Well that's absurd

[aesmael]

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.

Comments

[aesmael.livejournal.com]

(b) Indeed seems to be the objection. "But we are a diverse group of people. It is unfair to categorise us all under a single term, unlike saying all trans people are trans, or gay people are gay. Especially I dislike being classed in the same group as those who oppress and try to control you" is about the distilled version of what I interpreted from reading that thread. Which is not new. And the person he was calling 'good' made a follow-up post about terminology and how she does not identify with labels like 'straight' and would prefer to be thought of as just a person. Sometimes I wonder if this is some kind of elaborate, satirical prank.

[mantic-angel.livejournal.com]

I can understand the logic to some degree, of being the "label free" / "people are people" movement. I used to rather strongly be part of it, back when I believed racism was solved and that once we nailed gay rights and children's rights the world would be perfect. (Prior ignorance, ow...)

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