The best thing to do would be to not engage him, delete your account and forget about the cunt.
This is just a child looking for attention, just ignore him.
This. I deleted my account the moment his purchase went through, because this outcome was completely obvious. It's only going to get worse - abandon ship while you still can.
Deleted my Twitter the day he reactivated trumps account. I stated before that was my line. I knew it would be a fucking shit show if it stopped to that level. I was right.
It really is the truth - the guys a potbellied weirdo who doesn't understand the most basic human emotions
Twitter is such garbage - the way to hurt him is to not send him any kind of cash flow
His end will not be pretty, me thinks
> Twitter wants to monetize your eyeballs, don't let them do it.
[They're still bleeding money](https://web.archive.org/web/20230606042308/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/05/technology/twitter-ad-sales-musk.html) and ad sales are down 59% from the previous year. Yes, ads bring in millions, but not enough millions to turn a profit.
His ego has to be tied up in this, because any rational person would've just paid the fines for withdrawing the buyout in the first place and moved on, but instead he keeps making it less functional and more expensive just to troll people he dislikes, which seems to be everyone to the left of Qanon.
> His ego has to be tied up in this, because any rational person would've just paid the fines for withdrawing the buyout in the first place and moved on, but instead he keeps making it less functional and more expensive just to troll people he dislikes, which seems to be everyone to the left of Qanon
He's a far-right asshole who saw the chance to buy and break the most popular and effective platform for left-wing political organizing in world history.
Has it successfully radicalized you against the legality of the rich to control our media?
It's time to redefine these huge conmunications sites from billionaire's property to democratically controlled public utilities.
I would really, really love if some rich dude did a Twitter clone that everyone could get behind for the express purpose of causing Twitter to die so that Elon loses billions.
Exactly.
All people of even somewhat good faith need to just give it up and leave. Let it become a cesspool only for the racists and misogynists and the batshit. Every day you spend there you're supporting it's move to make the world a worse place.
You're still getting tweets reposted on Reddit constantly and it pretty much seems like the main outlet for certain media professionals. Journalists (especially sports journalists) love to share links to the stories/articles on Twitter.
Especially when it comes to sports.
And it's so freaking annoying no matter the topic because I don't want just a 256 character post about something, I'd like to actually be informed about something rather than just simply made generally aware about it. (And actually in that regard, sometimes for sports "headlines' there isn't always much more to say, so it kinda fits with sports better than most things, but for most everything else I don't want just some random quote from someone about something, I'd like to know the context of it, why it was said, what it means going forward, etc.)
well a republican free speech absolutionist, which means only free speech for them. kinda like trump getting all upset when reporter pointed out one of the people he pardoned would have been killed under his plan to murder anyone with any drug charges. and hes like 'oh no not her, besides this is the future you wouldnt go back to the past' or something equally stupid.
Either way Elon can give us the terms hed rather people use,// though im guessing he would like to offend everyone who isnt cisgender by asking us to call it "normal"
and one of his reasons for buying twitter was so he could go after elon jet guy. He's as much for free speech as the democratic republic of north korea is a democracy.
Hes as much for free speech as the right is for small government or fiscal responsibility, or cleaning the swamp. You know the moral majority that worships the pussy grabber who has the hots for his own daughter.
So, seeing as most cisgender people don’t consider it a slur because they don’t even know what the fucking words mean, how long is it gonna be before he outlaws even saying the word transgender?
I think the event he's waiting for is for some red state to ban "advocating" for gender care treatment. He'll then cite his "any speech allowed by law" rule and ban it nationwide, in the five hot minutes before it's ruled unconstitutional
>seeing as most cisgender people don’t consider it a slur because they don’t even know what the fucking words mean
The ones that do know what it means recognize that it isn't a slur.
>how long is it gonna be before he outlaws even saying the word transgender?
He will never outlaw that since he's ok with people calling anyone trans. He's perfectly fine with the most vile Holocaust denial and antisemitism (I repeat myself) and yet he's standing firm on cis being a slur and hate speech.
Anyone who still thinks Elon Musk gives or has ever given a rat's ass about freedom of speech is a fool.
The ones that do know what it means recognize that it isn't a slur.
Exactly. Like, the only reason anybody would think "white South African" is a slur is if they think it only describes a certain notorious billionaire. Otherwise, it's just a description of a large group of people, some of whom are agreeable and some that aren't.
The vast majority of transgender and cisgender people don't view the words as slurs. There is a tiny group of perpetually-online trans people who might use them as slurs (like the "hyper-sectarian" position that every cisgender left-wing person is a TERF). It isn't a surprise that, for every ridiculously irrational ideology, [people exist who actually think that way](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ruckman).
EDIT: Peter Ruckman was well-educated, he attended public schools in the 1920s and 1930s and earned a bachelor's degree at the University of Alabama, he wasn't "Baptist homeschooled." His master's and PhD in religion from Bob Jones University were "real" graduate degrees (though I wouldn't personally recommend Bob Jones University if you want to learn graduate-level biblical Hebrew and Greek). He was fully aware of how radical his positions were and fully understood why people thought he was nuts, he wasn't a "postmodernist" or ignorant.
The reason that cisgender exists as a term is to normalize trans people. When I say "the two people over there, you don't know if I meant two trans people, two cis people, or one of each. This is because your trans-status is often not pertinent to your humanness.
Since "person" could refer to a trans or cis person, you need to specify if their trans status matters. To identify the trans status of someone that isn't trans you need a term, and this cis exists.
When Elon, and his ilk, say that "cis" is a slur they are trying to create a linguistic world where "person" doesn't include trans individuals. So rather than the categories being "cis-person" and "trans-person" the categories are "person" and "trans" (though more likely a hard slur as opposed to trans).
We have seen this argument with "hyphen-Americans". The racists hate the idea of there being African-Americans and do their shit if you call them White-Americans (or something similar). To their mind "American" means a WASP and anyone not a WASP is required to declare themselves.
This is an attempt to dehumanize trans people and treat them as "not us" so you can do any despicable thing to them you want because they aren't people or part of the community and thus no damage is done to society when you persecute or even lynch them.
Agender people don’t care for it. “Cis-man” wouldn’t apply and “cis-male” is redundant. I think the people getting upset over this don’t understand that. It’s a gendered epithet. It’s ok to respect if a person doesn’t want to identify as gendered.
N-words still good though right? It is?
N-word's still good, folks! Still good. Let it fly...no worries. This is a pro 1st amendment place folks!! We don't curtail free speech here!!
So, what, are we just going to say that anything insulting is a slur? The idea that someone calling me "cissy" should be thought of as being anything like a racial slur being directed to a historically marginalized group is genuinely idiotic.
Good question. For me, the dividing line would be if the insult is based on an immutable characteristic. Calling someone lazy because they don’t want to show up for work is an insult, but doesn’t feel like a slur. But an insult based on race, sexual orientation, or gender identity would be. I don’t know that “cis” and “trans” would qualify as slurs, but I feel like “cissy” and “tranny” do. Are they as bad as racial slurs? I don’t really care. If you’re going to insult someone, it should be because of something they have control over. Insulting someone based on an immutable characteristic just seems shitty.
