesting, Lunatic. I never claimed anything was a slur. So you can't actually defend your position and can only fight strawmen? I think that settles this, don't you?

You asked me to prove something impossible.

I can speak in generality, I can reference posts from social media and such which go back 4 years talking about how "Cis" is seemingly used as a slur. However, ultimately, I can't speak for everyone and was only referring to my encounters with it and what people I see seem to think of the matter.

Just as in the same amount, people getting upset over the word "Transgendered" can't actually prove that it's definitely a slur and isn't used mostly as an insult. It's an argument of equivalence. You do not seem to take such umbrage with people claiming "Transgendered" is a slur, why is that?


If you ask questions that can't be answered, you'll not get answers.
If you ask reasonable questions, you might do.


I'd suggest trying that next time.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

It's not my fault if you choose to make unprovable claims, now is it? If you claim it's impossible to prove then why should anyone believe you?

That's untrue. You did more than just speak about you own encounters. You claimed it was mostly exclusively used as a slur. That's not just about your personal experience that's a far broader claim. You claimed it was most known for that. That's talking about how other people know it, not just you. Now you backtrack and claim you were just speaking about your experience but that's not what your first post actually says.

I asked a reasonable question. You just made an unreasonable claim. You seem to not realize that you're not entitled to easy questions when you make claims you can't prove.

 

[The Lunatic]

It's not my fault if you choose to make unprovable claims, now is it? If you claim it's impossible to prove then why should anyone believe you?

That's untrue. You did more than just speak about you own encounters. You claimed it was mostly exclusively used as a slur. That's not just about your personal experience that's a far broader claim. You claimed it was most known for that. That's talking about how other people know it, not just you. Now you backtrack and claim you were just speaking about your experience but that's not what your first post actually says.

I asked a reasonable question. You just made an unreasonable claim. You seem to not realize that you're not entitled to easy questions when you make claims you can't prove.

It's fairly obvious that an opinion posted on this forum is just that, my opinion.

I don't really feel the need to state "At least, in my opinion" or " At least, so I've seen".

Either way, you're failing to answer why it is that you seem to be so upset at me making such a claim whilst not taking the same attitude towards the other claims in this thread.

Why is that?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Yes it's an opinion. That doesn't mean your opinion isn't absurdly overreaching and that people can't ask you for proof when you make claims about things you can't possibly know to be true since apparently you think they're impossible to prove.

Just because its an opinion doesn't mean it isn't an absurd claim. Which it appears it was, a claim purely based off of feelings with no facts to back up the idea that it is MOSTLY used a certain way and most known for that usage. See, there's a big gap between "I see lots of people using it like this" and "It's almost exclusively used like this!" You claimed the former and are trying to backtrack to the latter.

 

[The Lunatic]

Yes it's an opinion. That doesn't mean your opinion isn't absurdly overreaching and that people can't ask you for proof when you make claims about things you can't possibly know to be true since apparently you think they're impossible to prove.

Just because its an opinion doesn't mean it isn't an absurd claim. Which it appears it was, a claim purely based off of feelings with no facts to back up the idea that it is MOSTLY used a certain way and most known for that usage. See, there's a big gap between "I see lots of people using it like this" and "It's almost exclusively used like this!" You claimed the former and are trying to backtrack to the latter.

So, you're refusing to answer why it is that you're getting upset about me claiming "Cis" is offensive, yet don't seem upset about people claiming "Transgendered" is offensive.

Anyway, fortunately, I was paraphrasing and referencing this post from 4 years ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ainbow/comments/pb08y/an_open_letter_to_rosethorns_an_attempt_to/

In this post, a member of the LGBT community mentions finding that the term "Cis" is used almost exclusively as a slur.

And that's before we even get to the fact that "Die Cis scum" has practically become a meme at this stage.


But, yes, I guess to be completely technical, "Cis" is almost exclusively used to refer to the Chinese DOTA2 league.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Great, who cares if you're paraphrasing some random person? It's not as if someone else making a claim without proving it somehow changes anything. If you want to claim the majority of times the word is used or that a word is mostly known a certain way then you need more than some people agreeing with you (the post never actually says it's almost exclusively a slur either, it says *neutral* or negative usage and says the poster can see why people *feel* that way) You make big claims, turns out they need a lot more evidence to prove them than some dumb post that doesn't provide evidence either.

As if meme status is supposed to prove something?

We don't need to be technical for your claims to lack real support though.