Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

GN Toilets

Options
1…457910…17

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    MEGA BRO WOLF 5000
    Registered Users Posts: 17,439 ✭✭✭✭MEGA BRO WOLF 5000


    If I read any article and they refer to me as “cis-gender” it’s an automatic to close the tab.


  • Options
    #183
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    manbitesdog wrote: »
    So your argument is that there are perfectly valid, absolutely not transphobic reasons to be offended by the term cisgender, but you won’t say what they are, but they were posted in some other thread somewhere by unnamed posters and I should just look them up?

    Yes, with the addition that it's off topic. Zorya I believe is a poster that gave reasons why she didn't like the term. Look up her posts.
    manbitesdog wrote: »
    It’s a useful term in discussions about transgenderism, because otherwise we’d be distinguishing between women and transwomen all the time, which is not inclusive language.

    But you just have distiguished between women and trans-women. And you didn't use the term cis or cis-gender.


  • Options
    #184
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    manbitesdog wrote: »
    There is nothing insulting about the term cisgender.

    I’m insulted by it.


  • Options
    #185
    manbitesdog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    Yes, with the addition that it's off topic. Zorya I believe is a poster that gave reasons why she didn't like the term. Look up her posts.


    If you’re going to make an argument, at least try to back it up, and not retreat into “go look up someone else’s posts.” You are claiming this a valid position but are unwilling, or let’s face it, unable to defend it.


  • Options
    #186
    manbitesdog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    splinter65 wrote: »
    I’m insulted by it.

    Ok, great. Can provide reasons why?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    manbitesdog wrote: »
    If you’re going to make an argument, at least try to back it up, and not retreat into “go look up someone else’s posts.” You are claiming this a valid position but are unwilling, or let’s face it, unable to defend it.

    I'm not bothered defending it, it's off topic. If you care for their reasons go find the posts. I told you Zorya. Or ask Splinter there.


  • Options
    #188
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    manbitesdog wrote: »
    Why is it dumb?
    As a word it offers no real instinctive meaning - that has to be interpreted by applying a very narrow set of parameters, from gender politics and even that's not clear. I'm still unsure why people continue to use it and from what I've observed it's often used a way of defining otherness and not necessarily in a complementary way, a for or agin' us approach if you will. In this happy inclusive world we all live in now, people should also have the right not to be labelled with such terms.


  • Options
    #189
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,637 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cis-men.

    WTF is that? Is that like seahorse-unicorn-apache-men?

    Men, just men. Women, just women. We are what we are. If you want to make up some new label for yourself because you don’t think you are what you are, grand.

    There’s no ‘cis’ about me. So keep your silly little labels for people with silly ideas about the world.

    I was born with a dick and a pair of balls between my legs. I am, therefore, a man.


  • Options
    #190
    Gynoid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭Gynoid


    manbitesdog wrote: »

    It’s a useful term in discussions about transgenderism, because otherwise we’d be distinguishing between women and transwomen all the time, which is not inclusive language.

    There you go, that was easy wasnt it. Woman - Transwoman. Everyone knows what you mean. No need to thrash the language to be inclusive.

    Woman is an adult, human female - it does not need further parsing to suggest it is a subdivision of a category. It IS the category. Woman. Transwoman is someone whose gender identity does not collude with the biological sex in which they were born. People know what it means.

    Woman, transwoman, man, transman, it works just fine, and is true.

    Unless you are one if the extremists who insist that biological reality actually changes by identification? In which case, I dont share your religious belief.


  • Options
    #191
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    Gynoid wrote: »
    There you go, that was easy wasnt it. Woman - Transwoman. Everyone knows what you mean. No need to thrash the language to be inclusive.

    Woman is an adult, human female - it does not need further parsing to suggest it is a subdivision of a category. It IS the category. Woman. Transwoman is someone whose gender identity does not collude with the biological sex in which they were born. People know what it means.

    Woman, transwoman, man, transman, it works just fine, and is true.

    Unless you are one if the extremists who insist that biological reality actually changes by identification? In which case, I dont share your religious belief.

    Precisely. Funny how they cut out the part of my response when I mentioned this in their reply to me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    manbitesdog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    is_that_so wrote: »
    As a word it offers no real instinctive meaning - that has to be interpreted by applying a very narrow set of parameters, from gender politics. I'm still unsure why people continue to use it and what I've observed it's often used a way of defining otherness and not necessarily in a complementary way. In this happy inclusive world we all live in now people should also have the right not to be labelled with such terms.

    I presume you mean complimentary, not complementary.

    The reason to use cis- is to avoid the inference that transgender people are not really the gender they present as. It’s not a derogatory term in any way, any more than heterosexual is, which was only coined to distinguish what we now commonly refer to as heterosexuality from homosexuality.


  • Options
    #193
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,637 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    manbitesdog wrote: »
    I presume you mean complimentary, not complementary.