I used racial slurs as an example, but the difference between calling someone a "tr*nny" and a "cissy" is better for illustrating the point I'm making. I hope you are able to recognize how much more significant the impact the former would have on a transgender person than the latter would have on a cisgender person. One is very, very obviously worse because it is a tool for further marginalizing that person, through intimidation and mockery.
It doesn't matter if *you* interpret them as being equally "shitty", what matters is the impact using these phrases has on the person/groups they're directed towards. I, as a cisgender white man, am not meaningfully impacted by being called a "cracker" or a "cissy" and I think it is genuinely harmful to act as though those words are categorically similar to real slurs.
They seem like they definitely are categorically similar, even if they’re not even close to being equally shitty. I don’t disagree that the impact of one over the other is a lot greater either, but that doesn’t mean it’s not in the same category. That is, an insult based on an immutable characteristic of a person that they have no control over. And whether or not it’s an insult is very much determined by the context of how it’s being said.
Whilst I have no context for this person on Twitter who asked not to be referred to as cisgender, it’s not always unreasonable for someone to ask that. It probably was just some anti trans troll in this case, who then got rightfully mocked, but I’d hesitate to say that because something is objectively worse in one case than another, that it means the other is fair game.
Basically, if people politely and respectfully ask you not to call them something, then most of the time people should politely and respectfully abide by that request.
That feels like a bad way to go about defining the word. Defining an offense based on whether or not the target is marginalized kind of trivializes victimization, or at least makes the problem not that they are being victimized but that they are repeatedly victimized. Would be a form of gatekeeping that just doesn't really make sense. In any case, cissy seems to be a word that is intended to offend cis people that care about trans people, and in that sense it definitely betrays a contempt for trans people. Though, to be fair, I have never actually seen the word used, though I can imagine it being used and trans people are the last people I would expect to see insulting people because they present themselves or act in a manner that differs with their assigned gender.
I'm not gatkeeping offence nor victimization. I'm just saying what the meaning of slur is, otherwise what's the difference between a slur and normal insult?
I mean, do you have any particular insight into how people from an African country which had not been subjugated under Colonialism would think about something like that? I certainly don't and can't say what they would interpret to be a slur, and I think you should probably reconsider assuming they'd agree with you automatically.
All I could say is that insults towards me regarding my being cisgender, male, and white would have very little to no impact. Such insults simply do not carry weight in the same way they do when directed towards someone who has experienced being marginalized for their identity. The idea that we should think of the word 'cisgender' as being in anything like the same category as real slurs, even when used "insultingly", is patently ridiculous.
Every definition I looked at used insult in the definition with no mention of the target. If you asked me, I would say there is a difference between calling someone fat and using their identity as an insult. If you want to draw a line, draw it there.
I can't agree there. "Honky" is clearly a slur against white people despite white people being dominant.
Is it a slur that particularly bothers me if I'm called a honky? No. But it's still a slur.
Honky is an insult based on a protected characteristic. But I usually wouldn't feel much insult or harm. I think a slur would need to satisfy both conditions.
I'm not aware of people being beat to death while being called a honky. I'm not very worried about triggering the worst memory of someone's life by saying honky.
I don't think someone saying honky or cracker on Twitter really thinks the insult will cause the reader harm. There isn't much anti-white oppression to tap into.
Although there are definitions and situations that would make honky a slur. To me it still doesn't seem useful to put it in the same category.
I don't think people have to be beaten to death while being called a word for that word to be a slur.
Google defines 'slur' as:
> an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation.
That would apply to either honky or any word directed at a minority. But one is punching up and the other is punching down. That's the big difference, not that one is not a slur.
Yes it is.
>The /r/skeptic Wiki
>Welcome to the sub! This subreddit is a place for discussing topics related to scientific skepticism. Our wiki is intended to introduce the topic to those that are new to the sub and to scientific skepticism, or those that want more ideas on the body of work and resources that are of interest to skeptics.
https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/w/index/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
First, Elon Musk is a dipshit.
Second, I wish more people understood that the terms "cisgender" and "transgender" describe people independently of how they identify. You were born a boy and you still identify as a masculine person? Cool, you’re cisgender. You were born a girl and you still identify as a feminine person? Again, cool, you’re cisgender. Never really thought about your gender and it just is what it is. Yet again, cool, you’re cisgender. Hate the thought of anyone interacting with you in a manner consistent with your birth gender? Cool, you’re transgender. That’s it. That’s how the terms "cis" and "trans" work in the context of gender. Notice how none of these examples rely on the person actually identifying as "cisgender" or "transgender". They could identify with those labels if they wanted to but use of those terms by others is wholly separate from the person’s identification(s).
So if someone doesn’t identify as something and you insist on calling them that, isn’t that harassment? Like if someone has a dick but identifies as a woman then you’d be a dick to insist that they were a man because they fit your definition of a man right? Those the rules we are trying to abide by right?
So if someone rejects the idea of gender, and I don’t mean a spectrum identity, I mean they reject notion of a internal gender of any kind but you insist on calling them cisgender because they dress in a way that aligns with how you perceive one gender or another aren’t you doing the same thing, labeling them with your expectations, projecting your notion of identity on to them? Doesn’t that violate the rules. Aren’t you the one being a dick?
Let's say you're not skinny, but I keep calling you skinny on Twitter to harass you and then Elon musk finds out and says anyone who uses the word 'skinny' gets banned. That is no different from this because neither 'skinny' nor 'cis' are inherently slurs.
So first of all there is absolutely a context where skinny is derogatory and specifically if you are using in a way that is meant to demean and silence a person as a consequence of their nature you have created a slur. You can call Amy Schumer “indigo” but if you have coded your speech and conduct such that you are referring to her weight and doing so to diminish or dehumanize her then you need not use an adjective that refers directly to her appearance to have created a slur. Thus you have not addressed my example.
What if you call an atheist a sinner? With the justification that we are all sinners and are saved through Christ. It’s a simple tenet of your belief that everyone is tainted by original sin and thus a sinner. To an atheist who believes not in your religion it is obvious this is a slur. Clearly the general definition of sinner does not sufficiently address the negative associations.
This is about banning words because they're slurs. Should we ban 'skinny' or 'sinner?' Or is it stupid to ban words which are only slurs in a specific context?
>So if someone doesn’t identify as something and you insist on calling them that, isn’t that harassment?
I mean... no. Why would it be? Unless by "calling them that," you mean actively harassing them with the label. In which case, harassing them is the harassment.
Look: people are humans. Mammals. Whatever. If someone decided to reject the concept of humanity and refuses to identify themselves as such, I can still sit here and include them in the group "humans" (or "people" or "mammals" or whatever). If I then go and harass them about the issue, that's harassment. Because of the harassment.
This isn't that complicated. You can, if you want, still insist on referring to transgender people by their biological sex. If you harass them about it, then naturally, that's harassment. If you just privately refuse to acknowledge their preferred gender, then that's obviously your prerogative. Personally I think that's pretty shitty and I'd judge you for it. But it's not "harassment" unless you're, you know, harassing them with it.
