Zoolander 2 deemed “transphobic”

seamus · 23-11-2015 11:40AM

smash wrote: »

Why the need for the opposite though? he's trans, he's not. Simple as that. You don't always need an opposite.

No, you don't always need an opposite, but as I've explained if you're in a relevant conversation about trans issues, "not trans" may not be very specific. When you get communities together like this, people start fluffing about etymology and getting annoyed about imprecision.
Post "road tax" here on boards and you'll have it pointed out to you that's the wrong word. It's the same in this context - "not trans" is imprecise and so is unhelpful in the midst of a relevant discussion.

Keyword being "relevant" as opposed to "any".

It's a phrase that has been coined with the purpose of being able to beat people with a stick. I have already seen it being used multiple times as a 'dirty' word, so to speak. It's sole purpose is to describe people who are not ''with us" so immediately therefore they are "against us".

No, I don't think so. Or at least that wasn't the purpose. I'm sure some use it with hate in their speech, but I'm not going to get worked up about that. Every minority group has its members with a sack of potatoes on their shoulders, who will use every opportunity to attack anyone outside of that group. I'm not going to assume they represent the whole group.

Then why oh why are there LGBT groups and not just an LGB group with trans as a completely separate entity.

That actually has an interesting hisstory. The "T" wasn't anywhere near LGB for a long time, and in many cases was used a reference more for transvestite rather than transsexual, since the gay and transvestite scene were so heavily intertwined.

As transgender began to get more recognition many of them would have emerged from the LGB community - either because they were living as gay men or women rather than trans, or otherwise were drawn to LGB groups because they recognised themselves among kindred spirits/outcasts.
There still was and is to a certain extent a lot of hate towads the "T" because many gay people saw them as weakening the argument. That the "T"s were just weirdos and if LGB became associated with the "T", then the public would shut them out as just a big group of freaks and perverts. (Actually, even the "B"s were shut out for a time as being frauds and perverts by the L's and G's.)

But sense won out and it was recognised that the struggles encountered by the T's were basically identical to those encountered by LGB. And the communities being so intertwined, it made no sense to keep them separate and "force" T's to go it alone.
There is still quite a bit of animosity about it, and with gay marriage going global there are a few LGB's calling for separation again lest the T's damage the shaky rights that have now been won.

I recall one infamous poster on boards years back actually fighting for this. I won't mention names, it doesn't need dragging up and I'd say everyone involved, the poster included would be embarrassed by it.
I think it was around 2005, a transgender woman, living as transgender, was fighting for the name of the LGB forum to have the T added. It was being resisted on most sides, including by the LGB mods.

That woman in particular came in for quite a lot of abuse and was otherwise not respected by most posters for her gender, and to my shame I'm pretty sure I didn't either. Notwithstanding that she was a horribly aggressive asshole, in hindsight she did have many legitimate gripes and issues that were dismissed due to her being transgender and therefore not being taken seriously. Though about 50% of the dismissal was also down to her attitude. I know in real life she conducted herself the same way and every damn day must have been a serious battle for her.

When transgender stuff comes up on boards I often think back to that and how far we've come on these issue in less than a decade. I do hope she's found at least some kind of peace in life and is living some form of enjoyable life rather than constantly being at war with the world.

Wizard! · 23-11-2015 11:42AM

Andreja Pejic: Trans-gender model vs Benedict Cumberbatch: Oscar nominated actor (with various other awards & nominations).

I am sure it's the same thing. The producers did not want someone like Andreja Pejic cause they are transphobic.

zeffabelli · 23-11-2015 11:55AM

seamus wrote: »

No, you don't always need an opposite, but as I've explained if you're in a relevant conversation about trans issues, "not trans" may not be very specific. When you get communities together like this, people start fluffing about etymology and getting annoyed about imprecision.
Post "road tax" here on boards and you'll have it pointed out to you that's the wrong word. It's the same in this context - "not trans" is imprecise and so is unhelpful in the midst of a relevant discussion.

Keyword being "relevant" as opposed to "any".
No, I don't think so. Or at least that wasn't the purpose. I'm sure some use it with hate in their speech, but I'm not going to get worked up about that. Every minority group has its members with a sack of potatoes on their shoulders, who will use every opportunity to attack anyone outside of that group. I'm not going to assume they represent the whole group.
That actually has an interesting hisstory. The "T" wasn't anywhere near LGB for a long time, and in many cases was used a reference more for transvestite rather than transsexual, since the gay and transvestite scene were so heavily intertwined.

