On Joe.My.God. recently…I just wrote about this in another comment. But, when Joe wrote about Chaz Bono’s transistion, a gay man who is a regular commenter there wrote that Chaz wasn’t really transistioning because he would never have a “real” “functioning” penis.
A trans man went off on the guy. He told him “get your mind out of my pants” and tried to explain why he was offended by the statement.
Several other commenters chimed in and one told the trans man that he “wasn’t making any friends” at Joe.My.God. — as if he were stepping into gay white man territory and should tread lightly. I found that to be very upsetting.
As an intelligent person, I can see when someone is rightfully offended and has perhaps has been pushed over the edge by just one stupid comment too many.
And, writing that Chaz Bono won’t have a real penis is profoundly stupid. The guy who wrote that needed to apologize. Instead, he went on about science not being able to change chromozomes, blah, blah, blah.
The trans man just kept getting more angry and finally told everyone to fuck off.
That’s reality. We can’t expect every trans person to be a good will embassador. That’s not being realistic. Sometimes, getting mad and saying “fuck you” is the best approach.
I learned my lesson about transgender issues when I posted a stupid “Man Coulter” joke on my blog a few years ago. I was taken to task for it and I realized I was being narrow minded and insensitive to an entire group of people.
I was wrong. I was stupid. I learned a valuable lesson.
Those are very hard words for most people to write. But once you do, your whole world will change. It is easier to do it the second time. Even easier the third.
We are all here on this planet to learn to be better people. No one is perfect.
You just can’t issue a blanket request to all trans folk and turn them into Autumn Sandeen. That’s exactly why we need you and others like you.
Likewise, I can’t force other gay men to learn the lesson I learned back when I thought ridiculing Ann Coulter with “tranny” jokes was an appropriate thing to do. They have to learn for themselves. Maybe it will take a “fuck you” or a kick in the ass to do it.
There is a time and place for everything.

Thanks Autumn, but…speaking only for myself as a GWM, I wasn’t terribly offended by people’s comments.  The anger was misdirected, but the feelings were valid.
It’s a problem because so many of us GWMs have stayed silent and let Aravosis pretend to speak on all of our behalf.  We have failed to distance ourselves from the guy, and failed to publicly reject his views.  We haven’t spoken up for more inclusive representation when again and again gay white men are used to represent “the gay community” or “gay opinion leaders” on the TV news channels, to the exclusion of other voices.
so let’s do just that, GWM’s!  Let’s commit ourselves to an inclusive movement, and say ” John Aravosis doesn’t speak for me, nor does he speak for “the gay community”, let alone the LGBT movement for equality.

On my part, AutumnI want to thank you for not including me in that group.
I’m bad enough as it is, lol

Right onThere are a lot of Blenders who feel sick to our stomachs when we see ANY “Group A” broad-brush ANY “Group B” for ANY reason.  Thanks, Autumn, for reminding us all that inclusion is a principle… not a sword to be selectively wielded.  
Hopefully your comments bring about some change… and help us all focus our energies where they really need to be targeted… against ANYONE who wants to stop ANY of us from living our sexuality and/or gender in the way that feels natural for us.

Hugs Hey ya know all this infighting is just what they (right) want to see happen now isn’t it…
I think everyone should cool off and remember there is fewer of US, than of them. United we stand divided we fall.
I for one often think of my self having belonged to all the colors of our rainbow.
Back when I was White male by birth I loved a few men in my life. thus I get a G yay for me  
As Woman of surgical history now I have loved 2 women
Thus I get  L  Yay for me
Pre surgical but living full time as woman I have dated men, women, Trans person both male and female , some with surgery some with out . both Ftm’s and M2f’s.
Thus i get a B with extra clusters on my merit badge Yay for me.  
And of course I transitioned
Thus i get T  Yay for me
G,L,B,T
But what i find so disheartening having belonged to all the groups in my 48 yrs 36 yrs male 2 yrs T and 10yrs come September as a woman.. How each group clusters in lil self affirmation clusters. As if to bolster each others sagging self worth.. When really were all special people and orientations of sexuality should not define who we are as a person. Tis a great shame and disservice we do to each other buy trying to belittle others for our own gain.
While we may view our views as just and true and worth doing battle for. Yet when you isolate in small pods (IE, Like were doing in this bickering, Gay white men, Gay black Men, White lesbians, Black lesbians , white Trans, Black trans, Young early trans, Older trans, People who eat left handed only, carnivores, herbivores, omnivores,Atheist, creationist, spaghetti monsters,) an only see from that one position it is egocentric and places us in the same category as the Church when they viewed the Earth as the center of the universe. And all the world was to revolve around our self inflated egos.  Yet we find ourself today suffering this same disease. Only we changed our words and not our perspective.  Wake the heck up the universe does not revolve around any one group or pod or any other self appointed or imposed label. Try seeing more than just your view. You might find the answers were all seeking.
Equality for all.    
And like my granny use to say .. If you don’t have something nice to say then don’t say it.    

Thanks Autumn–the fringe extremists do not define the rest of us.It would be like attacking all Lesbians for the attitudes of the shrill remnants of the separatist extremists
Or all trans-people for the attitudes of the few homophobic HBS’ers
There are fringes in the movement.
Are there hard core extremists at the margins of every demographic in the trans cummunity?
Of course
Are they representative of the entire group or even a majority of the group?
Hardly
DO I have an issue with the cloistered, conservative, priviledged few neo-mattachinits?
Most certainly.
Do I deplore the excesses of my radical feminist Lesbian sisters, forever attempting to eradicate any hint of testosterone from their enclaves?
Oh yes.
But attacking the entire community of any subset of the LGBT community is both wrong and shortsighted.