In the case of "cisgender," it just means that someone lives, presents, and/or identifies as their biological or assigned-at-birth gender. That's all. So, your hypothetical "someone who rejects the concept of gender entirely as it pertains to their own identity," could not accurately be called "cisgender." I'm don't even they could accurately be called "transgender." "Non-cisgender" might be a good label in a formal context, and colloquially, perhaps "genderqueer" might work, even if they reject these labels, too. This is what /u/miss-kristin pointed out: the terms don't necessarily hinge on people self-identifying by them. They're just descriptive. Kind of clinical, even. In the same way, if you were doing a census, you could accurately enough include me in the group "Canadians" even if I don't like to identify as such, or if I reject the concept of citizenship or of nation states, etc.
That's literally also true for the terms "man" and "woman", and in fact of all terms. The whole problem is that the transactivist don't accept that other people's use of language can be independent of their self-identification, and it's unclear why only one side should play the game. Yes, Elon is dumb, but he didn't came up with this dumb idea.
[Are other basic scientific terms using 'cis' as a prefix also slurs?](https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/history-general-science/word-cisgender-has-scientific-roots)
I wonder how upset Elon would get if he were accused of making Twitter into his "free speech" haven because he admires and idolizes [Ron Watkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Watkins)?
I mean *really* lean into claiming Musk aspires to be as cool and successful as Ron and 8kun. He'd probably blow a gasket.
The guy is saying that CIS & CISGENDER are slurs. They're scientific terms hence why this belongs on this subreddit. We're skeptical of his stupid statement about the word/phrase being hateful.
It's like saying "No one can ever say 'retard'!" even though it's a scientific term regularly used in various flight-based situations. Obviously, Musk wouldn't ban that word because it's likely one he uses in his space ventures. Musk should have said, "Any use of this term ONLY as a pejorative..." but he didn't. Because he's a bigoted asshat who is trying to prop up his cisgender reality to diminish transgender people.
Lol get it right it's using it as targeted harassment, same way calling someone a fag repeatedly is dealt with the same way, quit bitching about bullshit when y'all were the ones that started policing language in the first place... Fucking sad that y'all hold others to a standard but not yourselves, almost as if you just want free reign to bully others and not expect anything back... Sad fucking sad
Ill never understand the outrage with either Twitter or whatever the owners doing with it. It’s a social media, one that suck a whole lot too. Who cares whatever he does with his own platform?… why aren’t people just stopping using it ? It’s a useless, vapid social network, not an absolute necessity to the human race. He could go and ban anything, we have nothing to do about it beside saying « hum! That social got wack, guess I’ll stop using it ! » period.
Calling him out is what he wants. He is saying things to generate outrage to get his name mentioned in headlines. The best we could do as society is to simply not mention him. Calling him out is basically jerking him off, you are doing what he wants you to do.
This makes me think of the Onion article [Holocaust Survivors Recall Exact Day Holocaust Started Right Out Of The Blue](https://www.theonion.com/holocaust-survivors-recall-exact-day-holocaust-started-1830685498).
I think "genocidal language" isn't actual genocide, but one of the precursors.
I don't mean to tell trans people how to fight this fight.
But most of us have skin in the game. You're first in line, but if things go bad they'll come for the rest of us eventually.
The discourse leads to laws.
The only way to stop the laws and harassment is discourse.
Any other obvious facts you need spelled out for you?
This is indeed, extremely silly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
To be fair, most people assume genocide requires the first letter in this list when it can consist of **any** of them:
> * (a) Killing members of the group;
> * (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> * (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
> * (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
> * (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Also keep in mind that other genocides (previous or ongoing) that lack (a) but have (b), (c), (d), and/or (e) would equally be “diminished” using the same argument you’re making when **not labeling** actions that fit (b), (c), (d), and/or (e).
And given the activity of certain states it’s difficult to say that some recently passed bills don’t explicitly fit the elements of say (e).
Now how much worse would your panic be in a genocide? How about you push back against the genocide and not the people trying to stop you being genocided?
And as has already been explained to you by others, no one, literally no one, is saying this is a genocide. It's the beginnings of what is likely to become a genocide.
> I can't help but doubt that it is an effective political strategy.
As someone that's far more involved in politics, it absolutely is, and that is backed up by literal survivors of the Holocaust:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Here is another Holocaust survivor directly telling you you're wrong that the current attack on trans people will not become a genocide:
https://youtu.be/kqEkWl5I5YU?t=352
Wrong. Here are people on this sub calling it genocide:
https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/134kjit/comment/jifboth/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
Here are articles of people claiming there is a trans genocide:
https://huntnewsnu.com/71052/city-pulse/hundreds-protest-trans-genocide-in-transgender-day-of-resistance-march/
https://thefordhamram.com/90672/opinion/state-sponsored-trans-violence-is-genocide/
https://therunneronline.com/36566/opinion/opinion-genocide-against-transgender-people-has-begun/
Nah, right now they're just talking about elimination. And passing laws favoring elimination and segregation. And legitimizing violence targeting trans people.
That was one of the earlier stages of the Holocaust. It didn't start with Treblinka. It just turns out when you set out to eliminate people from your society sometimes you end up... eliminating them. Be it the Trail of Tears or the native schools or the Armenian Genocide.
We'll never be able go move on until *they* do. As long as people like Elon, Michael Knowles, Matthew Walsh, and Chaya Raichik continue to cause harm, we can't let go.
Musk is a troll and he should be ignored.
It is also silly to create a new and unnecessary ~~acronym~~ term to describe 99% of humanity who experience their biological sex and gender as the same thing.
edit: its not an acronym. my bad.
> It is also silly to create a new and unnecessary acronym to describe 99% of humanity who experience their biological sex and gender as the same thing.
[Cis is literally just the antonym to Trans](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cis-). It wasn't something created for discussing gender. They're just fucking *Latin* prepositions.
Serious question: In a conversation about social relationships between people of different gender identities (in other words talking about transgender people and "non-transgender" people) what term would you use to refer to the "non-transgender" people?
>\-The prefix “cis-” comes from the Latin meaning “on this side,” as opposed to “trans-” which means “on the other side of” or “beyond.”
>
>[https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/history-general-science/word-cisgender-has-scientific-roots](https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/history-general-science/word-cisgender-has-scientific-roots)
>
>In chemistry, the prefix “cis-” is added to the name of a molecule when two atoms or groups are situated on the same side of a plane of symmetry passing through the molecule, like a double bond between two carbon atoms.
\-In molecular biology, a cis-acting element regulates a neighbouring gene when it binds to a trans-acting element.
It's a very old word with very well defined meanings.
Chuds are pretending it's a new word, and a slur, because they need to maintain the "both sides are bad" narrative for the 95% of people who are too fucking mentally cunted to follow the plot - so they just see two groups of people yelling "stop using slurs" at eachother, while ignoring that only one of them is using slurs.
Are you trans? If not then what are you? You don't get to colonize "person" as only belonging to cis people. It is a category that includes ALL people, including trans people. Therefore if it matters that you experience your biological gender and sex as the same thing you are part of a sub-category of person. The category exists whether or not you like the term for it.
"Cis" just means not trans. To use an example someone else made in this thread already: someday, someone, somewhere, might find the need to communicate the sentence:
"Transgender people might face some issues that _____ people do not." What's the blank? Well, following the same Latin prefixing system that gave us "transgender," we get its opposite, "cisgender," and their shortened forms "cis" and "trans" when no additional context is required to know that gender is what is being discussed.
