Adjectives, how do they work?
Let’s try it with “dog.”
This is a brown dog.
This is a small dog.
This is a friendly dog.
This is a rescue dog.
This is a pretend dog.
This is a fake dog.
This is a fantasy dog.
Thus ends today’s lesson on how adjectives work.
Comments
19 responses to “Dogs from Essex”
If cis is now a subcategory of women, what’s the main category?
Dear Aunt Tranny:
Would it be kindest if I clarify that mine is a cis dog?
-Well-intentioned in Westport
Wouldn’t “I am a cis woman” be more parallel to:
This is an actual dog.
This is a real dog.
This is a non-pretend dog.
“Cis” would be a subcategory of “women” only if trans-identified females are not also a subcategory of “women”. I have not seen any attempt at a definition of “women” that admits men-who-claim-to-be-women but also all “adult human female” women regardless of how they identify.
@4: Here’s one: “Woman, noun: Any human who either is an adult female, or says that he or she is female, or both.”
GW: I wasn’t attempting a parallel.
I know. Sorry for the way I phrased my comment.
So basically “cis” is Transpeak™ for the main category of women. Therefore not a subcategory, but more of an idiotic redundancy.
No, the only category of women. It is indeed a redundancy, and an insulting one.
By main, I was including the possibility of subcategories. Not any that include male bodied people though.
I think that genderists consider trans-identified-females (or “non-binary” females) to be neither “women” nor “cis-women”. So I don’t think “cis” women is a redundant category, for them. They want “women” to include all people, male and female, who consider themselves women, and they don’t want it to include people who actually are women but don’t consider themselves such.
Perhaps we should ask those who insist on using “cis” if “Elliot” Page and “Chaz” Bono and Miley Cyrus are “cis-women”. If not, the prefix doesn’t function the way they insist it does.
It’s all a denial of actual sex categories isn’t it? And if the purpose is to obliterate sex categories, then “cis” makes even less sense.
And, as usual, as we all know, they miss the point.
A black woman is a woman.
A disabled woman is a woman.
A tall woman is a woman.
A short woman is a woman.
A woman scientist is a woman.
A trans woman is not a woman.
@11 really interesting point, I hadn’t thought of that. ‘Cis’ isn’t actually a standin for ‘female’ in any way, is it, if it doesn’t also include TIFs? I guess trying to parse it in gender ideology terms it would, possibly, mean ‘an AFAB person who identifies as a woman’–but as too many women to count have pointed out none of us actually identifies as a woman so none of us are cis.
“There’s no reason to fear adding ‘cis.’”
“There’s no reason to … add … ‘cis.’”
Fixed it for you.
And it’s not “fear.” It’s outrage.
Well without fear there is no phobia, can’t have that now…
Adjectives should add to our understanding of a noun.
“Cis” adds nothing.
Once again you cannot have it both ways: If “cis” simply means “not trans” (whatever “trans” is supposed to mean?), then most biological females may very well be “cis women”, but “cis women” and “trans women” are not subcategories of “women” any more than fruit bats and baseball bats are subcategories of “bats”. It’s just a bad pun!
If “cis” means more than “not trans”, then “cis women” and “trans women” may very well be subcategories of “women”, but then there is no justification for saying that any of the biological females are “cis women”, certainly not without specifying what those extra requirements are and demonstrating that they do indeed apply to those biological females. But as I keep pointing out, the whole justification for including TIMs in all the spaces previously reserved for biological females ultimately rests on the premise that both groups are the same in some real sense (as opposed to in name only).
Bottom line, if TIMs are women, they are the only “women”. Doesn’t sound quite so “inclusive”, does it…
That does seem to be what they’re aiming for, until they discover that female humans have come up with a new word to use to refer to themselves exclusively, at which point TiMs will demand to be “included,” and the whole cycle starts again in an infinite loop of repeated colonization and escape.