In fairness to the trans-community, Autumnand watching the events as a Lesbian, I do have to say on their behalf, if I may, that their anger is repeatedly fanned by certain people with extremist, exclusivist anti-trans positions in an effort to generate exactly that kind of response to split the trans off of the LGBT community by using the hyperbolic responses of some trans people against the entire community

Just a ThoughtI read Pam’s House Blend through the Google Reader aggregator because I read a lot of blogs.  This is my first time commenting, so what I have to say may not be relevant.
While I am a woman of color, I am not a lesbian nor am I bisexual or transgender.
My thought was did you tell Aravosis that you were offended by his statements?  All too often, we don’t tell the offenders what is really getting on our nerves.  We tell everyone except them.
I think Aravosis should be made aware of how hurtful his comments are and asked to, if he can’t personally accept the error of his philosophy, he can always change what he says.  After all he has a huge platform and is read by people all over the world.
I say the last because I live in Greece and wouldn’t miss either of your blog postings (I really like the “family” dynamics) for anything.
Thanks,
Amaliada  

The two sides of the coin…On one hand, I can understand the “why” of transpeople, I would gets mostly transwomen, going off on gay white males for the simple fact that they are the most visible within the LGBT culture and (from the sociological point of view) the highest social chain on the LGBT hierarchy.  I know that I’ve been having my own period of adjustment to being seen as a second- or third-class citizen due to being a woman, a queer woman and a transwoman.  There’s a lot of frustration and anger that you deal with throughout the process to find your own peace with the situations that those of us that identify as women/queer/trans have been thrown into.
On the OTHER hand, I don’t think that gives us permission to go off on gay white males.  While they may be the most visible representation of LGBT folk, that also puts them at greater risk for violence and name-calling.  How does that give us the right to go off on them because they’re more visible?  Should we include more lesbian/trans voices & voices of color?  Hell yeah!  But does that mean that we have the right to criticize all gay white men because they are the most visible representation of our community.  No.  Not in a heartbeat.
To be honest with you, I’ve known very few gay white men that were bitchy or catty to me.  Most of the gay guys love me because IRL I’m no-holds-barred.  I’ll tell it like it is, and most of them see that and respect me because of it.  Is LGB acceptance of the trans community something to still work for?  I believe so because, just as those people who are trans went off on them, they also go off on us… neither of which does anyone any good.  We should accept the differences within ALL portions of our community and not throw anyone under the bus whether they be gay/lesbian, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, or anything other than heterosexual and cisgendered.  If we all work together and FOR each other – not AGAINST each other – maybe we can all manage to create change not only for our neighborhoods, not only for our COUNTRY even, but for the entire WORLD!
Happy Pride!
Hazumuchan

As pointed out by some people commenting on Autumn’s articleAravosis doesn’t seem to be someone who handles criticism well. He has deleted posts, removed references to dissenters from posts and the blog roll and banned their accounts.

Thank youI would like to take this opportunity to thank both you and Pam for the civility that you have maintained on this blog and that you have asked us to maintain.  It speaks highly of both of you.  Having Pam’s House Blend is a real pleasure.

!Thank you! As a gay white man, I have to agree that some of us can have “perception problems” where the only people we pay attention to are me myself and I. That said, not EVERY gay man is like that, all of the time, and its hurtful to group the good with the bad. Believe me, many of us are well aware of this problem, and wish we could change things, but its up to the other dudes to teach themselves. We can’t help bing white gay men-please don’t hold it against me just because someone who looks like me is clueless!

How to get Banned at AmericaBlogJohn Aravosis published a luridly transphobic rant on Salon during the ENDA betrayal two years ago. Aravosis banned me from AmericaBlog after I posted the following reply in an open discussion:

Here’s another point Aravosis makes in his article “How Did the T Get in LGBT?”:
“It is simply not p.c. in the gay community to question how and why the T got added on to the LGB, let alone ask what I as a gay man have in common with a man who wants to cut off his penis, surgically construct a vagina, and become a woman. I’m not passing judgment, I respect transgendered people and sympathize with their cause.”

Aravosis might have had a legitimate case had he stuck to justifying the Congressional Democrats’ legislative strategy for passing ENDA. Instead, he used ENDA as an excuse to launch a misguided and divisive broadside against LGBT solidarity. In the process, he exposed his own transphobic ignorance, insulting trans people with tabloid stereotypes straight out of right-wing talk radio.
When I confronted Aravosis on his blatant disrespect for trans people he made this public reply:
“I’m sorry if not using buzz words and code words that people don’t understand, like gender identity, offends you, but I think I gave a pretty accurate definition of pre-op transsexual, did I not?”
No John, I think you gave us a pretty accurate picture of how much contempt you have for trans people.

I don’t know if that’s exactly rightJohn Aravosis is as much a part of the “gay community’ as, say, Tavis Smiley is a part of the “black community” (FYI, a lot of people in the black community aren’t feeling Tavis behind his steadfast support of Hillary Clinton in the primaries and his criticisms of Obama).
Aravosis is a voice in the gay community, OK, he;’s a pretty loud voice. He’s only one voice but I’m not going to disown him. Hell, I’ve never even disowned Dan Savage.

Well said, AutumnAs a GWM, I want to thank you for calling attention to this.
Independent thinking, challenging the status quo and conventional thinking, along with questioning a strategy are all fair game and are healthy to a discussion.
And as you correctly noted, denigrating someone else is not.
Thank you again.
Regards,
JJ
P.S. Happy pride to everyone!