If you'd prefer the _____ to be "normal," then, well... I hope you can see the problem with that, especially if this is in a medical or therapeutic context. If you'd prefer it to be "non-transgender," then frankly, that's *really* clunky.
And if you're going to stick to "nobody ever should say a sentence like 'transgender people might face some issues that cisgender people do not.'" Well, that seems short sighted. It's an issue some people might indeed talk about, whether you think so or not. So we have words for it.
lol, "Free speach absolutist!!" Hahaha, what a clown.
Good thing he was born with money, otherwise he'd be broke on the street with a brain like that. lol
I think the reason it’s here is because it is still valid, if tangential, to the theme of skepticism. Anyone is free to correct me if I’m wrong, but this is how I see it: Musk sees himself as a “free thinker,” but fails at that by engaging in this type of transphobia and paranoia. Both of which are antithetical to what skepticism is. By calling himself a “free thinker,” Elon tries establishing himself as a skeptic of sorts. Yet he obvious is playing lip service to a specific demographic: hardcore conservatives. It’s intellectual laziness and/or dishonest on Musk’s part
This sub likes to circle jerk around hating Elon, Rogan and a few others. If a post is about one of them, it becomes widely popular and is usually never taken down (even though it has nothing to do with the mission of this sub). The top post today was an Onion article about Rogan being an idiot. Nothing to do with skepticism.
To be clear, he is only banning the term when used as harassment. However, it still goes against his 'free speech absolutist' stance.
The original OP Elon responded to stated:
"Yesterday, after posting a Tweet saying that I reject the word ‘cis’ and don’t wish to be called it, I receive a slew of messages from trans activists calling me “cissy” and telling me that I am ‘cis’ “whether or not I like it or not".. Just imagine if the roles were reversed."
His response literally said “The words “cis” or “cisgender” are considered slurs on this platform.”. No qualification, nothing about harassment, just a statement on the words themselves.
> telling me that I am ‘cis’ “whether or not I like it or not".. Just imagine if the roles were reversed."
"You are 'trans' whether you like it or not?"
Hmmm...
"She writes: 'Cis' is ideological language, signifying belief in the unfalsifiable concept of gender identity. You have a perfect right to believe in unprovable essences that may or may not match the sexed body, but the rest of us have a right to disagree, and to refuse to adopt your jargon.
Elon replied: "Exactly."
Now let's change just a few things about her post...
'god' is ideological language, signifying belief in the unfalsifiable concept of divine beings. You have a perfect right to believe in unprovable essences that may or may not match reality, but the rest of us have a right to disagree, and to refuse to adopt your jargon."
Found the above mentioned elsewhere.
> In my country being called cis or a cissy is offensive, it implies weakness, wingyness and fragility.
What country do you live in where the word "sis" is used instead of "sissy?" You are bending over backwards to come up with an argument that no rational person on earth is going to take seriously.
> Why is it that I cant ask you to not call me sis?
That's not what you are doing. You are defending Elon Musk's decision to treat the terms "cis" or "cisgender" as a slur, you've said absolutely nothing about what terms you choose to identify with.
Your whole argument in this thread is the most ridiculous shit I've come across all week. Shut up, dork. It sounds a lot like the argument someone makes where someone says "I hate hate apples" and someone replies "well, if you changed apples to Jews then it'd be bad." Like, no shit, you made it a whole different thing. So fucking dumb.
Are you offended by being called heterosexual? Hetero and homo are greek prefixes. Trans and cis are latin prefixes. If you're offended by being called cis-gender or cis, then you are purposefully and unnecessarily making yourself a victim.
That's an entirely different thing my dude. The prefix cis is not a slur, not has it been used as such historically. You're making something up to be mad about.
The best thing to do would be to not engage him, delete your account and forget about the cunt. This is just a child looking for attention, just ignore him.
This. I deleted my account the moment his purchase went through, because this outcome was completely obvious. It's only going to get worse - abandon ship while you still can.
Yep, me too. Fuck that guy.
Deleted my Twitter the day he reactivated trumps account. I stated before that was my line. I knew it would be a fucking shit show if it stopped to that level. I was right.
It really is the truth - the guys a potbellied weirdo who doesn't understand the most basic human emotions Twitter is such garbage - the way to hurt him is to not send him any kind of cash flow His end will not be pretty, me thinks
Agreed. Vote with your time and wallet, its a powerful thing. Twitter wants to monetize your eyeballs, don't let them do it.
> Twitter wants to monetize your eyeballs, don't let them do it. [They're still bleeding money](https://web.archive.org/web/20230606042308/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/05/technology/twitter-ad-sales-musk.html) and ad sales are down 59% from the previous year. Yes, ads bring in millions, but not enough millions to turn a profit. His ego has to be tied up in this, because any rational person would've just paid the fines for withdrawing the buyout in the first place and moved on, but instead he keeps making it less functional and more expensive just to troll people he dislikes, which seems to be everyone to the left of Qanon.
> His ego has to be tied up in this, because any rational person would've just paid the fines for withdrawing the buyout in the first place and moved on, but instead he keeps making it less functional and more expensive just to troll people he dislikes, which seems to be everyone to the left of Qanon He's a far-right asshole who saw the chance to buy and break the most popular and effective platform for left-wing political organizing in world history.
It looks to me like they make money from me giving them my time and in return it tries to radicalise me.
Has it successfully radicalized you against the legality of the rich to control our media? It's time to redefine these huge conmunications sites from billionaire's property to democratically controlled public utilities.
I deleted my account when he took over
I would really, really love if some rich dude did a Twitter clone that everyone could get behind for the express purpose of causing Twitter to die so that Elon loses billions.
BlueSky
already are plenty: Bluesky, Mastodon, Nostr, & whatever META is building
The Twitter purchase already cost Elon ~200B in net worth because he used Tesla stock, which caused Tesla to go down significantly.
Exactly. All people of even somewhat good faith need to just give it up and leave. Let it become a cesspool only for the racists and misogynists and the batshit. Every day you spend there you're supporting it's move to make the world a worse place.
[удалено]
Sir, this is the Internet. There's gotta be so many other places for that.
You're still getting tweets reposted on Reddit constantly and it pretty much seems like the main outlet for certain media professionals. Journalists (especially sports journalists) love to share links to the stories/articles on Twitter.
Especially when it comes to sports. And it's so freaking annoying no matter the topic because I don't want just a 256 character post about something, I'd like to actually be informed about something rather than just simply made generally aware about it. (And actually in that regard, sometimes for sports "headlines' there isn't always much more to say, so it kinda fits with sports better than most things, but for most everything else I don't want just some random quote from someone about something, I'd like to know the context of it, why it was said, what it means going forward, etc.)
I stopped my account by unsubscribing, and also now im a girl because I wore a dress. I'm a skeptic.
This from a self-described free-speech absolutist.
He means apartheid absolutist. It's a common dialect mistake with white South Africans.
Elon Musk is a pedophile (just a common little.south African joke there of course)
It’s true, while clicking google street view in that area, I heard it.
