Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I’m not sure what you are saying. Do you think you are only dignified if you are “normal”?
I don’t consider myself normal. Am I undignified?
I don’t consider myself normal. Am I undignified?
"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance
- Thread starter Angst
- Start date
- Status
Cloud_Strife
Deity
I disagree with the claim that trans people are somehow not normal, they've very much been a part of humanity alongside gay people
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I would posit, Hygro, that those who insist that it's insulting to use "cis" instead of "normal" do, in fact, generally have a negative view of "not normal", and that othering trans people by highlighting their abnormality is part of the point of resisting the use of cis.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
we need to ask ourselves; are the english normal? More and more people are saying this nowadays
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
The English are definitely not normal
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
So you define normal as anything not new?
Cloud_Strife
Deity
trans people aren't new
EnglishEdward
Deity
Average, standard, typical, common, of the majority.
I tend to regard trans people as a minority.
This is a good summary. "Cis" vs. "Trans" are just prefixes used to identify. People with scientific education will recognize them immediately. Like "homo" versus "hetero". Or "hypo" and "hyper". Now, it's true that we discovered the need for a 'cis' label once we were using the 'trans' label regularly, so it will feel 'invented'. But to view it as anything other than a clarifying term would be an issue with the viewer, not the word itself.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Are minorities now no longer "normal"?
There are two variants of the word 'normal'. One will refer to the average or majority. The other will refer to the newness. They needn't overlap.
Watching 10 hours of TV per week is both normal and not normal, depending on the intended usage.
Watching 10 hours of TV per week is both normal and not normal, depending on the intended usage.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Again, trans people have existed for millenia
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I would describe racism as “normal”
ignorance is definitely “normal”
I would not describe eloquence as normal.
Obviously what is desirable and what is normal can be quite at odds.
Yes, hence my question you didn’t answer…?
…and my other questions you didn’t answer…
Yes, we would use that as a counterpoint if someone meant that trans people weren't 'normal' in the sense of the 2nd usage.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
The meaning of normal is "in keeping with a norm, rule, or expectation." This definition can exist in two senses, there is the descriptive sense that characterizes a statistical distribution of a thing one would expect "in the wild," and there is the normative sense that creates an a priori ethical framework and evaluates the thing in relation to that framework.
The problem with the term is that bigots like to play a bit of an equivocation game, where they aggressively and obviously assert the normative sense, but retreat to the descriptive sense when pressed on it. It's obvious that they only ever mean the normative sense because this isn't a dispassionate scientific conversation about population distributions, but, rather, a political question, which is always going to be intrinsically about values and preferences: moral oughts. And as Hume noted, you can't get to an ought from an is.
Last edited:
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Okay, yeah definitely some. I accept the cis label because it’s technical and useful. But there’s something to be said about the difference between “I deserve my identity, as follows, to be acknowledged” and “with that identity acknowledged, you must accept a newly named identity for yourself”
If you accept that identities can be at all self identified, you can understand why someone who didn’t have a marker in a category would rather not have one in the first place.
You should try being a bald person who doesn't collect stamps and everyone telling me what my hair color is and what my hobbies are!
I think that's a reasonable thing to notice. It might not work specifically with 'trans' and 'cis', since they really specific descriptions overall. Like, the creation of the one category creates the other. It would be different if there are a variety of fragmented self-identifications that then tried to create the 'outsider' category, but without any real acknowledgement about how all of outsiders were not at all similar, other than they weren't one of the fragmented identities.
Like, "Muslim" and "People of the Book". Sure. But then "heathen" being applied too aggressively would be irritating..
I think that's a reasonable thing to notice. It might not work specifically with 'trans' and 'cis', since they really specific descriptions overall. Like, the creation of the one category creates the other. It would be different if there are a variety of fragmented self-identifications that then tried to create the 'outsider' category, but without any real acknowledgement about how all of outsiders were not at all similar, other than they weren't one of the fragmented identities.
Like, "Muslim" and "People of the Book". Sure. But then "heathen" being applied too aggressively would be irritating..
Narz
keeping it real
No one is nuerotypical, personality and behavior is a spectrum. Psych industry just like to separate people by personality type and label them as broken (disorded, deficient, etc) in order to sell them drugs.
What is "normal" is cultural. What is "common" or "uncommon" has nothing to do with "normal" even if they overlap.
EnglishEdward
Deity
I have researched the meaning of the word "cis" to refresh my memory.
It appears to be used as an abbreviation for "cis man", which is itself an abbreviation for "cisgender man", or "cis woman" etc.
This is inherently confusing as cis man, pronounced with a soft initial 's', serves equally well as an abbreviation for sissy man.
Anyway as an abbreviation of an abbreviation, it is purely a colloquial of questionable politeness rather than a scientific term.
The Wikipedia definition for cisgender man is interesting.
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
It is clearly not universally accepted.
More importantly the first reference to "cisgender" use in the English language seem to be in 1994.
I existed before then, so I am correct to conclude that it is in English a new word not about when I was young;
and the Wikipedia use of the word normative supports my interpretation that the predecessor word was 'normal'.
It appears to be used as an abbreviation for "cis man", which is itself an abbreviation for "cisgender man", or "cis woman" etc.
This is inherently confusing as cis man, pronounced with a soft initial 's', serves equally well as an abbreviation for sissy man.
Anyway as an abbreviation of an abbreviation, it is purely a colloquial of questionable politeness rather than a scientific term.
The Wikipedia definition for cisgender man is interesting.
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
It is clearly not universally accepted.
More importantly the first reference to "cisgender" use in the English language seem to be in 1994.
I existed before then, so I am correct to conclude that it is in English a new word not about when I was young;
and the Wikipedia use of the word normative supports my interpretation that the predecessor word was 'normal'.
- Status
Similar threads