I’ve been sobusy the last few months with school that I’ve only been able to comment here and there at PHB. But, I always read.
I love July 10th as a Day of Civility. The respect and decency at the Blend has really drawn me in. I had never (and have never) encountered it at numerous political blogs. It’s what made me a faithful reader from day one.
I stopped reading ABlog exactly during the ENDA tragedy. I was really crushed by some of the things I was reading there. The only thing John’s stubbornness (I think I’m being polite, but at the very least I can’t see him as anything but stubborn after seeing so many comments deleted and so many people banned for simple dissagreement.) did for me was make me more committed to directly confronting transphobia when I encounter it.  I’m not one to let my anger show very often, so I usually use arguments and draw parallels, most of which I’ve been educated on here at the Blend.
When I do encounter transphobia in the community, I get a sick feeling of deja vu. It reminds me of the attitudes I’ve seen expressed toward HIV+ individuals – and I’m not trying to equate the two; obviously one is something to be treated and the other is a celebration of being true. The underlying self-dignosed “superiority” is a commonality though, and it’s very gross and very, very ignorant.
And that superiority is mythical. I’m from upstate NY I can say from first hand experience that no matter how much certain people in the community hate it, we are ALL lumped together in one large monolith (at least we are by the fundies I was raised among and encountered).
I hope you post reminders for the Day of Civility on the sidebar or facebook when the day gets closer.  Pam, will you announce it at Panda too? I think it would be a great day to celebrate through the progblogosphere.

What the Blend has done for meis educate on more levels and topics than I can properly do justice to in a few quick sentences.
But perhaps the most important thing I have taken away from the Blend and incorporated into my real life is this concept:

All words matter and a calm, reasonable, respectful and thought-out approach achieves the best results in a discussion.

I spent over 40 years of my life thinking that simply being intelligent and able to make my points strongly was the way to go.
Wrong…
We are all capable of typing up a quick retort. The thing is: is it worth it? Does the message of the words get lost because of the delivery?
Does my credibility as the messenger degrade as well?
Excellent post, Autumn and Pam- civility is very important and I am glad to see it get discussed here today.

GWMI avoided the Aravosis thread, because I just knew it would likely turn into a war of words LOL
Personally, I have a love/hate thing for Aravosis.  I like his writing and appreciate the work he does.  But on the other hand, he, Solmonese and other GWM who allegedly represents the gay community as a whole – I don’t want them representing myself.  And they shouldn’t be representing the rest of us, because not all of us are decently wealthy, travels the world and lives a lavish lifestyle.  
Unfortunately when fundies sees these guys representing us, they must assume we ALL live like these guys – when the fact of the matter is, no matter what race we are, most of us are more like Roseanne and Dan Connor from Roseanne.  We’re not rich, but at least we surround ourselves (in our offline life) with our friends and family – NOT with politicians and people who are your friends one minute and working against you the next.
I’d rather some average everyday working class gays representing me, because they and their lives are WAY more authentic than the GWM representing our community as a whole.

Ann Coulter: No Woman Nor MannShe’s a hag.  Like the Sea Hag from the old Popeye cartoons.
A miserable hag whose jaw-wiring and plastic surgery made her less attractive than she already was.

Pam sorry drug side effects are treating you harshlyI hope they adjust the dosage or alter the drug regimen to get you functioning again. I always hated when I’d have to switch to a different drug cocktail, usually it’d be two weeks to a month of feeling crappy.
Some of the civility issue boils down to, it gets as bad as you let it. As a gay man here, the threads in question didn’t have any lasting harm, and I posted to another angered gay man on the thread, and explained I had backed away a year earlier from some of the trans threads. Even with some confrontations, I value the the trans issues that are brought up on PHB, and the site would be LESSENED without contributions from diverse voices. Does that mean folks won’t have battles, and get miffed….NO.
Passionate people don’t behave that way, and allies can sometimes just agree to disagree on specific issues.
Not letting everything get SO serious, might be a good release. Communally we might make friends on lighter subjects, that will weather us through confrontational subjects.

I learned early on at PHBnot to post or comment on trans issues if I wanted to keep my health and sanity. I am commenting here not on the validity of trans issues, but of the attitude surrounding discussions ABOUT trans issues.
I find the attitudes of several commenters to be highly counterproductive to civil discourse.
Before posting this message here, I read all 200+ comments on other thread. It was quite something.
It was very hard for me not to write off the whole trans community here on PHB after the gang beating I took on marriage issues. I found I had to really work at it to separate the posters from the issues.
So I gladly read postings on trans issues because I find that I almost always learn something — about others and myself. I freely admit I don’t know many trans folk, and that I use PHB to further educate myself.
But I don’t have time or energy to fight people who I generally consider to be allies in the civil rights struggle.
And FWIW, I like AmericaBlog. I like John. I don’t agree with all of his thoughts, and I freely admit I was unaware of his previous trans-phobic remarks. I am glad he’s being called on them.
But I was NOT shocked at the vitriol with which members of PHB responded against him and those of us who are middle-class GWM’s, from a small subset of commenters in particular. (Actually, some of you DID shock me, because I hadn’t seen that side of you before.)
And one last wading into the deep:
For the record, I find cis- to be offensive. In general, I thought our community (I mean the whole LGBT rainbow here) uses terms that are acceptable to those being described. That is, we use the preferred gender of trans people, we call someone bi if they identify as bi, we don’t say tranny, etc.
So why is it okay for (some of) the trans community to call us cis-? If members of the trans community said “stop calling us trans, we find it offensive” would we here at PHB continue to say “trans”? I doubt it very much.
Why the lack of respect in the other direction?

I am hopefulthat this self-evaluation of the Blend community might lead to more fruitful conversations in general.
I value Louise’s and Autumn’s contributions very highly, and look to them as voices of reason. Louise’s remarks above are spot-on: “Does the message of the words get lost because of the delivery? Does my credibility as the messenger degrade as well?”
In the past the answer has definitely been yes. Going forward, perhaps more civility will be demonstrated — in all directions, from all sources.