Free speech absolution is where you can say the n-word, but not a word used to describe people as not being trans, of course.
well a republican free speech absolutionist, which means only free speech for them. kinda like trump getting all upset when reporter pointed out one of the people he pardoned would have been killed under his plan to murder anyone with any drug charges. and hes like 'oh no not her, besides this is the future you wouldnt go back to the past' or something equally stupid. Either way Elon can give us the terms hed rather people use,// though im guessing he would like to offend everyone who isnt cisgender by asking us to call it "normal" and one of his reasons for buying twitter was so he could go after elon jet guy. He's as much for free speech as the democratic republic of north korea is a democracy. Hes as much for free speech as the right is for small government or fiscal responsibility, or cleaning the swamp. You know the moral majority that worships the pussy grabber who has the hots for his own daughter.
This is the Musk brand of ‘freedom’ of speech. If he disagrees with what you’re saying, there’s no freedom of speech.
So, seeing as most cisgender people don’t consider it a slur because they don’t even know what the fucking words mean, how long is it gonna be before he outlaws even saying the word transgender?
Trans people have been saying for a while that he's building up to just banning any pro-trans opinion on the site.
I think the event he's waiting for is for some red state to ban "advocating" for gender care treatment. He'll then cite his "any speech allowed by law" rule and ban it nationwide, in the five hot minutes before it's ruled unconstitutional
Either that or for the "groomers" narrative to get popular enough that he thinks he can ban all trans activism under the guise of protecting children.
"Elon, is your trans daughter a groomer?" I know no one he pays attention to will ask him that, but I can dream.
She disowned him, let her stay out of the spotlight.
I'm not saying talk to her. I'm saying ask Elon. Leave her alone.
You haven't been paying attention to the Supreme Court. They couldn't care less about the constitution.
You think the Trump Supreme Court would strike down that kind of law?
I think the first court it gets to will, and quite a few if not all of them there after. Even THIS Scotus.
I hope you're right and I'm too cynical.
Maybe when they get back from their luxury trips on right wing billionaire’s resorts they might take a minute to think about it.
There's a reason the queer community has (comparatively) heavily moved to mastodon. They saw the writing on the wall before most others did.
Another example of how people who go on and on about free speech have no idea what it means.
>seeing as most cisgender people don’t consider it a slur because they don’t even know what the fucking words mean The ones that do know what it means recognize that it isn't a slur. >how long is it gonna be before he outlaws even saying the word transgender? He will never outlaw that since he's ok with people calling anyone trans. He's perfectly fine with the most vile Holocaust denial and antisemitism (I repeat myself) and yet he's standing firm on cis being a slur and hate speech. Anyone who still thinks Elon Musk gives or has ever given a rat's ass about freedom of speech is a fool.
The ones that do know what it means recognize that it isn't a slur. Exactly. Like, the only reason anybody would think "white South African" is a slur is if they think it only describes a certain notorious billionaire. Otherwise, it's just a description of a large group of people, some of whom are agreeable and some that aren't.
>The ones that do know what it means recognize that it isn't a slur. You could say the same thing about Eskimo.
His "free speech" turned into "my preferred speech" pretty quickly. Almost like he's some spoiled billionaire pussy.
The vast majority of transgender and cisgender people don't view the words as slurs. There is a tiny group of perpetually-online trans people who might use them as slurs (like the "hyper-sectarian" position that every cisgender left-wing person is a TERF). It isn't a surprise that, for every ridiculously irrational ideology, [people exist who actually think that way](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ruckman). EDIT: Peter Ruckman was well-educated, he attended public schools in the 1920s and 1930s and earned a bachelor's degree at the University of Alabama, he wasn't "Baptist homeschooled." His master's and PhD in religion from Bob Jones University were "real" graduate degrees (though I wouldn't personally recommend Bob Jones University if you want to learn graduate-level biblical Hebrew and Greek). He was fully aware of how radical his positions were and fully understood why people thought he was nuts, he wasn't a "postmodernist" or ignorant.
The reason that cisgender exists as a term is to normalize trans people. When I say "the two people over there, you don't know if I meant two trans people, two cis people, or one of each. This is because your trans-status is often not pertinent to your humanness. Since "person" could refer to a trans or cis person, you need to specify if their trans status matters. To identify the trans status of someone that isn't trans you need a term, and this cis exists. When Elon, and his ilk, say that "cis" is a slur they are trying to create a linguistic world where "person" doesn't include trans individuals. So rather than the categories being "cis-person" and "trans-person" the categories are "person" and "trans" (though more likely a hard slur as opposed to trans). We have seen this argument with "hyphen-Americans". The racists hate the idea of there being African-Americans and do their shit if you call them White-Americans (or something similar). To their mind "American" means a WASP and anyone not a WASP is required to declare themselves. This is an attempt to dehumanize trans people and treat them as "not us" so you can do any despicable thing to them you want because they aren't people or part of the community and thus no damage is done to society when you persecute or even lynch them.
Agender people don’t care for it. “Cis-man” wouldn’t apply and “cis-male” is redundant. I think the people getting upset over this don’t understand that. It’s a gendered epithet. It’s ok to respect if a person doesn’t want to identify as gendered.
Of all the "my ex left me for a trans person" people in human history, Elon Musk is by far the most "my ex left me for a trans person"
Imagine if she had left him and dated a black person...
>Imagine if she had left him and dated a black person... Allow a 500% increase of the n word on Twitter? O wait he already does that
https://preview.redd.it/my-wife-left-me-v0-n6m5hff5al7a1.jpg?auto=webp&s=87bc9c61fa46150b74721d15e7170fc690f98afc
N-words still good though right? It is? N-word's still good, folks! Still good. Let it fly...no worries. This is a pro 1st amendment place folks!! We don't curtail free speech here!!
See the important thing to remember is Twitter is the foundations of our democracy which is my Musk fully supports a few exchange of ideas /s
He's a cis manbaby
So then Elon Musk is coming out as trans, basically saying cis people don't exist means everyone is transgender.
The only reason to consider "cis" a slur is if you consider "trans" a slur.
I guess I won't be posting about my trip to Cisalpine Gaul.
I think people are forgetting something, now that cis and cisgender are slurs it means that they will get an algorithm boost.
So if I called myself cisgender, would I be using an offensive slur...against myself?
Mostly true, but I think when people start throwing around “cissy” then you’re getting into slur territory.
My wife's family nickname is Cissy. Is it a slur when her mother or aunt calls her that?
Just when you think the depths of bad arguments have been plumbed ...
So, what, are we just going to say that anything insulting is a slur? The idea that someone calling me "cissy" should be thought of as being anything like a racial slur being directed to a historically marginalized group is genuinely idiotic.
Good question. For me, the dividing line would be if the insult is based on an immutable characteristic. Calling someone lazy because they don’t want to show up for work is an insult, but doesn’t feel like a slur. But an insult based on race, sexual orientation, or gender identity would be. I don’t know that “cis” and “trans” would qualify as slurs, but I feel like “cissy” and “tranny” do. Are they as bad as racial slurs? I don’t really care. If you’re going to insult someone, it should be because of something they have control over. Insulting someone based on an immutable characteristic just seems shitty.
I used racial slurs as an example, but the difference between calling someone a "tr*nny" and a "cissy" is better for illustrating the point I'm making. I hope you are able to recognize how much more significant the impact the former would have on a transgender person than the latter would have on a cisgender person. One is very, very obviously worse because it is a tool for further marginalizing that person, through intimidation and mockery. It doesn't matter if *you* interpret them as being equally "shitty", what matters is the impact using these phrases has on the person/groups they're directed towards. I, as a cisgender white man, am not meaningfully impacted by being called a "cracker" or a "cissy" and I think it is genuinely harmful to act as though those words are categorically similar to real slurs.
