Well, if the specific words I'm using precipitate an unfortunate mental reaction in you, would you be happier if I said "it's an advantage to be seen as normal, and a disadvantage to be seen as other"? The facts are the main thing—I'm not super attached to the phrasing.
Pet Peeves is so yesteryear aka 2018
More a visceral reaction than a mental one.
It appears to me that a group of words have been weaponized and politicized. They are intended as poorly disguised code to signal woke virtue. They separate rather than communicate.
Tossing about "privilege" may suggest to others, especially those in disagreement about said "privilege", that you see yourself as a perpetual victim.
@Groucho: Visceral, yes. I know exactly what you mean. There's a word people use when they run across things that provoke that feeling in them, but (unfortunately) some folks can't use it because the word itself produces that feeling in them.
[nodding] Applause lights and passwords are everywhere. Growing up in the Christian church, I had plenty of opportunity to observe them in action: "brother in Christ" has a real meaning, but how often is it used just to signal "I'm one of you!" And "God's will" is, too often, just a way of telling people you're not going to help.
Treating cis and trans people as equal in speech is a tiny thing that takes hardly any energy at all, but that does actually make a positive difference for a lot of people. So why not do it?
Re: equal in speech
More unifying would be to avoid divisive labels.
Do I really need to know how you see your sexuality or anything else implied by the trans label? That's for your S. O. and a handful of people you choose to inform.
The use of cis as a prefix is divisive. It's forced, literally. It doesn't make two people equal.
I am glad people can speak their truth and use words to describe their sexual identity. I never want to return to the 20th century way of approaching sexual identity which was to keep it in the closet unless it was to roll out a derogatory slur. I saw more people screwed up by living a lie than I ever saw hurt by using the words trans and cis.
The key being ,THEIR sexual identity. I'm talking about being pressured to relabel mine. You can keep your life as personal or public as you want. Slurs don't go hand in hand with that decision. No one is advocating living a lie. Nice pair of strawmen
Speak THEIR truth?
Just a cheap way to insulate an opinion from rebuttal.
Add this to the list of cliches that should fade into oblivion. There is truth, there is your opinion, there is my opinion.
More virtue signaling. Smh.
Ah, there's another phrase which needs to go.
@Groucho someone referring to themselves as a certain thing or referring to others in a certain way or giving explanation as to why they do so is not forcing you nor anybody else to change their vocabulary . Being allowed to speak your truth is not somehow an afront to those who don't share that truth .
If words and how they're used don't matter, why do slurs?
Truth isn't as relative as to call for your truth and/ or my truth
It isn't just you referring to your self as x, it's idiotic ideas like one more box for sex on a driver's license, or legislation to force certain pronouns under penalty of fines.
What does that do to you personally if there's an additional x? Which for the record you are hypothesizing as there are no additional x that I have seen but let's go with this . What does an x do to you ?
@pmvines I'm not just concerned with myself.
So it may be an option for Michigan drivers ? Again , so how does this impact life ? I have more important things to elevate my blood pressure over
@Groucho I never produced a straw man because I was not arguing. I was merely expressing my opinion that I am happy things have progressed from the backwater, puritanical, uptight views of a few decades ago to now. Even discussing sex and sexual identity was taboo at one time not so long ago. But I will say your consternation with a few words brings back memories of women clutching their pearls and men’s jaws dropping when someone would say the word sex a few decades back.
@Groucho Are you feeling left out because they have a non-binary option on the driver’s license? Again, what is the problem? The world always changes and there really is no reason to live in fear and anger over it.
I don't feel left out at all. My picture is a reasonable facsimile of my face and there's a check in the M box.
Sorry about bringing back YOUR old memories. @FunCartel , I'm far from arguing for any Puritanical encore.
Is anyone else getting a visual of Dana Carvey in old man make up?
@DarrenWalker I find your expression delightful. Maybe those who don't can watch a little Star Trek and fall in love with Data.
@Groucho sounds like you're triggered.
@FunCartel Who could have put visions of Dana Carvey in make up into you head? Humm, who now could have done such a thing?... Could it have been...oh, I don't know...maybe.
“When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less".
When we want to discuss a concept, it is helpful to have a word for it ; and we should perhaps let those who will be referred to by that word, have a say in choosing it.
The only thing as bad as the new vocabulary of identity politics, is misspelling. Try Satan.
@geoff1000 Exactly. I'm not a Cis Male. I choose to be called Male.
@Groucho nobody is preventing you from calling yourself male . If someone refers to themselves or another person as cis male it does not take away the term male, lessens it , or takes away your ability to use the term . You just sound like you are mad and are venting , but not making rational sense with your complaint
A "Big Mac" is a hamburger with cheese.
If McDonald's started making a version without cheese, it would be called a "Big Mac without Cheese". No-one would insist on the original being thereafter called a "Big Mac, with Cheese".
I agree that the term "male" should be kept to mean cis-male ; and the only the very tiny percentage of non-cis males should use a modified noun.
Identifying as other than one's birth gender is a choice ; and I say that comes with responsibility, to make it as easy as possible for everyone you meet, to identify you as being your chosen gender. Retaining selective aspects of your "old" gender seems unfair to others, as well as being counterproductive. Anyone trans person who is offended by being treated as their original gender, is either : very early on the transition path ( so they are being unfair ), or they really aren't trying hard enough.
As a parallel, if I as a (cis-) male, am seeking a female who is seeking a male partner ( for anything ) ; I feel there is a responsibility on me to suitably advertise my maleness.
@exsanguinate I agree. I add emoticons/ emojis to help express how I'm feeling/what I want felt when I right things so people won't get offended.
Sarcasm has become so endemic, that it is impossible to ensure a reader will not interpret one's statements, however unambiguously-worded and emoticon-reinforced they are ; in the exact opposite way to what was intended.
Third parties may do the same ; in the court of public opinion, there is no solid defence.
@Groucho says, "More unifying would be to avoid divisive labels."
Like "man" and "woman"? We are all human, after all. The use of wo- as a prefix is divisive. Why not just call everyone men? "The race of man." "Mankind." Do I really need to know how you see your sexuality or anything implied by the "woman" label? That's for your S.O. and whatever people you choose to inform to know.
...See, the thing is, there are different types of human (and different types of man and woman). And telling someone which type you are doesn't imply anything about your sexuality!
@littermate: You find my expression delightful? [pleased] Aw, dang. Well, like Data, I still plan on learning how to express myself in less mechanical ways. ...Or at least trying to.
@geoff1000, I know you think that if people want to be treated like women, they should "really make an effort" to follow that female stereotype.
But why? Why should people who're female mentally (people who may be trans or may be cis), but don't look like the stereotypical woman walking down the street—why should these women be so tightly bound to the female stereotype when people who do look like our stereotypical idea of a woman can act however they like, and still be treated as women? Why should anyone have to act like a caricature of femininity in order to be called 'gentle' instead of 'pathetic'? In so many cases, the behavior is the same! It's only the perception (and the resulting treatment) that differs.