We let this slide because Ann Coulter is a public figure……but your comment goes to my point. Instead of commenting about Ann Coulter’s words and behavior, you engaged in name-calling against her. What did you accomplish with the name-calling?
Notice that when I wrote my piece about Aravosis, I didn’t call him any names, or refer to him in a derogatory manner. Instead, I attacked his ideas, and commented about the hypocricy of his statements (because pointing out hypocricy is an important media function).
So to again quote Martin Luther King Jr.:

I’ve seen too much hate to want to hate, myself, and every time I see it, I say to myself, hate is too great a burden to bear. Somehow we must be able to stand up against our most bitter opponents and say:”We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We will meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will and we will still love you…. But be assured that we’ll wear you down by our capacity to suffer, and one day we will win our freedom. We will not only win freedom for ourselves; we will appeal to your heart and conscience that we will win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory.

Our ideas don’t win the day in the marketplace of ideas if our retorts are name-calling.
So to see our ideas wine in the marketplace of ideas, I’d suggest not calling Ann Coulter names. Tell us instead what’s wrong with her particular ideas and accepted opinions.
That’s what being civil is about — attacking the ideas people have, and not personally attacking the people who promote the ideas.
And, as a real world example, how many minds did Kim Pearson and I change by being reasonalble, thoughtful people during the Rob, Arnie, and Dawn In The Morning incident? If we’d have called Arnie and Dawn names like “bigot” and “transphobes,” we’d have gotten no where with them, or with their’s or our audiences.
We won with love. Again with MLK Jr.:

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

I prefer a brighter future — especially for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth. And to get there, I’ve found I need to be as civil to my perceived enemies as I want my perceived enemies to be to me. Sometimes, I can turn my enemies into friends with love.

Thanks for your comments Lane.To begin with, I’m giving up on the words cissexual and cisgender. I saw these as neutral terms, and now I see these are not. Thank you for your reasoned explanation as to why.
And yeah, civil tone matters, and thinking in terms of broad communities matter. I see these as being more and more as important as time goes on.
One more MLK Jr. quote:

Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars… Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

I, for one, want to see the stars through my very real rose-colored glasses — $50, pink-shaded, prescription glasses I actually bought from Zenni Optical to make that personal point about looking for a brighter, more beautiful world.

Thanks AutumnHappy Pride Blenders
Season of Love
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
By With A Little Help From My Friends…Joe Cocker
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
Couldn’t find the footage of Longtime Companion of Post Mortem Bar…but here’s the song. Where all those lost in the pandemic stream onto the beach on Fire Island.
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
   Cover of Zane Campbell Post Mortem Bar

Excellent point, easily forgottenPassions get heated and common sense and decency get ignored. It’s also difficult w/ Coulter because she herself calls people names and dehumanizes them rather than debating their ideas.

Watching Joe CockerIt reminded me BOTH Woodstock and Stonewall happened in 1969. and BOTH were of value, and they came from absolutely polar opposite positions. One valued putting aside fighting, and one felt it was time to finally fight.

We shouldn’t let it slide because it spreadsI run a blog about album cover art and two artists have been hit with ugly attacks by people who call them “tranny” and other transphobic insults.
- Brooke Hogan
- Demi Lovato
Neither one of these women are trans. They are both beautiful, natal women.
Demi Lovato is a cute Disney actress/singer. Some of the things I’ve read about her are simply shocking. She’s a teenager for Christ’s sake!
Also, the word “tranny” is often combined with “whore” and “bitch” etc.
Most of the people who engage in this horrible behavior are GAY MEN. That’s simply a fact.
We let gay men get away with calling Ann Coulter a tranny and now it is being used to smear other women like Hogan and Lovato.
This has to stop. It is vulgar and hateful.
The one good thing about this is that neither Hogan nor Lovato have responded to these attacks (I don’t think Coulter has either).
If you’re speaking to a gay man and he calls someone like Brooke Hogan “tranny”, tell him that he’s being offensive and tell him why. If you don’t speak up, you are encouraging the spread of this crap.

NothingYou could give me 20 years to find 1 quality about Ann Coulter that I like, and it’ll still be 1 thing:
She once dated Bill Maher (I wouldn’t, but he’s my favorite comedian).  
I’ve never seen her do anything nice for anyone, never heard her say anything nice about anyone.  That alone makes her one of the most unattractive women in this country, in more ways than one.

@FritzI have stated forcefully when other sites, when the trans jokes about Coulter and adam’s apples, begin. She is such a detestable __, and it’s hard not throwing in the worst sexist slurs, and I know its FOUL to do so.
I will say the word DICK and male slurs are usually laughed at, and acceptable.
I also had many friendships with drag queens, (mostly because my first lover was very tall, and could dance partner with men in high heels.) He had his closest friend, who performed in drag) help him through a horribly ugly divorce involving blackmail and child custody, combined with his coming out,)before I met him. From my History, I know drag performers are some of the BEST/WORST at name calling, and can do it in a heartbeat.
Just pointing out this isn’t JUST a gay men’s problem.

I hadn’t mentioned some of the drag performers were transitioningMost in my circle of friends, were some of the earliest AIDS deaths so they never transitioned beyong some taking hormones.

My ex was a fairly famous drag queenHe and his partner performed all over California. He died in a car accident in 1989.
So, I am very familiar with drag culture.
I believe that my former use of the word “tranny” as a slur came from my white, gay male peers and not the drag queens that I used to know.
I am trying to recall if I ever heard my ex use the word “tranny” and I don’t think he ever did. He had many trans friends. So, I don’t think he would have been inclined to use that word.

I just said drag performers were very adept at name-callingNot the use of trans slurs specificly. They could embrace some of the most toxic slurs that were racist, sexist, elitist, etc.
Many of my friends were Black drag queens, and sluring based on race was no exception with them.
Some of this was defense mechanism, being able to humiliate some hateful bigot in the audience, was the epitome of FIERCE.

Kinda blurred nowadays

“I believe that my former use of the word “tranny” as a slur came from my white, gay male peers and not the drag queens that I used to know. “

Don’t know how it was in the 80′s but most drag queens who perform in San Francisco nowadays are white gay males. Some of the most prominent were regulars at a well-known club named “Trannyshack”. In that context, I don’t think anyone took “tranny” as a slur on trans people.
My impression is that while some of us who started out as white gay drag queens eventually transitioned, it wasn’t all that common. I’ve met hundreds of trans folks, but only a few others like myself.

Heh. TrannyshackOne of my oldest friends is Shutterslut, who documented much of trannyshack on a daily basis.
Off and on, back and forth, we’ve known each other since 1st grade.
I’m jealous, too — he came out as gay long, long years before I came out at trans. Lucky little @#&%$!*&%

“as a slur”I think that’s the point I was trying to make. Not that the drag queens didn’t use the term — cuz God knows they did!

But my ex never used itI can’t remember a single time.
Make sense?

It does to me.But then, I’m closer to some Queens that I like to admit publicly, LOL.

Damn.  I swear, you could turn me in a sec..

By the same logic,then you need to give up the term straight, please.
And Republican.
Because I’m both (well, was, now I’m independent) and I’ve heard both such terms used as slurs here.
So, for the same reason, they must go as well.

fascinating…isn’t it?

I suspect what so many of us in the L and the G don’t getI that we don’t have to totally understand why we should relate to the other person, but what we must understand is that we are ALL discriminated against.  Can’t we come together under the banner of human and civil rights for all, and not pick each other apart.
Why do we have to all have something in common?  Or believe the same way.  That is exactly what I see the far right and the fundies doing and requiring.  Sameness of belief or experience.

WellIs anybody really “straight”?
I think that term is usually used as a refuge for people who want to conform to some mythical ideal.
As for Republican, they’re doing a good job of eliminating the term on their own.

As rageful as I can get at the NAZI pope and LDS eldersI’m laying next to my devoutly Catholic lover, and my mother (was),and all her side of the family are Mormons, (thankfully not fire breathing variety.)So being mad as hell at individuals, and organizations they run, has to be tempered that not all in that classification are enemies.
While Socrates and Plato used logic to strip away old false concepts attached to subjects, even they didn’t believe ONLY logic mattered.

“is anyone in the Mainstream?”…..La vie Boheme

Yes, it’s our shared experiences we have in commonThere’s a lot of overlap, of course, but I think “LGBT” is really about a coalition of communities rather than a collective group identity. When we tag each other with L, G, B, or T, it’s not so much to assess one’s personal identity as it is to associate a person with their primary affinity group.
The four categories are not regarded equally either, as some letters take precedence over others. In my case, I’ve actually identified as each of the four – L, G, B, and T at different points in my life. But once I became “T”, that overshadowed all the rest in other people’s eyes. I know very well that I am primarily seen as a trans woman who happens to be a dyke, rather than a dyke who happens to be trans.

Yes, mainstream society sure as hell does exist out there“Straight” means exclusively heterosexual. And due to the fact that straight people dominate mainstream society, their predisposed exclusivity acts to collectively exclude us. That is what we mean by “heterosexism”.

neither do II’m using logic to suspend an illogical concept.
I am not spock.  :D

well, per Kinseyyeah.
They are just rare.
Then again, per kinsey, a lot of the people we call gay men are actually bisexual.

you’re the BAD Spock….ya can’t fool me….LOL

Oh damn!!!I’ve been outed!!!
Noooooooo!
(although the wicked goatee had to go when I transitioned using the machine that had previously been used on Kirk…)
oy.  I am way too much a closet trekkie

Some things are more subtle than statisticsWhat’s objectionable about heterosexism is the sexual hypocrisy that lies at its core, and that’s a human factor that no statistical survey can measure. In social practice, the term “exclusively heterosexual” doesn’t simply refer to someone who would only have sex with someone of the opposite sex. What it really means is someone who is heterosexual in an exclusive manner, that is, someone whose profession of heterosexuality excludes all other options from recognition or consideration.
A public figure like Republican Larry Craig is exclusively heterosexual regardless of whether he has ever had sex with other men. He actively perpetuates the dogma that excludes everything outside the heterosexual mainstream from social acceptance, including aspects of his own behavior that he not coincidentally wishes to deny.
And to Dyssonance’s point, do I think it’s common practice for straight people to make numerous, though much less hypocritical, exceptions of this type in their own lives.
Oh yes, very much so…

I need a different Star Trek machinenip and tuck
  http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk…

Jon Stewart nailed itConservative mind, and liberal penis

oh, that, that..looks painful!

a study I loved was homophobes got erect MORE when tested watching gay porn

Frankly, I’m nervousME? A voice of reason?? Aw shucks.  ;)
Thank you lane; I appreciate the kind words and it encourages me to continue to improve my processes- but my family got a great guffaw when I read it to them!

We’ve been Out Trekkies forever- even went to a ST convention on our honeymoon!

giggling here picturing you doing the Ulhura fan dance on your honeymoon

No, I don’tToni, your logic is faulty.
The point I made (and that you ignored — COMPLETELY) was that the group BEING labeled has the right to choose the label, if we follow standard practice. And the right to determine if a particular label is offensive.
You insist on calling people cis- when you’ve been told MANY MANY MANY times that it’s offensive. You reply that it’s simply a descriptive term and that if we’re offended, it’s our own problem and not yours.
That’s wrong on your part and highly insensitive.
Now you’re trying to deflect the discussion away from your actions to justify your own rude behavior rather than take responsibility and own up to the situation.
It’s too bad. I think you have a lot to offer, and I really would like to hear it, but your words and actions lead me to ask you Louise’s questions:

[I]s it worth it? Does the message of the words get lost because of the delivery? Does [one's] credibility as the messenger degrade as well?

as Kinsey said no one is on 1 or 10, none are exactly 5 eitherThe concept of a bisexual with no preference towards 1 or 10 seems very unlikely to me. It may have changed over the course of their lives, but it doesn’t seem very likely at the exact same moment, there is no preference leaning one way or the other.