As transgender began to get more recognition many of them would have emerged from the LGB community - either because they were living as gay men or women rather than trans, or otherwise were drawn to LGB groups because they recognised themselves among kindred spirits/outcasts.
There still was and is to a certain extent a lot of hate towads the "T" because many gay people saw them as weakening the argument. That the "T"s were just weirdos and if LGB became associated with the "T", then the public would shut them out as just a big group of freaks and perverts. (Actually, even the "B"s were shut out for a time as being frauds and perverts by the L's and G's.)

But sense won out and it was recognised that the struggles encountered by the T's were basically identical to those encountered by LGB. And the communities being so intertwined, it made no sense to keep them separate and "force" T's to go it alone.
There is still quite a bit of animosity about it, and with gay marriage going global there are a few LGB's calling for separation again lest the T's damage the shaky rights that have now been won.

I recall one infamous poster on boards years back actually fighting for this. I won't mention names, it doesn't need dragging up and I'd say everyone involved, the poster included would be embarrassed by it.
I think it was around 2005, a transgender woman, living as transgender, was fighting for the name of the LGB forum to have the T added. It was being resisted on most sides, including by the LGB mods.

That woman in particular came in for quite a lot of abuse and was otherwise not respected by most posters for her gender, and to my shame I'm pretty sure I didn't either. Notwithstanding that she was a horribly aggressive asshole, in hindsight she did have many legitimate gripes and issues that were dismissed due to her being transgender and therefore not being taken seriously. Though about 50% of the dismissal was also down to her attitude. I know in real life she conducted herself the same way and every damn day must have been a serious battle for her.

When transgender stuff comes up on boards I often think back to that and how far we've come on these issue in less than a decade. I do hope she's found at least some kind of peace in life and is living some form of enjoyable life rather than constantly being at war with the world.

I dont know how far boards has come really.... it just depends on what the group think du jour is.

Back then the group think didn't have much tolerance for it, now it does.

Now you have a different value system for the group think, but the group think still has its dominance and doesn't like too much difference when the group has created false consensus.

Annasopra · 23-11-2015 12:53PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

I dont know how far boards has come really.... it just depends on what the group think du jour is.

Back then the group think didn't have much tolerance for it, now it does.

Now you have a different value system for the group think, but the group think still has its dominance and doesn't like too much difference when the group has created false consensus.

Does it really have much tolerance in AH though? Lots of trans posters walking away from here because the transphobic bashing has just become intolerable and it has just become a soapboxing place to goto rant about SJW and PC.

mayway · 23-11-2015 01:00PM

This is a comedy. The question is whether or not it's funny. As humour is subjective the question then becomes does anyone find it funny. If the answer is yes then it's fine.

Some people can choose to be offended but that's really their choice. Just like some people are entitled to be gay or cross dress other people choose to take offence at these things.

mayway · 23-11-2015 01:02PM

Is "transphobic" a word? Does it mean to be afraid of men that dress up as women? I guess that with anything that you can't understand I suppose it does engender an amount of fear. I think that's we mean when we say "fear of the unknown".

One eyed Jack · 23-11-2015 01:11PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Does it really have much tolerance in AH though? Lots of trans posters walking away from here because the transphobic bashing has just become intolerable and it has just become a soapboxing place to goto rant about SJW and PC.

You're joking Joey surely?

Posters in After Hours are a mixed bag, but the overwhelming majority of people are supportive of people who are transgender.

The perception of transphobic bashing is nonsense, and Moderators are very quick to step in, in the last few years, especially now that people who identify as transgender are becoming more visible in society.

The ranting about SJW's and PC Brigades was never limited to transgenderism, it's said about anything, to the point where now they're meaningless phrases, unworthy of entertaining.

Criticism of an ideology, is not the same as criticising the individual directly. There's plenty of criticism of religion in After Hours, why should transgenderism be protected from criticism and critique on that basis?

zeffabelli · 23-11-2015 01:30PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Does it really have much tolerance in AH though? Lots of trans posters walking away from here because the transphobic bashing has just become intolerable and it has just become a soapboxing place to goto rant about SJW and PC.

There are a lot of people who have walked away for a lot of different reasons.

