What do cis people WANT?
Too easy.
People. That’s all. Just people, Chase. We want you to call women women and men men. That’s all. It’s easy, it’s simple, it’s routine.
You’re creating a problem where there is no problem. No one needs a special label to distinguish between women and men who say they are women. Women are just women; men who say they are women are just men.
The whole ideology pretty much rests on Word Magic, doesn’t it. If we say “trans woman” often enough people will come to believe that trans women literally are women? That’s how the trick is done, right? If we pitch huge fits about “misgendering” until people are terrorized into saying “she” when they mean “he” then we’ve gone a long way toward conditioning everyone into believing the switch, right?
And so with this tweet. Pretend complete bewilderment about what one can possibly call people who are not trans if the word “cis” is rejected, as if there were some actual need to add an adjective to “women” and “men” to indicate that they are…women and men. There is no such need; it’s just more of the coercive Word Magic to fool people into believing the upside down dogma.
I’d have no problem with “women” and “transwomen,” and “men” and “transmen.” Neither one makes women or men a subset of their own sex — and the privileged subset, too.
If cis is just the opposite of trans, does that mean that things that stay in a place are in cisit?
But what if we don’t want to center transness? What if we think feminism should center women, not trans? What if we think someone else is as important as trans?
In short, I do not want to center transness, so I have no problem with calling women “women” and men “men” and trans people “delusional”. All those labels work for me.
You did it. You win the Internet.
Try not calling us anything, Chase Strangio, try not to get so hung up on labels and namecalling, it’s lazy and facile, not to mention prejudiced. Just because you live in a special snowflake category, it doesn’t mean the rest of us all need to be recategorized. Stupid shit.
I’m fine with “non-trans”. It’s so self-evidentially ridiculous that only ridiculous people will use it, which seems apt.
Non Trans? wtf? Non Murderer? Non Dolphin? Get a grip Skelly, of the infinite things we are non, you wanna pick trans?
The trans cult is the last group I would let define me.
Ah, Ms. Strangio — once again she is close, but no cigar. We don’t center “transness” because that is like an atheist being told to center the Catholic faith. We do not consent to the gender woowoo being pushed into our lives.
Skeletor, I think it has too many odors…the odor of all of us who have lived our lives being treated as “non-men”, for instance. I am not “non-man”. I am woman. I am not “non-trans”. I am woman. We have a perfectly good identification, if these trans ideologues would only learn what it means.
Chase Strangio’s Grandpa:
“If _______ is a slur, then what do _______ want us to call them?”
Woman means ‘female adult human’.
Trans woman means ‘non-female’ ‘female adult human’.
Non-trans woman means ‘non-non-female’ ‘female adult human’. i.e. ‘female adult human’.
Which is best expressed as… woman. And so the lie in TWAW is exposed.
___
#2 Tineke
In citu.
I am not a stereoisomer.