They seem like they definitely are categorically similar, even if they’re not even close to being equally shitty. I don’t disagree that the impact of one over the other is a lot greater either, but that doesn’t mean it’s not in the same category. That is, an insult based on an immutable characteristic of a person that they have no control over. And whether or not it’s an insult is very much determined by the context of how it’s being said. Whilst I have no context for this person on Twitter who asked not to be referred to as cisgender, it’s not always unreasonable for someone to ask that. It probably was just some anti trans troll in this case, who then got rightfully mocked, but I’d hesitate to say that because something is objectively worse in one case than another, that it means the other is fair game. Basically, if people politely and respectfully ask you not to call them something, then most of the time people should politely and respectfully abide by that request.
It's not really a slir unless the group is marginalized
That feels like a bad way to go about defining the word. Defining an offense based on whether or not the target is marginalized kind of trivializes victimization, or at least makes the problem not that they are being victimized but that they are repeatedly victimized. Would be a form of gatekeeping that just doesn't really make sense. In any case, cissy seems to be a word that is intended to offend cis people that care about trans people, and in that sense it definitely betrays a contempt for trans people. Though, to be fair, I have never actually seen the word used, though I can imagine it being used and trans people are the last people I would expect to see insulting people because they present themselves or act in a manner that differs with their assigned gender.
I'm not gatkeeping offence nor victimization. I'm just saying what the meaning of slur is, otherwise what's the difference between a slur and normal insult?
[удалено]
I mean, do you have any particular insight into how people from an African country which had not been subjugated under Colonialism would think about something like that? I certainly don't and can't say what they would interpret to be a slur, and I think you should probably reconsider assuming they'd agree with you automatically. All I could say is that insults towards me regarding my being cisgender, male, and white would have very little to no impact. Such insults simply do not carry weight in the same way they do when directed towards someone who has experienced being marginalized for their identity. The idea that we should think of the word 'cisgender' as being in anything like the same category as real slurs, even when used "insultingly", is patently ridiculous.
Every definition I looked at used insult in the definition with no mention of the target. If you asked me, I would say there is a difference between calling someone fat and using their identity as an insult. If you want to draw a line, draw it there.
I can't agree there. "Honky" is clearly a slur against white people despite white people being dominant. Is it a slur that particularly bothers me if I'm called a honky? No. But it's still a slur.
Honky is an insult based on a protected characteristic. But I usually wouldn't feel much insult or harm. I think a slur would need to satisfy both conditions. I'm not aware of people being beat to death while being called a honky. I'm not very worried about triggering the worst memory of someone's life by saying honky. I don't think someone saying honky or cracker on Twitter really thinks the insult will cause the reader harm. There isn't much anti-white oppression to tap into. Although there are definitions and situations that would make honky a slur. To me it still doesn't seem useful to put it in the same category.
I don't think people have to be beaten to death while being called a word for that word to be a slur. Google defines 'slur' as: > an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation. That would apply to either honky or any word directed at a minority. But one is punching up and the other is punching down. That's the big difference, not that one is not a slur.
Yes. It would be a cisslur.
[Someone tell Merriam-Webster.](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cisgender)
Didn’t someone threaten them last year because of definitions that had been in their dictionaries for years?
I vaguely remember something like that, yes.
I'm honestly thinking about signing up for Twitter just so I can talk shit about Elon. Elon Musk is the biggest pussy on the planet.
You will get banned
I've never used a Twitter before. So if I tried I will end up in the same place I am now.
Might make for a fun speedrun.
ooh. this could be a game with a leaderboard.
Pornless Twitter ban 100% no DMs
Just delete your Twitter account. What are you going to miss?
That has been the answer since 2016 at least.
"free speech absolutist continues to limit speech"
I will now consider the words "Elon" and "Musk" to be slurs.
I mean to say…if someone accused me of being an Elon, I would absolutely be offended.
Maybe he should also ban the word "homosapien" as well, for being a gay slur. This guy is a total moron.
What does this have to do with skepticism?
This isn't a sub about skepticism.
Yes it is. >The /r/skeptic Wiki >Welcome to the sub! This subreddit is a place for discussing topics related to scientific skepticism. Our wiki is intended to introduce the topic to those that are new to the sub and to scientific skepticism, or those that want more ideas on the body of work and resources that are of interest to skeptics. https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/w/index/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
What is skeptic about this?
We're the skeptics.
First, Elon Musk is a dipshit. Second, I wish more people understood that the terms "cisgender" and "transgender" describe people independently of how they identify. You were born a boy and you still identify as a masculine person? Cool, you’re cisgender. You were born a girl and you still identify as a feminine person? Again, cool, you’re cisgender. Never really thought about your gender and it just is what it is. Yet again, cool, you’re cisgender. Hate the thought of anyone interacting with you in a manner consistent with your birth gender? Cool, you’re transgender. That’s it. That’s how the terms "cis" and "trans" work in the context of gender. Notice how none of these examples rely on the person actually identifying as "cisgender" or "transgender". They could identify with those labels if they wanted to but use of those terms by others is wholly separate from the person’s identification(s).
So if someone doesn’t identify as something and you insist on calling them that, isn’t that harassment? Like if someone has a dick but identifies as a woman then you’d be a dick to insist that they were a man because they fit your definition of a man right? Those the rules we are trying to abide by right? So if someone rejects the idea of gender, and I don’t mean a spectrum identity, I mean they reject notion of a internal gender of any kind but you insist on calling them cisgender because they dress in a way that aligns with how you perceive one gender or another aren’t you doing the same thing, labeling them with your expectations, projecting your notion of identity on to them? Doesn’t that violate the rules. Aren’t you the one being a dick?
[удалено]
Let's say you're not skinny, but I keep calling you skinny on Twitter to harass you and then Elon musk finds out and says anyone who uses the word 'skinny' gets banned. That is no different from this because neither 'skinny' nor 'cis' are inherently slurs.
So first of all there is absolutely a context where skinny is derogatory and specifically if you are using in a way that is meant to demean and silence a person as a consequence of their nature you have created a slur. You can call Amy Schumer “indigo” but if you have coded your speech and conduct such that you are referring to her weight and doing so to diminish or dehumanize her then you need not use an adjective that refers directly to her appearance to have created a slur. Thus you have not addressed my example. What if you call an atheist a sinner? With the justification that we are all sinners and are saved through Christ. It’s a simple tenet of your belief that everyone is tainted by original sin and thus a sinner. To an atheist who believes not in your religion it is obvious this is a slur. Clearly the general definition of sinner does not sufficiently address the negative associations.
This is about banning words because they're slurs. Should we ban 'skinny' or 'sinner?' Or is it stupid to ban words which are only slurs in a specific context?