The group think is strong, it's just they change the menu on accepted and unaccepted deviancies.

bodice ripper · 23-11-2015 01:40PM

I rather prefer to think of myself as a deviant than bisexual to be honest

smash · 23-11-2015 01:42PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

I rather prefer to think of myself as a deviant than bisexual to be honest

You can be bisexual and still be boring as fcuk in the bedroom though.

Wibbs · 23-11-2015 01:45PM

seamus wrote: »

When transgender stuff comes up on boards I often think back to that and how far we've come on these issue in less than a decade.

I recall the incident well, but I dunno if we have S. Maybe on the surface, but IMH there is far more of the low level "within the rules" nastiness these days. Not just around Trans folks. More lines drawn overall on a few subjects. Now that's somewhat a reflection of the wider world where there are more lines drawn these days. A decade, even five years ago AH was a more jokey place. Sure there was "blast them with piss" and "your ma" stuff, but while crass it wasn't generally nasty. The "gender war" stuff was little to be found either*. Even taking that incident and imagining it today, a) the person would have been banned far earlier and b) so would have a load of "regulars" including mods and admins. The discussion itself would have less likelihood of happening these days.

Overall I would say IMH anyway that the nastiness of the past was smaller, less polarised, less organised and appeared far less "reasonable" and thought out.

*I was modding the Ladies Lounge in and around that time and yes we did get the odd seagull male poster with a chip on the shoulder and yes they caused us a pain in the bum, but it was a handful of people involved and they were more out and out obvious.

bodice ripper · 23-11-2015 01:46PM

True fact

zeffabelli · 23-11-2015 01:51PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I recall the incident well, but I dunno if we have S. Maybe on the surface, but IMH there is far more of the low level "within the rules" nastiness these days. Not just around Trans folks. More lines drawn overall on a few subjects. Now that's somewhat a reflection of the wider world where there are more lines drawn these days. A decade, even five years ago AH was a more jokey place. Sure there was "blast them with piss" and "your ma" stuff, but while crass it wasn't generally nasty. The "gender war" stuff was little to be found either*. Even taking that incident and imagining it today, a) the person would have been banned far earlier and b) so would have a load of "regulars" including mods and admins. The discussion itself would have less likelihood of happening these days.

Overall I would say IMH anyway that the nastiness of the past was smaller, less polarised, less organised and appeared far less "reasonable" and thought out.

*I was modding the Ladies Lounge in and around that time and yes we did get the odd seagull male poster with a chip on the shoulder and yes they caused us a pain in the bum, but it was a handful of people involved and they were more out and out obvious.

Where micro aggressions really come from:

http://righteousmind.com/where-microaggressions-really-come-from/

"In brief: We’re beginning a second transition of moral cultures. The first major transition happened in the 18th and 19th centuries when most Western societies moved away from cultures of honor (where people must earn honor and must therefore avenge insults on their own) to cultures of dignity in which people are assumed to have dignity and don’t need to earn it. They foreswear violence, turn to courts or administrative bodies to respond to major transgressions, and for minor transgressions they either ignore them or attempt to resolve them by social means. There’s no more dueling.
Campbell and Manning describe how this culture of dignity is now giving way to a new culture of victimhood in which people are encouraged to respond to even the slightest unintentional offense, as in an honor culture. But they must not obtain redress on their own; they must appeal for help to powerful others or administrative bodies, to whom they must make the case that they have been victimized. It is the very presence of such administrative bodies, within a culture that is highly egalitarian and diverse (i.e., many college campuses) that gives rise to intense efforts to identify oneself as a fragile and aggrieved victim. This is why we have seen the recent explosion of concerns about microaggressions, combined with demands for trigger warnings and safe spaces, that Greg Lukianoff and I wrote about in The Coddling of the American Mind."

Full paper here:
http://www.academia.edu/10541921/Microaggression_and_Moral_Cultures

23-11-2015 02:01PM

It's not transphobic and can people please stop saying that it is.

People are leaping to baseless accusations on the back of a scene that is a couple of seconds, without knowing anything else about the movie. It's like watching this couple of second (slightly NSFW) clip from Blazing Saddles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjNIARQGIYA

and thinking, "oh emmm geee, racist. So racist. Whole movie is racist" without watching the whole movie and realizing, oh, so it's actually lampooning racism itself.

It's all of this trigger warning, SJW, out-to-be-offended-so-gets-offended nonsense. And I just wish it would please stop now, thank you very much.

