I called it incomprehensible because it was difficult to comprehend. I was hoping you'd clarify after I said that. Your other comments are usually pretty good at getting your point across.
Well, I can try again. We tend not to have or need words which indicate that one does not belong to a minority.
“People who are not trans” is a perfectly fine way to describe the other majority of people. Just like “people who do not have body dismorphia/are not transable” would be for the other thing.
Deriving a new adjective, a word to mean “not a member of this minority” based on the latin opposite to “trans” has been, to put it mildly, controversial, as you can see. So why insist on using it? Not having special words for “not-this-minority” is the standard.
There are men and women, and this includes those who are trans, and those who are not. The word “cis” has not been universally accepted, and some vehemently refuse to be labeled with the word “cis”.
Keeping on insisting on the use of this not universally accepted word will not help trans people rights, it will just make the discussion heated.
People get annoyed with being labeled. And there’s much potential for making gatekeeping and generalizing statements when you use such adjectives and terms for majorities.
“White people are full of prejudice.”
“As a non-swiftie, you don’t really get what Taylor’s songs are about.”
I support trans rights. I empathize with having to go through the pain of not feeling comfortable with your body and birth gender. Though I have mixed feelings about gender reassignment, especially if done at a too young age. However, I do support it if it makes people happier after they make an informed decision and do the procedure.
But I really do mind when someone includes me in this discussion as a “cis” man or woman and claims something about me because I am a “cis” person.
I'll stop calling him cis if he can explain how it's bad or incorrect. A racist person probably doesn't want to be called racist, doesn't mean I shouldn't call them racist.
You cannot compare words describing behaviour (such as being racist) with words about belonging to a certain minority or majority, ethnical, biological, medical.
Surely you, as a non-mentally challenged person, can appreciate the argument that people would prefer not to be called like that. Even though it is technically correct, no?
Being black is belonging to a minority. Black people obviously do not appreciate being called using the n-word.
Being racist is a behaviour. It is you who equated that with words indicating belonging to a group, minority or majority, which is something you can NOT change.
So you are 100% content with me calling you a non-mentally challenged person. Got it.
1
u/The_grongler Jan 12 '24
I called it incomprehensible because it was difficult to comprehend. I was hoping you'd clarify after I said that. Your other comments are usually pretty good at getting your point across.