Yes, Lish that’s a better way of looking at itI like the coalition of communities better too.
When I first was coming out I wasn’t sure I wasn’t a B, because I couldn’t explain being married to a man for 18 years, discounting that I was always fantasizing about women to stand it. Anyway, that was within myself, but I have “identified” myself as lesbian even before I came out officially.
I personally have never felt like I was a man trapped in a woman’s body, but that doesn’t mean we don’t share other experiences that can be similar.  And the same with gay men, heck even other lesbians who have always been out don’t understand how I could have believed that I was so evil that I denied everything about myself for so long, but, when we talk to each other, we see how much we all have in common.  And the differences only make things more interesting.

Well…Bluntly, by that token, then as I described elsewhere, I am a straight, fundamentalist republican, and those have been hurled with the same force here.
With far more vitriol than I have ever used (and, for the record, I have never used cis as an epithet).
I do own up to my use of the term.
I also own up to understanding the speaker.
So, if I am being insensitive, then so is anyone who’s ever spoken poorly of our opponents.
And it so happens that I have said it was offensive to hear straight, republican, and fundamentalist used in such a way.  I have noted how insensitive it is to call them crazy or nuts.
Pretty much the entire time I’ve been here.
if you want to find something that connotes someone as not gender variant insensitive and offensive, then I have the same ability to find something that connotes not homosexual or bisexual offensive.
I don’t need to deflect anything from my own actions — I already stated that saying such with cis is a devaluing of trans experience and lives.
I embrace my actions there.  The actions of others, perhaps, no.
And of course the logic is faulty — the premise is faulty to which I was applying it.
Calling our opponents straight, fundamentalist, Christianist, bigot, nuts, crazy, republican, etc — they find that offensive to be told such.
SO is it worth it?
To me, yes.  Because I don’t hide behind the anonymity of the internet.  Anyone who takes half a moment knows I am Toni D’orsay, I live in Phoenix Arizona, my email address is right in my profile here, and I have no problem giving out my phone number or my address.
I do not play that way.
I do not see any anger in your delivery.  I am not putting anger in my delivery.
Look at my position: if you stop cis, then you must also stop straight.
That also means you can keep both and people can realize it is not an insult, or you can remove both for the same reasons.
Its not all that hard. THis isn’t just thought up to prove a point, either. ITs an ongoing element of how I do everything, reaching now a point where I do not call those who oppose us nuts, or crazy, or Dominionists, or wingnuts. I have, in the past, and met people from these groups that are our allies — more so than some in office.
They are our opponents.
This is merely an extension of it.  Note that within my position its fine if you take offense.  I’m understanding of such.
But if your offense is going to count, should not mine as well?  And if so, why not?  Because everyone does it?
That won’t fly.

The example elsewhere here I gave was:the point being that if someone is going to take offense at cis* because of their interpreted meaning and lack of familiarity with it, then I will take offense at straight for the same illogical, emotion driven reason.
“non-gender variant” is not nearly as easy.  And when you aren’t concise (as I am not), little things like that work.
The same way the word was used in the complaints is the same way the word “straight”, the word “republican”, the word “religious”, and a few others have been used.
I’ve been a republican all my life until I switched to Independent last year or late the year before.
I am deeply religious and fundamentalist in my religious views (they aren’t christian, but irrelevant).
I am heterosexual — I was before transition, I am after it.
So, as a heterosexual, fundamentalist, religious republican who posts frequently on a blog where such people are routinely called crazy, nuts, bigots, etc., I have to sit up and say “wait a sec”.
Now, some would say “well, if you don’t like it, leave”.
I can say the same thing, though.
Doesn’t settle the issue, though, does it?

ANd there is this diary, as wellhttp://www.pamshouseblend.com/…

And this onehttp://www.pamshouseblend.com/…

It’s not just GAY white men that get painted unfairly with a negative wide brush…Not long ago the trans community demanded and received an apology for an offensive commercial put out by a car dealer.  When the car dealer offered a mea culpa explaining that he was horrified that he had offended “women and transgender people” when he would NEVER intentionally offend or make fun of them.  He went on to explain that his REAL intention was to show how cluless/stupid the man in the ad, “and men in general”, are.
Autumn and others in the comments section oooohed and aaahhhed over the apology and how wonderful it was that someone knew how to make a real and proper apology seemingly ignoring the fact that the man had just transferred the insult from one group to another.
I’m not a straight white man but I don’t find it any more acceptable to insult them than it is to insult a black transgender woman.  I mean is a white transgender man fair game because he’s white and male or is he also off limits because he’s transgender?  It’s time to stop stereotyping men, straight men, and yes, even straight, white men.  Dare I say, some of my best friends are straight, white men.

Most of don’t bother with the “cis” words anywayWhen I need to refer to people as not being trans, I usually go with factual terms such as:
non-trans
natal female
natal male
woman (who was) born female
man (who was) born male

Please point out the language I used to insult straight white men……in my objection to that commercial.
Frankly, you won’t find it. Frankly, I’m not happy how you’re essentially claiming that I did use language that broad-brushed all straight, white men.
So if you’re saying I engaged in hateful language or behavior against straight, white men as a group, you’re projecting motivations on me that just aren’t there in the words, thoughts, and deeds related to the diaries I’ve posted. Again, I’m not happy in the slightest that you implied I did.
And frankly, I have not had time in the past to scour through all the comments in the PHB threads to look for that kind of behavior among my trans peers, but I’m going to make the time now because Pam, I, and the other baristas have been noticing incivil behavior by our blenders has gotten way out of hand. And, Zeke, if I see broad brush attacks on straight, white men in the future, I’m going to come down on those hard as bigoted and inappropriate — just as I just did with the attacks on gay, white men today.
And, I’m going to begin repeating this mantra over and over again, Zeke, to folk who don’t like what’s said at this blog in the articles and the threads going forward at this point:

If you don’t like what you see and read here at Pam’s House Blend, then maybe you need to find a different virtual coffee house to hang out at.