Hell, for all we know, the character could end up being this incredibly strong and important character, who is the hero and Zoolander and Hanel realize that they were wrong to think they were different. And, what it is actually doing, is lampooning people's perception and insecurity with transgendered people.

But no, let's leap to accusations that the whole thing is transphobic.

Cienciano · 23-11-2015 02:32PM

Ten of Swords wrote: »

SJW outrage.

So hot right now

We've turned full circle. The SJW moaners are as bad as the SJW's.

One eyed Jack · 23-11-2015 02:34PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's not transphobic and can people please stop saying that it is.

People are leaping to baseless accusations on the back of a scene that is a couple of seconds, without knowing anything else about the movie. It's like watching this couple of second (slightly NSFW) clip from Blazing Saddles

and thinking, "oh emmm geee, racist. So racist. Whole movie is racist" without watching the whole movie and realizing, oh, so it's actually lampooning racism itself.

It's all of this trigger warning, SJW, out-to-be-offended-so-gets-offended nonsense. And I just wish it would please stop now, thank you very much.

Hell, for all we know, the character could end up being this incredibly strong and important character, who is the hero and Zoolander and Hanel realize that they were wrong to think they were different. And, what it is actually doing, is lampooning people's perception and insecurity with transgendered people.

But no, let's leap to accusations that the whole thing is transphobic.

This is the point that a small minority of people, who appear to take themselves far too seriously, seem to miss. In their head-rush to see that their identity label isn't 'sullied', they completely miss the point that it isn't they who are being lampooned, but the ignorance is being lampooned.

Often in comedies like this, same in 'Tropic Thunder', same in 'There's Something about Mary', 'Blazing Saddles' and 'The Life of Brian', it's not people are being lampooned, it's ignorance is being highlighted in a way that's almost holding a mirror up to the person who cries offence and pokes them to question why they find it offensive?

Is it because they see themselves as part of a group that needs protecting? That needs an exemption from criticism and critique? How can anyone ever expect acceptance in society on those terms? That's not acceptance on an equal footing with everyone else, it's special treatment on the basis of what those people see about themselves that marks them out as different from everyone else.

If people, no matter who they are, no matter how or what they identify as, or what 'community' they identify with, want to be treated with the same respect as everyone else, then stop this nonsense of calling for special treatment on the basis that a character in a film doesn't portray them in their best light. That's being a human being ffs, that's treating everyone with the same degree of respect, and not one person is above the other or is exempt from being lampooned.

The whole premise of the movie is lampooning the heterosexual male model industry ffs, I'm a heterosexual male, I'm not at all offended by the depiction of heterosexual males being clueless, because some of them are, in the same way as some people who are transgender are utter ballbags. They're not all nice, decent people. They're as normal as everyone else, and they deserve no special treatment nor exemptions on that basis.

Objections to portrayals like this, are doing their own campaign for social acceptance no favours.

c_man · 23-11-2015 02:35PM

mayway wrote: »

Is "transphobic" a word?

It's a fear of transporter malfunctions occurring.

RWCNT · 23-11-2015 02:40PM

Azalea wrote: »

I dunno. I mean, why is it so embraced only in the last couple of years? It seems... forced or something. And it always seems to be used in the context of how sh-t straight men are.

There's a lot more talk of transgender people about these days though, so terminology related to it is obviously going to get more exposure. I think a lot of people just go to rage mode the second they hear something unfamiliar to them.

I also really don't know where people have got this idea that it's mainly a pejorative term. All the people who go into fits over SJW this/PC brigade that seem to take absolutely everything as an attack on straight white males though so I'm not exactly surprised.

Deleted User wrote: »

Hell, for all we know, the character could end up being this incredibly strong and important character, who is the hero and Zoolander and Hanel realize that they were wrong to think they were different. And, what it is actually doing, is lampooning people's perception and insecurity with transgendered people.

I thought of this myself. I would have thought it might go in this direction myself, what with it being such a hot topic at the moment. I'm sure there's plenty of people who'd love to see it be as degrading as possible to put the PC crowd in their place. We'll see.

One eyed Jack · 23-11-2015 03:04PM

RWCNT wrote: »

There's a lot more talk of transgender people about these days though, so terminology related to it is obviously going to get more exposure. I think a lot of people just go to rage mode the second they hear something unfamiliar to them.