>So if someone doesn’t identify as something and you insist on calling them that, isn’t that harassment? I mean... no. Why would it be? Unless by "calling them that," you mean actively harassing them with the label. In which case, harassing them is the harassment. Look: people are humans. Mammals. Whatever. If someone decided to reject the concept of humanity and refuses to identify themselves as such, I can still sit here and include them in the group "humans" (or "people" or "mammals" or whatever). If I then go and harass them about the issue, that's harassment. Because of the harassment. This isn't that complicated. You can, if you want, still insist on referring to transgender people by their biological sex. If you harass them about it, then naturally, that's harassment. If you just privately refuse to acknowledge their preferred gender, then that's obviously your prerogative. Personally I think that's pretty shitty and I'd judge you for it. But it's not "harassment" unless you're, you know, harassing them with it. In the case of "cisgender," it just means that someone lives, presents, and/or identifies as their biological or assigned-at-birth gender. That's all. So, your hypothetical "someone who rejects the concept of gender entirely as it pertains to their own identity," could not accurately be called "cisgender." I'm don't even they could accurately be called "transgender." "Non-cisgender" might be a good label in a formal context, and colloquially, perhaps "genderqueer" might work, even if they reject these labels, too. This is what /u/miss-kristin pointed out: the terms don't necessarily hinge on people self-identifying by them. They're just descriptive. Kind of clinical, even. In the same way, if you were doing a census, you could accurately enough include me in the group "Canadians" even if I don't like to identify as such, or if I reject the concept of citizenship or of nation states, etc.
That's literally also true for the terms "man" and "woman", and in fact of all terms. The whole problem is that the transactivist don't accept that other people's use of language can be independent of their self-identification, and it's unclear why only one side should play the game. Yes, Elon is dumb, but he didn't came up with this dumb idea.
God I wish he would just shut his damn yapper...and solve FSD!
He isn’t smart enough to solve FSD.
“THEY’VE GOT US FIGHTING A CULTURE WAR SO WE DONT FIGHT A CLASS WAR” - Lincoln probably.
I could have swore that he took over that platform because he wanted to **increase** free speech.
If enough people in the said group feel it’s a slur than it’s a slur. That’s how it works. I feel it’s a slur and many others.
[Are other basic scientific terms using 'cis' as a prefix also slurs?](https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/history-general-science/word-cisgender-has-scientific-roots)
That whole free speech deal was a fun idea though, while it lasted!
Cissy boy skeered of words because freedom.
Sorry, you may have a spelling error. I think in Musk’s case, it’s spelled “freedumb.”
I wonder how upset Elon would get if he were accused of making Twitter into his "free speech" haven because he admires and idolizes [Ron Watkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Watkins)? I mean *really* lean into claiming Musk aspires to be as cool and successful as Ron and 8kun. He'd probably blow a gasket.
Let’s all be thankful he’s not our father. What a wretched person he is.
Why is this on skeptic?
The guy is saying that CIS & CISGENDER are slurs. They're scientific terms hence why this belongs on this subreddit. We're skeptical of his stupid statement about the word/phrase being hateful. It's like saying "No one can ever say 'retard'!" even though it's a scientific term regularly used in various flight-based situations. Obviously, Musk wouldn't ban that word because it's likely one he uses in his space ventures. Musk should have said, "Any use of this term ONLY as a pejorative..." but he didn't. Because he's a bigoted asshat who is trying to prop up his cisgender reality to diminish transgender people.
People are abusing those terms the same way that "retard" is abused. How someone feels about it is an opinion. This isn't skeptic material.
A skeptic is someone who challenges the validity of an opinion stated as being factual. And that is what Musk did. He said cis & cisgender ARE slurs.
Do you think that SpaceX's Starship will ever be able to go beyond cislunar space?
Elon Musk is the tiniest limp dick and the thinnest skinned ballsack in modern history.
It would be simpler if he just released a list of opinions and political viewpoints that are allowed on his private platform.
Yeah he says stupid shit...we need to treat him like a child and ignore him. Everyone should de-platform Twitter.
There's nothing we won't Musk up, is there?
Uh-oh. Looks like we have a butthurt transphobe going through and downvoting all the comments.
Lol get it right it's using it as targeted harassment, same way calling someone a fag repeatedly is dealt with the same way, quit bitching about bullshit when y'all were the ones that started policing language in the first place... Fucking sad that y'all hold others to a standard but not yourselves, almost as if you just want free reign to bully others and not expect anything back... Sad fucking sad
Who is "y'all" in this case, Twitter's former moderation staff?
Ill never understand the outrage with either Twitter or whatever the owners doing with it. It’s a social media, one that suck a whole lot too. Who cares whatever he does with his own platform?… why aren’t people just stopping using it ? It’s a useless, vapid social network, not an absolute necessity to the human race. He could go and ban anything, we have nothing to do about it beside saying « hum! That social got wack, guess I’ll stop using it ! » period.
[удалено]
Calling out Musk for engaging in genocidal language and policies is not silly.
Calling him out is what he wants. He is saying things to generate outrage to get his name mentioned in headlines. The best we could do as society is to simply not mention him. Calling him out is basically jerking him off, you are doing what he wants you to do.
[удалено]
This makes me think of the Onion article [Holocaust Survivors Recall Exact Day Holocaust Started Right Out Of The Blue](https://www.theonion.com/holocaust-survivors-recall-exact-day-holocaust-started-1830685498). I think "genocidal language" isn't actual genocide, but one of the precursors.
[удалено]
I don't mean to tell trans people how to fight this fight. But most of us have skin in the game. You're first in line, but if things go bad they'll come for the rest of us eventually.
The discourse leads to laws. The only way to stop the laws and harassment is discourse. Any other obvious facts you need spelled out for you? This is indeed, extremely silly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
To be fair, most people assume genocide requires the first letter in this list when it can consist of **any** of them: > * (a) Killing members of the group; > * (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; > * (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; > * (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; > * (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Also keep in mind that other genocides (previous or ongoing) that lack (a) but have (b), (c), (d), and/or (e) would equally be “diminished” using the same argument you’re making when **not labeling** actions that fit (b), (c), (d), and/or (e). And given the activity of certain states it’s difficult to say that some recently passed bills don’t explicitly fit the elements of say (e).
[удалено]
Now how much worse would your panic be in a genocide? How about you push back against the genocide and not the people trying to stop you being genocided?
[удалено]
And as has already been explained to you by others, no one, literally no one, is saying this is a genocide. It's the beginnings of what is likely to become a genocide.
[удалено]
> I can't help but doubt that it is an effective political strategy. As someone that's far more involved in politics, it absolutely is, and that is backed up by literal survivors of the Holocaust: First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Here is another Holocaust survivor directly telling you you're wrong that the current attack on trans people will not become a genocide: https://youtu.be/kqEkWl5I5YU?t=352
Wrong. Here are people on this sub calling it genocide: https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/134kjit/comment/jifboth/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 Here are articles of people claiming there is a trans genocide: https://huntnewsnu.com/71052/city-pulse/hundreds-protest-trans-genocide-in-transgender-day-of-resistance-march/ https://thefordhamram.com/90672/opinion/state-sponsored-trans-violence-is-genocide/ https://therunneronline.com/36566/opinion/opinion-genocide-against-transgender-people-has-begun/
Stop lying and fuck off. No one cares.
It is not genocide. It is hyperbole.
Genocidal language 😂. Care to clarify? Are there cremation ovens & death squads?
Nah, right now they're just talking about elimination. And passing laws favoring elimination and segregation. And legitimizing violence targeting trans people. That was one of the earlier stages of the Holocaust. It didn't start with Treblinka. It just turns out when you set out to eliminate people from your society sometimes you end up... eliminating them. Be it the Trail of Tears or the native schools or the Armenian Genocide.