And so it’s okay to act in a way to her……in a way you don’t want her to behave towards you or your communities?
I think you’re somewhat willfully missing the point I’m trying to make about civility. To quote Gandhi:

Whenever you are confronted with an opponent, conquer him with love.

And…

“Be the change you want to see in the world.”

LimitationsThose are the terms used to diminish us in language used to defame and demean us.
Case in point: the old Questioning Transgender site used those specific terms and some additional ones — and it grew out of the terminology that arose in light of the stuff said by the organizers of MWMF.
It’s accurate, no doubt — I wouldn’t challenge its accuracy — but to describe them as factual is always questionable — there is significant evidence that we, to some extent, intersexed, for example (enough, in fact, that were it not for the politicization of such, we’d likely already be classified that, one could argue).
Furthermore, as an example, a crossdresser is a natal male or female with a male or female gender identity. And yet they are trans.
A woman born female can be trans if she is genderqueer and uses female pronouns.
Its simply not accurate enough in any context outside the strict confines of transsexualism, and transgender is not synonymous with transsexulism — indeed, there are some transsexuals who have no problem with their social roles, but extreme dysphoria regarding physicality (that is, they would, for example, be born male, get MtF surgery to relieve their physical dysphoria, yet continue to live as men).
So they are not suitable for wide discussion of Trans in general context when referring to the wide potential for gender variance that exists within the trans community.
In short, its reliant on transsexual privilege within the T.  And is wrong.

Request for evidenceI want to second Autumn’s request.
While I have many disagreements with her on different issues, to accuse her of such is completely out of place given that Autumn has an inherent understanding of what it means to be a white man (straight or gay I’m not familiar enough to comment on).
While she can defend herself, I find the assertion to be questionable.

why yes.We all are.

you’re still missing the pointand I think you’re doing it on purpose.
Do you call yourself straight? Yes.
Do you call yourself Republican? Yes. (or you did before)
Do you call yourself a fundamentalist? Yes.
Great! Good for you! Please feel free to label yourself as you see fit.
Do I call myself cis-? No.
Do you call me cis-? Yes.
Do I want you to do so? No.
Have you been asked to stop? Yes.
Have you continued to do so after being told it’s offensive? Yes.
Do you see the problem here?

Look at my position: if you stop cis, then you must also stop straight.

I think it reasonable to call people straight who call themselves straight (for example, people who identify as heterosexual, be they trans or not). I think it reasonable NOT to call people straight who do not call themselves straight (for example, people who call themselves queer).
Why do you consider it okay to continue to offend when asked to stop? Why are your feelings granted more consideration than mine?

No, I didn’t miss that point.The problem is that I am labeled straight, and I use it because what the hell, its easy, right?
Makes sense to you, right?
Well, it doesn’t me, and I resent that since I am labeled straight — perhaps not by you but by others nevertheless — I have to use that word when I find myself particularly bent (straight is not a word I would use for myself nominally).
Combine that with its meaning not intended to be defamatory (it isn’t, is it?), just as republican and fundamentalist are such, and yet add in the perceptin that they are used in such a manner makes them offensive.
Again, you aren’t giving me a choice, simply because you are uncomfortable with something that means no more and no less than you are different from transfolk.
So let’s run that list of yours down for me, shall we?
Do I call myself straight? No. I use it as a reference the same way cis is used as a reference.
Do you call me straight? Yes – or, worse, you make an assumption about my particular view of myself.
Do I want you to do so? No.
Have you been asked to stop? Yes.
Have you continued to do so after being told it’s offensive? Yes.
Now do you see?

AdditionallyFirst off, sorry for getting sidetracked.
However, my actual argument here is not that you are not offended — I understand that.
My argument is that if you don’t want to be called something (anything) and I dont’ want to be called something (anything) and both of us want to make it so that neither of us are going to be offended, then we need to erase both.
You want to make cis a “non-word” here, fine!  I’m grovvy with that.
I want to make straight a non word here as well, in turn.
Why aren’t you groovy with that?

What makes you think it would be ME doing the dance??

One of my very favorite auntsMary Kathleen, is VERY devout Irish Catholic from Chicago.
Tell me about it, petey- I could no more hate on her than I could give up chocolate.  

Please stop.This is going nowhere, and is starting to offend people at The Blend.
And in a post that’s theme is about behaving civility, I’m not having any of it.
Public warning in this thread — next person who uses this thread to make comment defending “cis” terminology gets a trap door drop.
Understand, dyssonance?

Off boardsee your facebook, Autumn.

It is obvious to me that what we need more of here is this

oh, absolutelybwahahahahahaha

then again, if I haven’t been banned yet…I think this is more appropriate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

QuestionsAre offended when other people are called straight too?
Do you use it to refer to other people who identify as straight, or do you call them something else? What term do you use?
Otherwise, it seems you’re only offended when the word is applied to you, not in general.
Which is perfectly reasonable.
So which is it — straight is an offensive word in general, or saying “Toni is straight” is offensive?
Because cis- is offensive whether I’m called it or when someone else is.

I withdraw my questionsIn light of Autumn’s refereeing and that I was writing them while she posted her message.

My pleasureGlad I could provide your family w/ some amusement.

just smile and say…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

No need to withdrawIf you would like to discuss this further, my email addy is in my profile here.
Feel free to send to me, or, if you’d like, add me as a friend on Facebook (I am Antonia D’orsay there).
I will respond, and without the risk of my getting banned.
Can’t say more, although Now I’m upset like I have not been in all the threads on this.