You understand there's a difference between "unfamiliar", and "unnecessary", right? I think you're exaggerating people's reactions if you think they're going into rage mode over a silly label. Most people simply don't see it as necessary. They don't want it. Do you not see the irony at all in people who want to deny labels that don't suit them, then applying labels to other people themselves? Why would those people not object to a label they don't want?

I also really don't know where people have got this idea that it's mainly a pejorative term. All the people who go into fits over SJW this/PC brigade that seem to take absolutely everything as an attack on straight white males though so I'm not exactly surprised.

They get it from the fact that numerous articles use it as a pejorative term. As I said earlier - nine times out of ten, it's applied to heterosexual white males as though that social demographic are their persecutors. It's often accompanied by phrases like "privilege" and "allies".

I thought of this myself. I would have thought it might go in this direction myself, what with it being such a hot topic at the moment. I'm sure there's plenty of people who'd love to see it be as degrading as possible to put the PC crowd in their place. We'll see.

I'm certain there's plenty more people won't care either way, and that's all this "raising awareness" in this instance seems to be about, because whoever wrote that petition isn't just claiming it's offensive to people who are transgender, but to all sorts of people for all sorts of identity labels.

How can anyone be expected to take that seriously?

Annasopra · 23-11-2015 04:16PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're joking Joey surely?

Not at all. Have you seen any trans posters in AH defending themselves and their lives lately?

smash · 23-11-2015 04:20PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Not at all. Have you seen any trans posters in AH defending themselves and their lives lately?

Have you seen many posts that would require a line of defence as a reply?

One eyed Jack · 23-11-2015 04:34PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Not at all. Have you seen any trans posters in AH defending themselves and their lives lately?

I haven't seen any transgender posters in AH actually having to defend themselves and their lives lately.

Slight difference in the wording there, but the reason I did that was because (and I'd hate to feel like I was talking about her behind her back) I see Links posting away here the whole time, getting involved in discussions, giving it welly with the metal music, all things Japanese, and home brewing!

Have I seen any other posters who openly identified as transgender posting in a while?

No, because usually they were site banned for behaving like dicks.

RWCNT · 23-11-2015 04:41PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You understand there's a difference between "unfamiliar", and "unnecessary", right? I think you're exaggerating people's reactions if you think they're going into rage mode over a silly label. Most people simply don't see it as necessary. They don't want it. Do you not see the irony at all in people who want to deny labels that don't suit them, then applying labels to other people themselves? Why would those people not object to a label they don't want?

I'm quite possibly exaggerating people's reactions tbh. I don't understand why they wouldn't want it. Do these same people object to being called "straight"? When "non-gay" would suffice? Seamus made a pretty good post a page or two ago that I thought was decent at summing up the reason, if not need, for such a term. What labels that don't suit them do trans people deny? I'm getting a whiff of false equivalence.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They get it from the fact that numerous articles use it as a pejorative term. As I said earlier - nine times out of ten, it's applied to heterosexual white males as though that social demographic are their persecutors. It's often accompanied by phrases like "privilege" and "allies".

We can only go by what we've individually read but that's not the context I've seen it used in by and large at all. I don't see what's troubling to you about "privilege" and "allies" either.

I agree the petition is over the top, as always in these threads I'm more interested in the reactions.

smash · 23-11-2015 05:01PM

RWCNT wrote: »

I'm quite possibly exaggerating people's reactions tbh. I don't understand why they wouldn't want it. Do these same people object to being called "straight"? When "non-gay" would suffice? Seamus made a pretty good post a page or two ago that I thought was decent at summing up the reason, if not need, for such a term. What labels that don't suit them do trans people deny? I'm getting a whiff of false equivalence.

The vastly overwhelming majority of the population do not identify as trans. Then there's various mindsets where you're either

male
female
pre-op trans

Or

male
female
trans, full stop

Or

male
female

The mindsets are one thing and I don't think they'll change, but why do the vastly overwhelming majority have to be pigeon-holed as being "cis"? The term non-trans can be used effectively, and is accurate. Cisgender is a new phrase with an associated categorisation with derogatory tones attached to it which makes it ineffective and almost turns it in to an attack.

One eyed Jack · 23-11-2015 05:05PM

RWCNT wrote: »

I'm quite possibly exaggerating people's reactions tbh. I don't understand why they wouldn't want it. Do these same people object to being called "straight"? When "non-gay" would suffice? Seamus made a pretty good post a page or two ago that I thought was decent at summing up the reason, if not need, for such a term. What labels that don't suit them do trans people deny? I'm getting a whiff of false equivalence.