    The reason to use cis- is to avoid the inference that transgender people are not really the gender they present as. It’s not a derogatory term in any way, any more than heterosexual is, which was only coined to distinguish what we now commonly refer to as heterosexuality from homosexuality.

    Nope.

    I’ll infer what I mean.

    Do you mean to infer that referring to someone as a trans-woman or trans-man is derogatory?

    Call a spade a spade. I’m a man. My wife is a woman. She can use ‘he/him’ and I can use ‘she/her’, but if I have a cock, balls and a beard, no way should I be making my way into the ladies toilets.

    People need to cop TF on to themselves.


  • Options
    #194
    Gynoid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭Gynoid


    manbitesdog wrote: »
    I presume you mean complimentary, not complementary.

    The reason to use cis- is to avoid the inference that transgender people are not really the gender they present as. It’s not a derogatory term in any way, any more than heterosexual is, which was only coined to distinguish what we now commonly refer to as heterosexuality from homosexuality.

    Any sensible transgender person knows they are not really the SEX they identify as - Blaire White, Jenn Smith, Fionn Alexander, Miranda Hartley, there are innumerable sensible good-natured intelligent trans people, who have made their peace with reality and who object to extreme activists trying to ram biological treason down peoples throats.


  • Options
    #195
    manbitesdog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    JayZeus wrote: »
    Nope.

    I’ll infer what I mean.

    Do you mean to infer that referring to someone as a trans-woman or trans-man is derogatory?

    Call a spade a spade. I’m a man. My wife is a woman. She can use ‘he/him’ and I can use ‘she/her’, but if I have a cock, balls and a beard, no way should I be making my way into the ladies toilets.

    People need to cop TF on to themselves.

    You’ll “infer what you mean”? Why would you need to infer what you mean? Is what you mean a secret from yourself?


  • Options
    #196
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    manbitesdog wrote: »
    I presume you mean complimentary, not complementary.

    The reason to use cis- is to avoid the inference that transgender people are not really the gender they present as. It’s not a derogatory term in any way, any more than heterosexual is, which was only coined to distinguish what we now commonly refer to as heterosexuality from homosexuality.

    This doesn't make sense to me. If someone is trans-gendered they are by implication of this not "cis"-gendered. So how does the use of the word cis "avoid the inference that transgender people are not really the gender they present as"?


  • Options
    #197
    antix80
    Registered Users Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭antix80


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Exactly. We can clearly see the arguments presented here really are nothing to do with cis womens welfare or safety at all.

    There are a few things going on.

    One is diminishing the respect (and yes, feeling of safety), women should be treated with by forcing them to share a bathroom with men.

    Second, is diminishing their safety by allowing sex pests and perverts - whether transgender or not - to share women's spaces. Such individuals, a minority, are predatory so will use the situation to their advantage.

    And finally, allowing xy individuals into the space of xx individuals. It's not always apparent the genetic makeup of individuals but the usual (outdated?) view is that xx are women and xy are men. Hey ho.

    So - very hard to formulate a fair policy other than to say, in a venue large enough to have to facilitate the bathroom needs of men and women - leave women with the dignity of using the bathroom in peace without being subject to men, genetic men and male perverts being in their space.


  • Options
    #198
    manbitesdog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    antix80 wrote: »
    There are a few things going on.

    One is diminishing the respect (and yes, feeling of safety), women should be treated with by forcing them to share a bathroom with men.

    Second, is diminishing their safety by allowing sex pests and perverts - whether transgender or not - to share women's spaces. Such individuals, a minority, are predatory so will use the situation to their advantage.

    And finally, allowing xy individuals into the space of xx individuals. It's not always apparent the genetic makeup of individuals but the usual (outdated?) view is that xx are women and xy are men. Hey ho.

    So - very hard to formulate a fair policy other than to say, in a venue large enough to have to facilitate the bathroom needs of men and women - leave women with the dignity of using the bathroom in peace without being subject to men, genetic men and male perverts being in their space.

    How do you want this segregated bathroom policy enforced? Do people show their chromosomes on the way in?


  • Options
    #199
    antix80
    Registered Users Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭antix80


    manbitesdog wrote: »
    How do you want this segregated bathroom policy enforced? Do people show their chromosomes on the way in?

    No - you expect people not to be sh**ty and use the toilet that won't make women feel uncomfortable. If they're unsure they should ask management to clarify or simply use a special needs toilet.


  • Options
    #200
    manbitesdog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    This doesn't make sense to me. If someone is trans-gendered they are by implication of this not "cis"-gendered. So how does the use of the word cis "avoid the inference that transgender people are not really the gender they present as"?

    Because cisgender doesn’t mean “you really are the gender you present as”; it means your gender identity corresponds to your sex at birth (there are different views about sex too ofc, but I don’t know enough about the arguments there to talk about them).

    Transgender means your gender identity doesn’t correspond with your sex at birth.


  • Options
    #201
    manbitesdog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    antix80 wrote: »
    No - you expect people not to be sh**ty and use the toilet that won't make women feel uncomfortable. If they're unsure they should ask management to clarify or simply use a special needs toilet.

