[RD] HuffPost: "I Coined The Term 'Cisgender' 29 Years Ago. Here's What This Controversial Word Really Means."

Why does everyone have to agree with you?
You can't tell others what to think.
You don't have to agree, but you also don't have to be a jerk about it. If someone thinks I'm a man, fine. I transitioned for myself, not for anyone else. If someone goes out of their way to call me a man over and over and over again, they're rude.
 
Nova:

I'm not making a declarative statement, no. It's more a guess regarding averages plus a belief that a statement requires evidence. It could be that the modal straight ally has the ability or that the modal partner isn't likely to be bisexual, but that's data to be collected (not declared). But I do think that 'preference' is a word people can hide behind, where only subconscious actions disprove implicit bias. And a giant unmentioned thing (so far) is that obviously people can be in relationships that don't have sex, so insisting on 'sex' isn't requisite when what's really important is the partnership.

Again, I come from a world where people think saying 'vibes' helps, when what actually matters is help. The person who says 'vibes' is indistinguishable from the person who says 'nah', especially when we realized that 'vibes' is the polite response.
 
Last edited:
Keep your opinions about us to yourself if you can't stand trans people's reactions to them
I have had a quite liberal view on transgender people for a long time.
Worked with a few, no issues.

What I see though, is that it has not taken a turn for the better the last few years.

We will see what the future brings.
 
Are you saying people who are completely heterosexual or lesbians would have trouble perceiving a trans woman as female sexually even if they are socially accepting of trans women as women?
Are gender and sex the same thing?
 
I have had a quite liberal view on transgender people for a long time.
Worked with a few, no issues.

What I see though, is that it has not taken a turn for the better the last few years.

We will see what the future brings.

Oh? What do you forsee happening?
 
Ah so you're just going to make cryptic posts about the fates of trans people and deflect when directly asked about it, got it :clap:

I think people are abusing these new rules.
People who "identify" as female just to get to a female prison for example.
People who identify as female just enter the ladies' room.
I think we are finding out what the rules are and that is always a moment to be careful.
 
Last edited:
I think people are abusing these new rules.
People who "identify" as female just to get to a female prison for example.
People who identify as female just enter the ladies' room.
I think we are finding out what the rules are and that is always a moment to be careful.
I doubt anyone is identifying as female just to get into a womens toilets. They may smell a bit nicer but they tend to be smaller and have longer queues.
 
The sociopaths or mentally ill abusing new rules are not to be conflated with the people who the rules are changed to help. The doctor billing for fake patients on Medicaid is not the fault of people on Medicaid. They both exist, but ending Medicaid because of a few doctors isn't going to be the correct answer.
 
I think people are abusing these new rules.
People who "identify" as female just to get to a female prison for example.
People who identify as female just enter the ladies' room.
I think we are finding out what the rules are and that is always a moment to be careful.
I don't think there's the data to support your claims :)

Regardless, I would be careful of advancing the argument that a demographic needs to be made liable for the alleged actions of a minority within that demographic. Guilt by association is bad. Right?
 
I think people are abusing these new rules.
People who "identify" as female just to get to a female prison for example.
People who identify as female just enter the ladies' room.
I think we are finding out what the rules are and that is always a moment to be careful.

What do these strawpeople you've constructed in your mind have to do with trans women?
 
I think people are abusing these new rules.
People who "identify" as female just to get to a female prison for example.
People who identify as female just enter the ladies' room.
I think we are finding out what the rules are and that is always a moment to be careful.

So funny story, that was always the case. Cis women who use the women’s restroom do so because they self-identify as female. Trans people have been likewise self-identifying and using the women’s restroom without issue long before any cis male knew or cared about it.

Here’s a comic from Allison Bechdel (yes, that Bechdel) talking about trans women in bathrooms in 1995, for instance:

1677782857778.png


We’ve been using the appropriate restroom for far longer than that as well. RadFems have been whining about us using women’s spaces for as long as RadFems have existed.
 
Last edited:
The sociopaths or mentally ill abusing new rules are not to be conflated with the people who the rules are changed to help. The doctor billing for fake patients on Medicaid is not the fault of people on Medicaid. They both exist, but ending Medicaid because of a few doctors isn't going to be the correct answer.
So, increased gatekeeping? Or do we need some mindreading machine to determine who is being sincere
 
The longer term answer will be 'better gatekeeping' (how can it not be?). But right now the tolerance for throwing the baby out with the bathwater is understandably low. You get to bias towards Type 1 or Type II statistical errors, pick one, but keeping an eye towards proportionate harm as well as historical harm is going to be wise (and hopefully encouraged).

The harms of throwing people off of Medicare are vastly higher than the damage of a few fraudsters. The patients aren't to blame, and shouldn't be victimized by the 'fix'.
 
The longer term answer will be 'better gatekeeping' (how can it not be?). But right now the tolerance for throwing the baby out with the bathwater is understandably low. You get to bias towards Type 1 or Type II statistical errors, pick one, but keeping an eye towards proportionate harm as well as historical harm is going to be wise (and hopefully encouraged).

The harms of throwing people off of Medicare are vastly higher than the damage of a few fraudsters. The patients aren't to blame, and shouldn't be victimized by the 'fix'.
Ok, so how does self-identifying correlate with "better" gatekeeping?
 
Back
Top Bottom