It appears the word 'cis' is now verboten at Pam's House Blend, because it offends at least one white cis gay man.
That constitutes the final straw for me so far as that site is concerned, as I have no patience for a discussion in which the official line is that trans and cis people ought not be regarded as on equal neutral footing because doing so offends cis people, just as I cut all interaction with The Bilerico Project and with Pandagon.
That constitutes the final straw for me so far as that site is concerned, as I have no patience for a discussion in which the official line is that trans and cis people ought not be regarded as on equal neutral footing because doing so offends cis people, just as I cut all interaction with The Bilerico Project and with Pandagon.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 06:39 (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 12:23 (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 16:34 (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 23:25 (UTC)From:Same with "neurotypical", as I recently had to explain to someone.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-30 23:24 (UTC)From:And I had to quit Shakesville after it drama-sploded... are there any good feminist blogs left?
no subject
Date: 2009-07-02 04:08 (UTC)From:(b) As with "racist" and "asshole", it is very rarely the word that is being objected to, but the categorization.
(c) What word(s) do we use in place of "cis"? I refuse to classify people by what they're not, as it's a centrist bias at best, so "non-trans" is out....
no subject
Date: 2009-07-02 04:42 (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2009-07-02 04:53 (UTC)From:That said, calling it offensive, to the point of considering it violent, oppressive, or a slur, just seems... absolutely daft. It's like saying that "red apple" is a slur because it labels it as both "red" and an "apple" and maybe it's just a fruit, or a macroscale molecular structure :P
no subject
Date: 2009-07-09 21:43 (UTC)From: