X now treats the term cisgender as a slur
X now considers the term “cisgender” a slur. On Tuesday, the platform reportedly began posting an official warning that the LGBTQ-inclusive terms could result in a ban from the platform.
You're viewing a single thread.
It's considered a slur when you call a person that who doesn't associate with the term. It's no different from going around calling straight people gay. Do we or do we not respect people's right to choose what they indentify as? It's not like you get automatically banned for using the term. Context matters.
This article also seems to conveniently ignore the fact that all the actual slurs are considered slurs on Twitter aswell. It's also an obviously and openly biased opinion article intented to provoke rage rather than objectional journalism.
If I were to troll people and call them white and whitey those words would not be considered a slur. Same with American, two footed, food chewer or bloodtype A+. Yet cisgender deserves special attention from Musk.
Whitey is definitely a slur, unless you think referring to a black person as "blackie" is okay.
Do we or do we not respect people’s right to choose what they indentify as?
That does not make it a slur and should not be treated as such.
You're not engaging with any of the arguments I'm making.
Of all the social media platforms Lemmy seems like the least likely place for me having to speak against misgendering people. Can you really not imagine how a transgender person would feel when the term CIS is forced upon them from the outside?
No you are not engaging with the arguments I am making. Respect for what people associate with is different from a word being a slur, or treated as such. Going around calling people who does not want to be
<x>
is disrespectful and is harrasment but it does not make<x>
a slur in a general sense.Cisgendered is a word to describe people's gender identity, not for insulting.
Agree totally, but just FYI "cisgendered" isn't a word (nor is "transgendered").
Yeah it's not a slur just like the words male and female aren't either but they can be used with the intention to insult when directed at people not identifying as such.
I don't agree with labeling the term as such but I do agree with the core intention which is to prevent harrasment. I don't quite see what the issue is here. This will not cause trouble to anyone using the term appropriately.
How does the statement "the words 'cis' or 'cisgendered' are considered slurs on this platform" leave any room for appropriate use of those terms.
Narrator who sounds just like Ron Howard: "It doesn't."
But it will cause trouble, because it is now (treated as) a slur on Twitter. Depending on how strict they are you can't go around saying "as a cisgender" or having it in your bio.
TechCrunch reported on Tuesday that trying to publish a post using the terms “cisgender” or “cis” in the X mobile app will pop up a full-screen warning reading, “This post contains language that may be considered a slur by X and could be used in a harmful manner in violation of our rules.” It then gives you the choice of continuing to publish the post..
Like I said earlier: context matters
Weird how Nazis aren't getting any sort of popups when they post their bigotry on Twitter.
But the person isn't trans and being called cis, or even trans but objecting to being called trans, they're cis and objecting to being called cis.
Can you really not imagine how a transgender person would feel when the term CIS is forced upon them from the outside?
That's like saying the term "male" is forced upon men, or the term "human" is forced upon everyone. Cis is the defined technical term, with solid etymological roots.
But the person isn’t trans
How can you know? Just because a person looks and acts male it doesn't mean that's how they feel inside. There are plenty of closeted trans people that would find that offensive. And what does it even matter? If a person doesn't want to be labeled then any decent person would respect that wish instead doubling down and calling them "cissy" instead.
We're talking about a hypothetical example. What I'm saying it is only comparable to a cis person objecting to being called cis if your example is a trans person objecting to being called trans. Both would be wrong as they are factually correct technical terms, and thus they aren't being used as slurs.
A closeted trans person would be offended that you outed them, not that you called them trans when they are. Although, if they were closeted then you'd probably have no reason to think they were trans.
Calling someone "cissy" is almost certainly meant as an insult, though, because that's not the technical term. That's like calling a gay person a fag, or calling a black person the n word. Calling a cis gendered person cis or cisgender is like calling a gay person gay.
Rejecting a label isn't really valid when the label applies to you. You can't eat pizza and then claim you're not a pizza eater.
And, at the end of the day, the measure that matters is not whether or not you like it, it's actual harm. Calling someone cis is very unlikely to cause them harm. Calling someone a fag could lead to harm (eg Top Gear people driving through Alabama with gay writing on their trucks).
I don't think it necessarily matters even if the label technically does apply to them. I can very well imagine a black person for example taking issue with someone bringing attention to their skin color. Not because they're not indeed black but because they don't want to be described in a way that might diminish other features about them that they actually take pride over.
Or in my personal case while I'm technically part of LGBTQ I still don't want to be associated with what I consider a political movement and when asked I'd wish not to be described in that way and would absolutely be offended with people dismissing my request and labeling me as such nevertheless. Labels often are inaccurate and overly simplifying so plenty of people rather describe themselves with sentences rather than abbreviations/generalizations.
The point isn't really wether it's a correct term or not but ignoring the wish to not be called that and instead doing so with the intention to insult.
Yes, I intentionally gave examples that were open. Some black people take offense to that label, others take offense to "African American", or whatever. People take offense to all sorts of things. In the words of Stephen Fry, "So fucking what? It's just a whine.”
The point isn't really wether it's a correct term or not but ignoring the wish to not be called that and instead doing so with the intention to insult.
The term is not inherently an insult, though. You would have to alter it (eg "cissy") for it to reasonably be considered an insult by default. Merely objecting to a term that any reasonable person would see as accurate and not an insult is not enough - it would just be a whine. If it was used further after an objection, then maybe intent could be proven, but that's not what Musk is talking about here. He's banning the term altogether and saying it is inherently insulting, when it is not.
He's not banning the term. There's no problem using it as long as it's used appropriately.