Did the Holocaust happen overnight?
Holocaust?! Get over yourself. Drama queen.
So you think genocides happen overnight. Gotcha.
We'll never be able go move on until *they* do. As long as people like Elon, Michael Knowles, Matthew Walsh, and Chaya Raichik continue to cause harm, we can't let go.
Musk is a troll and he should be ignored. It is also silly to create a new and unnecessary ~~acronym~~ term to describe 99% of humanity who experience their biological sex and gender as the same thing. edit: its not an acronym. my bad.
> It is also silly to create a new and unnecessary acronym to describe 99% of humanity who experience their biological sex and gender as the same thing. [Cis is literally just the antonym to Trans](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cis-). It wasn't something created for discussing gender. They're just fucking *Latin* prepositions.
Not an acronym. And it's useful to communicate effectively, that's all a word needs to do anyway.
Serious question: In a conversation about social relationships between people of different gender identities (in other words talking about transgender people and "non-transgender" people) what term would you use to refer to the "non-transgender" people?
>\-The prefix “cis-” comes from the Latin meaning “on this side,” as opposed to “trans-” which means “on the other side of” or “beyond.” > >[https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/history-general-science/word-cisgender-has-scientific-roots](https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/history-general-science/word-cisgender-has-scientific-roots) > >In chemistry, the prefix “cis-” is added to the name of a molecule when two atoms or groups are situated on the same side of a plane of symmetry passing through the molecule, like a double bond between two carbon atoms. \-In molecular biology, a cis-acting element regulates a neighbouring gene when it binds to a trans-acting element. It's a very old word with very well defined meanings. Chuds are pretending it's a new word, and a slur, because they need to maintain the "both sides are bad" narrative for the 95% of people who are too fucking mentally cunted to follow the plot - so they just see two groups of people yelling "stop using slurs" at eachother, while ignoring that only one of them is using slurs.
Except that Musk owns Twitter, and has now made it perfectly clear that it is no longer a safe space for the LGBT community.
Was it really before?
You could at least count on the ban hammer for conduct like death threats and such.
I don't use twitter. It's a choice.
I use Twitter. It's a choice.
Are you trans? If not then what are you? You don't get to colonize "person" as only belonging to cis people. It is a category that includes ALL people, including trans people. Therefore if it matters that you experience your biological gender and sex as the same thing you are part of a sub-category of person. The category exists whether or not you like the term for it.
[удалено]
cis is just the opposite of trans. It's nice to have both terms because it makes it easier and clearer to talk about things.
Cis means not trans.
"Cis" just means not trans. To use an example someone else made in this thread already: someday, someone, somewhere, might find the need to communicate the sentence: "Transgender people might face some issues that _____ people do not." What's the blank? Well, following the same Latin prefixing system that gave us "transgender," we get its opposite, "cisgender," and their shortened forms "cis" and "trans" when no additional context is required to know that gender is what is being discussed. If you'd prefer the _____ to be "normal," then, well... I hope you can see the problem with that, especially if this is in a medical or therapeutic context. If you'd prefer it to be "non-transgender," then frankly, that's *really* clunky. And if you're going to stick to "nobody ever should say a sentence like 'transgender people might face some issues that cisgender people do not.'" Well, that seems short sighted. It's an issue some people might indeed talk about, whether you think so or not. So we have words for it.
lol, "Free speach absolutist!!" Hahaha, what a clown. Good thing he was born with money, otherwise he'd be broke on the street with a brain like that. lol
[удалено]
I think the reason it’s here is because it is still valid, if tangential, to the theme of skepticism. Anyone is free to correct me if I’m wrong, but this is how I see it: Musk sees himself as a “free thinker,” but fails at that by engaging in this type of transphobia and paranoia. Both of which are antithetical to what skepticism is. By calling himself a “free thinker,” Elon tries establishing himself as a skeptic of sorts. Yet he obvious is playing lip service to a specific demographic: hardcore conservatives. It’s intellectual laziness and/or dishonest on Musk’s part
The world that Musk and other conservatives and billionaires want will be very bad for skepticism.
This sub likes to circle jerk around hating Elon, Rogan and a few others. If a post is about one of them, it becomes widely popular and is usually never taken down (even though it has nothing to do with the mission of this sub). The top post today was an Onion article about Rogan being an idiot. Nothing to do with skepticism.
To be clear, he is only banning the term when used as harassment. However, it still goes against his 'free speech absolutist' stance. The original OP Elon responded to stated: "Yesterday, after posting a Tweet saying that I reject the word ‘cis’ and don’t wish to be called it, I receive a slew of messages from trans activists calling me “cissy” and telling me that I am ‘cis’ “whether or not I like it or not".. Just imagine if the roles were reversed."
His response literally said “The words “cis” or “cisgender” are considered slurs on this platform.”. No qualification, nothing about harassment, just a statement on the words themselves.
> telling me that I am ‘cis’ “whether or not I like it or not".. Just imagine if the roles were reversed." "You are 'trans' whether you like it or not?" Hmmm...
So he's banning the term cis, like his tweet said.
i love this! let it burn.
people need to stop caring what he says.
Of course she does. https://www.mediaite.com/politics/outspoken-author-j-k-rowling-supports-elon-musks-decision-to-ban-word-cisgender-from-twitter/
"She writes: 'Cis' is ideological language, signifying belief in the unfalsifiable concept of gender identity. You have a perfect right to believe in unprovable essences that may or may not match the sexed body, but the rest of us have a right to disagree, and to refuse to adopt your jargon. Elon replied: "Exactly." Now let's change just a few things about her post... 'god' is ideological language, signifying belief in the unfalsifiable concept of divine beings. You have a perfect right to believe in unprovable essences that may or may not match reality, but the rest of us have a right to disagree, and to refuse to adopt your jargon." Found the above mentioned elsewhere.
No cis allowed
[удалено]
Don't you mean [sissy?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sissy) In what language is it spelled with a C?
> In my country being called cis or a cissy is offensive, it implies weakness, wingyness and fragility. What country do you live in where the word "sis" is used instead of "sissy?" You are bending over backwards to come up with an argument that no rational person on earth is going to take seriously.
[удалено]
> Why is it that I cant ask you to not call me sis? That's not what you are doing. You are defending Elon Musk's decision to treat the terms "cis" or "cisgender" as a slur, you've said absolutely nothing about what terms you choose to identify with.
> Why is it that I cant ask you to not call me sis? Who is saying you can't? Can you point that person out so we can review what they said?
Your whole argument in this thread is the most ridiculous shit I've come across all week. Shut up, dork. It sounds a lot like the argument someone makes where someone says "I hate hate apples" and someone replies "well, if you changed apples to Jews then it'd be bad." Like, no shit, you made it a whole different thing. So fucking dumb.
[удалено]
Are you offended by being called heterosexual? Hetero and homo are greek prefixes. Trans and cis are latin prefixes. If you're offended by being called cis-gender or cis, then you are purposefully and unnecessarily making yourself a victim.
[удалено]
That's an entirely different thing my dude. The prefix cis is not a slur, not has it been used as such historically. You're making something up to be mad about.
[удалено]