    Why would it make you uncomfortable? You could be using the same toilet as transwomen and not recognize them as transwomen. Is it just the ones immediately recognizable as transwomen who shouldn’t use the ladies, since your rationale is that they shouldn’t “make women feel uncomfortable”?

    And if a ciswoman might be mistaken for a man, should she also use the disabled toilets, since presumably she makes you feel uncomfortable too?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,230 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Eh, they are completely different words. Read your own posts! Cis on its own to me is asinine and I think cisgender is a fairly dumb word, but many neologisms tend to be.

    Cisgender - like hetrosexual - is a real word with latin origins, not just made up by some over rights-conscious group.

    Trans - to cross over to the other side,
    Cis - to stay on the same side.


    Hardly "dumb"

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #203
    Sittingpretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,872 ✭✭✭Sittingpretty


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    Cisgender - like hetrosexual - is a real word with latin origins, not just made up by some over rights-conscious group.

    Trans - to cross over to the other side,
    Cis - to stay on the same side.


    Hardly "dumb"

    Not dumb, just unnecessary.


  • Options
    #204
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    manbitesdog wrote: »
    Because cisgender doesn’t mean “you really are the gender you present as”; it means your gender identity corresponds to your sex at birth (there are different views about sex too ofc, but I don’t know enough about the arguments there to talk about them).

    Transgender means your gender identity doesn’t correspond with your sex at birth.

    Or you could just say: Transgendered and non-transgendered. No need for cis.


  • Options
    #205
    antix80
    Registered Users Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭antix80


    manbitesdog wrote: »
    Why would it make you uncomfortable? You could be using the same toilet as transwomen and not recognize them as transwomen. Is it just the ones immediately recognizable as transwomen who shouldn’t use the ladies, since your rationale is that they shouldn’t “make women feel uncomfortable”?

    And if a ciswoman might be mistaken for a man, should she also use the disabled toilets, since presumably she makes you feel uncomfortable too?


    I mean - don't be sh*tty. Don't be a sh*t person.
    Don't try to academise it. Don't look for loopholes. Find another outlet to express your gender identity.

    Men and men-who-think-theyre-women and men with gender dysphoria and any other variant of individuals who are at risk of catching their penis in their zipper through a momentary lapse in concentration .. Keep out of women's toilets. They're not for you.


  • Options
    #206
    Gynoid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭Gynoid


    Cis was a word co-opted from molecular biology.

    Saying woman needs cis to distinguish it from trans is like saying blue needs to be called cis blue in order for people to understand it. It is an attempt to qualify a noun which is indivisible into categories. Descriptors are different, such as adjectives used to describe, eg light blue, etc. But cis and trans dont seek to be adjectives, these words do not seek to describe a single category or noun, they attempt to divide it. The fundamental ideology is that transwomen are women. Just a fundamental division of that category. They are not. They are transwomen. Women is an indivisible category. A sex.


  • Options
    #207
    skooterblue2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭skooterblue2


    If you are unsure of what gender you are, maybe you shouldnt be let outside the front door incase you get offended, let alone use the public toilets.


  • Options
    #208
    MEGA BRO WOLF 5000
    Registered Users Posts: 17,439 ✭✭✭✭MEGA BRO WOLF 5000


    skooterblue2 wrote: »
    If you are unsure of what gender you are, maybe you shouldnt be let outside the front door incase you get offended, let alone use the public toilets.

    I still don’t know how anyone can be unsure of their gender. You only have to look down your jocks/knickers.

    What goes on in those peoples heads is a whole different thing.

    I’m absolutely shocked at the amount of people in this thread that think all of this is ok. It’s utter insanity.


  • Options
    #209
    antix80
    Registered Users Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭antix80


    Gynoid wrote: »
    Saying woman needs cis to distinguish it from trans is like saying blue needs to be called cis blue in order for people to understand it.

    I was thinking for the same analogy. Or cisdog, so people know you're talking about a dog.. And not a cat.

    Bad enough they coopted the word "gender" to begin with. Apart from grammatical gender, gender was used (maybe euphemistically) to mean sex before being hijacked by the p.c brigade to mean "gender identity" - their argument being their usage is closer to the grammatical usage. No it's not.. The legitimate usage to describe the condition is as part of the term "gender dysphoria"


  • Options
    #210
    manbitesdog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 91 ✭✭manbitesdog


    DanDan6592 wrote: »
    Or you could just say: Transgendered and non-transgendered. No need for cis.

    Well cis- was already the opposite of trans-, used in examples like Cisalpine Gaul (a term which predates molecular biology by a bit...)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭p1akuw47h5r3it


    manbitesdog wrote: »
    Well cis- was already the opposite of trans-, used in examples like Cisalpine Gaul (a term which predates molecular biology by a bit...)

    But we don't need an opposite. All we need to do is to distinguish. Trans and non-trans does this.


Advertisement