TechCrunch reported on Tuesday that trying to publish a post using the terms “cisgender” or “cis” in the X mobile app will pop up a full-screen warning reading, “This post contains language that may be considered a slur by X and could be used in a harmful manner in violation of our rules.” It then gives you the choice of continuing to publish the post…
You're not engaging with any of the arguments I'm making.
Because your argument is based on the false assumption that not liking the word means not identifying as cisgender.
If you identity as the same sex that you were assigned at birth, you identify as cisgender. That's just how gender and language works.
Your arguments seem pretty disingenuous to me. Of course nobody is saying it's ok to misgender someone so I'm not sure why you're pretending that has anything to do with this. If I call someone straight when they are not or vice versa, I'm an asshole, but that doesn't make the word straight a slur that warrants banning from the platform. The act of deliberately misrepresenting someone's sexuality might but not the word itself.
Me calling you Shirley, no matter how much you insist you're Tom, doesn't make Shirley a slur, it just makes me a rude asshole.
Surely you can't be serious!
I agree
You mean we as in the Twitter moderation team? Are they banning users who misgender trans people? Somehow I assume this rule only applies to brainlets who are in fact cis but don't want to use an inclusive word.
The actual equivalence is calling straight people straight, then them getting offended by it.
I don't identify with being labelled as Homo Sapiens sapiens. Alleging I am human is a slur
Considers role reversal.
So a world where trans people are in the majority and all the trans governors in the southern US are obsessing about how my cis ass takes a shit at work after my morning coffee?
But "cis" isn't an identity, it's a way to describe the relationship between your assigned sex and your (gender) identity. I don't identify as cis just like I don't identify as short, it's simply a fact of who I am.
Yeah but if a person asks not to be called that but does not elaborate on why, then there's a chance that they may not identify as such and forcing that label on them is then potenttially misgendering them. There's plenty of closeted trans people living their lives pretending to be someone they're not.
Sure, but calling someone cis, even maliciously, or is very far from it being a slur. If they are harassing someone, treat them accordingly. But blanket banning the word, even when used to describe yourself or others non-maliciously, is a clear attempt to make it difficult to talk about trans issues on the platform.
Yeah I agree it's not a slur. I never claimed it was. Just that it can be used to offend/insult people.
Also they're not banning people from using the word. Using it just prompts a message asking if you're sure you want to post that as is the case with actual slurs aswell.
It's considered a slur when you call a person that who doesn't associate with the term.
This is what you said, and what I was contesting.
And the message discourages use of the word as what is "insulting" is entirely up the the discretion of the moderators. There should be no message, because it is not a slur. There is no historic oppression of cis people. So you don't want to be called cis? Fine, I don't understand it but whatever. But that doesn't make it a slur any more than calling someone "straight" is a slur. Will they put a warning on that, too?
That's how Elon said Twitter thinks about it. Or atleast how I understood it. That's not what I think.
Dictionary defines slur as "an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo" There's no mention about it having anything to do with oppression.
You are mixing up several things at once, which is confusing your point that you offered to others, and causing them to react overall negatively, even though you have some correct points (as well as some incorrect ones).
For one thing, we do not get to decide what we are, and while we do somewhat get to decide what words we use to refer to ourselves, there is a line between what we personally want and what society will allow. If someone refers to me as a "human, member of the species Homo sapiens", then I have no proper basis to claim that they are incorrect. Note that I can say that they are correct, but that does not make it so.
For another, whether something is "friendly" or not is not the sole basis for deciding what is vs. is not a "slur" - if someone sent me a message saying "you are a human, member of the species Homo sapiens"... every second of every day, in perpetuity, then that (DDOS attack) is not friendly. Though it is also not a "slur".
"Cissy" is most definitely a slur, no matter how you look at it - the altered spelling, the similarity to "sissy", etc. "It’s considered a slur when..." - no, it just is a slur, period. The wiktionary definition of slur includes the phrase "socially unacceptable", not "personally unacceptable" but socially so. Note that while it does include the phrase "extremely offensive", that is also followed by the word "and", i.e. to be considered a slur something must be both, not one or the other.
Similarly, the other word "cis" - like Homo sapiens - is not a slur, b/c it is not "socially unacceptable" (even if someone finds it personally thus). Perhaps you meant "It's considered unfriendly when..."? But that's not the same thing as it being an actual "slur".
Though you could legit have meant "socially unacceptable", in which case you would be buying into Elon Musk's radical alterations of existing society, as he works to mold it into what he thinks rather it should become in the future. If true though, note that calling someone "cis" - very much unlike calling a straight person gay -has not historically been considered "socially unacceptable". This addition of the word "cis" to become a "slur" is picking and choosing who gets to define what "society" is. Elon gets to pick, and now anyone who uses it - and whatever other words he decides to add also, perhaps "Homo sapiens" will be added tomorrow? - will have to jump through additional hoops if they want to use it, on his platform.
Which btw is an obvious attention-grabbing tactic, just like the article, except he did it first, knowing that the latter would follow. Anyway, Elon did what he did, and the article did what it did, but you and I get to decide what we will do. So I hope these words help as you think about the subject.
Basically it may boil down to: does Might make Right? If not, then the work is upon us to determine what actually does. Though this is far too simplistic: b/c on "his" platform, he kinda does have the right to do as he pleases, subject to federal and international laws, though we also have the right to leave or ignore or speak poorly about his platform too - he has his rights, and we have ours. So perhaps a better question is "should Might make Right"? And again, if not then what would - e.g. should someone be allowed to call me a Homo sapiens, even if I were to be offended by such a term? Or a more apt analogy seems to be: if I were to have transitioned genders, then am I "trans" in that case? What about "tranny"?