What's to understand why they wouldn't want it, when I for one, and numerous other posters have said that they consider it nonsense? Can you not respect their right to self-determination? I read the post that seamus made, and I still see no justification nor need for the term. It's akin to the whole "heteronormative world" nonsense.

Some people who are transgender do see certain labels as derogatory (and some people who are transexual see them as a badge of honour, 'chicks with dicks' in pornography being a common example).

The only false equivalence here has been coming up with the term 'cisgender' to describe people who are not 'transgender'. It's the implication by association that the issue is with people whom they identify as 'not transgender', when in fact those people who are not transgender are the vast majority of people, rendering the term 'cisgender' utterly useless anyway.

We can only go by what we've individually read but that's not the context I've seen it used in by and large at all. I don't see what's troubling to you about "privilege" and "allies" either.

I'm not normally one for crowing about the 'poor oppressed heterosexual white male' I assure you, but more and more it does appear that these sorts of labels are being used by people to alienate themselves out from society. They are rejecting social norms that don't suit them, and then they claim to want to be accepted by the very people they are hostile to!

The whole "privilege" and "allies" concepts hold about as much value for me as the "cisgender" label tbh, that is to say - not a whole lot.

I agree the petition is over the top, as always in these threads I'm more interested in the reactions.

I never got that tbh, it just comes across as arrogant muppetry, whether you mean it to or not.

Annasopra · 23-11-2015 05:06PM

This is just hilarious. Cisgender is a term. Not an attack. Not derogatory. A term. Nothing more. Nothing less.

bodice ripper · 23-11-2015 05:09PM

Come now, I have seen it used as an attack, a borderline slur, and a way to undermine somebody's views/feelings/experience on numerous occasions

One eyed Jack · 23-11-2015 05:16PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

This is just hilarious. Cisgender is a term. Not an attack. Not derogatory. A term. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You're well aware how benign terms can be used in certain contexts as part of an attack that is derogatory, and can be so, so much more. Why should anyone accept a term they are uncomfortable with? Why should I accept the term cisgender when I have no interest in being labelled as cisgender, knowing how it is used as a politically charged term?

Critiques

From feminism and gender studies

Krista Scott-Dixon wrote in 2009: "I prefer the term non-trans to other options such as cissexual/cisgendered." She holds this view because she believes the term "non-trans" is clearer to average people and will help normalize transgender individuals.

Women's and Gender Studies scholar Mimi Marinucci writes that some consider the "cisgender–transgender" binary to be just as dangerous or self-defeating as the masculine–feminine gender binary, because it lumps people who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) arbitrarily and over-simplistically with heteronormative class of people as opposed to with transgender people. Characterizing LGB individuals together with heterosexual, non-trans people may problematically suggest that LGB individuals, unlike transgender individuals, "experience no mismatch between their own gender identity and gender expression and cultural expectations regarding gender identity and expression".

From intersex organizations

Intersex persons are born with atypical physical sex characteristics that can complicate initial sex assignment and lead to involuntary or coerced medical treatment. "Cisgender" is "confusing" in relation to people with intersex conditions, according to the Advocates for Informed Choice Inter/Act project.[24] Hida Viloria of OII-USA argues that, as an intersex person with a non-binary gender identity, this could technically make the person "cisgender" but it fails to account for gender-based stigmatization of intersex bodies. Organisation Intersex International Australia argues that, while most intersex people are not transgender, the experience or risk of "involuntary medical treatment to impose stereotypical sex characteristics" makes the use of "cisgender" problematic regardless of their gender identities.

Source: Cisgender, Wikipedia entry.

JPNelsforearm · 23-11-2015 05:23PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo7CgWH8jX4

smash · 23-11-2015 05:28PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

This is just hilarious. Cisgender is a term. Not an attack. Not derogatory. A term. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Don't underplay this. You know it's used in a derogatory way by a lot of people.

For a group that want equality, it's a shame that the trans community decided to create a phrase that even further distinguishes them from the rest of humanity. If a trans woman wants to be called a woman then that's fine, but by the doing of her own community she will never be a woman in the true sense because she will never be a cisgender woman. Even in that Caitlyn show a trans woman used the phrase and Cait asked what it meant. After being told, she started using it at every chance she got. What purpose did it serve?

Zoolander 2 deemed “transphobic”

Comments