DammitI’m sorry I missed this. I read JoeMyGod regularly. If I would have read this I would have given that guy a piece of my mind.
I think you’re talking about something different than what Autumn is trying to address though.

Yes, context always countsEven terms we both acknowledge as accurate in certain aspects can be manipulated into conveying oppressive messages. But it’s not the bare words that contain the venom, it’s the malicious agenda that lies within the message itself. If we declared every turn of phrase that’s been hijacked by our enemies in the past to be indelibly tainted by association, we’d have to make up new words nearly every time we spoke.
For example, “womyn-born-womyn” is a phrase coined by Michigan Women’s Music Festival organizers explicitly as a made-to-order “identity” that not coincidentally excluded all transwomen. I think we’d both agree that anyone who knowingly employs that expression has a transphobic agenda in mind.
But to claim that a syntactically similar expression such as “born female” is equivalent to “language used to defame and demean us” is quite an extreme reaction. What genuinely matters is how it’s used in context.
For example, if I claim I was treated less favorably than a woman who was born female, I’m not demeaning myself, I’m pointing out that the circumstances of my birth were used in a prejudicial manner against me. Depending on the context, it may not have anything to do with whether I’m pre-op or post-op, or personally identify as transsexual or transgender. The phrase itself is not inherently “reliant on transsexual privilege”; its connotation is subject to how we each choose to use it.
When a simple concept like “born female” doesn’t apply well to complex cases, it’s up to us to find more descriptive terms, such as you did with a genderqueer woman who was born female. But note how this example is inherently problematic – while it’s accurate to say that she’s both trans and a woman, would it be appropriate to call her a “transwoman”?

HonestlyI had never heard of him before this.

To continue.Write her.

Trapdoor dropped.

I’m cis and…Well, if my fellow cisgendered people feel that cisgender is so offensive, they we to come up with a way of describing we gender identities, expressions, and orientations that do not implicitly define transgender people as abnormal and unnatural.
As it is cisgender/transgender parallels nicely with heterosexual/homosexual.  

Thank youfor acknowledging that gender is a relevant consideration and descriptor not only for those who depart from the gender “norm” but also for those who conform to it.

Let’s be consistent about thisI’m a transgendered civilian who objects to militarism, and to all this glorification of state violence. I’ll be calling you retired baby-killers “retired baby-killers” from now on. Thank you for not oppressing me with your militarism-coddling language like “veterans”.

I think the problem comes in….…from the fact that the use of the “cis-” prefix is not slang, whereas terms like “straight”, “gay”, “tranny” are.
Just like “homo-” and “hetero-” are opposite prefixes in the english language, the same is true with “trans-” and “cis-”.  Since that is proper English use, and not slang, that is not going to change in the near, or far, future.
For example, here are how those prefixes act as opposites in chemistry
I’m all for people being allowed to define themselves however they wish, and I am not trying to marginalize your rant, but a tricky situation comes in when you’re talking about proper non-slang application of the English language.  It’s like being upset about being called a human.

I think the problem comes in…. ..from the fact that the use of the “cis-” prefix is not slang, whereas terms like “straight”, “gay”, “tranny” are.
Just like “homo-” and “hetero-” are opposite prefixes in the english language, the same is true with “trans-” and “cis-”.  Since that is proper English use, and not slang, that is not going to change in the near, or far, future.
For example, here are how those prefixes act as opposites in chemistry
I’m all for people being allowed to define themselves however they wish, and I am not trying to marginalize your rant, but a tricky situation comes in when you’re talking about proper non-slang application of the English language.  It’s like being upset about being called a human.
(Reposted because I originally put this in the wrong thread….oops)

I’m giving up on the word man…I’m giving up on using the words man and male because in a patriarchy, it’s the default assumption behind human, just as cissexual/cisgender is the default assumption behind man and woman.
So, instead of men and women, we’ll have humans and women.
There, now we can avoid offending men, er, I mean humans.

seriously?i signed up just to say this, because i am like whoa, seriously?
i cannot believe this blog is catering to the feelings of one non-trans gay dude. are you kidding me? i used to think PHB was pretty awesome, and one of the only lgbt blogs out there that actually cared about trans people, and more importantly, posted news that was relevant to us. seeing this makes me so angry. how did the feelings of the privileged become the concern here? one guy says he doesn’t like a certain terminology and before people really even have a chance to dialogue about it, it’s banned?
why is PHB putting so much stock into this guy’s feelings, over the countless trans people who read this blog? all you are doing is proving yet again that in the larger lgbt movement, trans people are last to the table. and especially seeing a trans woman like autumn make this “say ‘cis’ and you’re banned” proclamation is incredibly disheartening.
finally, i honestly have no idea how anyone could be so offended by cis. i don’t personally use the word, but i don’t have an issue with it. it makes it hard to believe this thread comes from a real sense of feeling offended, rather than an irritation with the trans community over some previous issues.

terrible analysis — ignores reality and power dynamics

For the record, I find cis- to be offensive. In general, I thought our community (I mean the whole LGBT rainbow here) uses terms that are acceptable to those being described. That is, we use the preferred gender of trans people, we call someone bi if they identify as bi, we don’t say tranny, etc.
So why is it okay for (some of) the trans community to call us cis-?

Because cis is a privileged location in this society.
This is not rocket science, you know? Not hard to grasp. Those of us (I am cisgendered) whose sense of gender identity meshes with the gender this society assigned us are in located in relation to gender identity where heterosexuals are located in relation to sexual orientation.
If I called a heterosexual person hetero and that person got all “OMG you are oppressing me, you have no right to name me in ways I do not approve and I don’t like that naming” it would be an expression of heterosexism – the institutionally-granted power to control definitions of the privileged self/group.
This issue of who is on what side of what institutionalized power imbalance and what that means in terms of control, naming and communication … doesn’t seem like something that should be difficult for anyone on a site like this to grasp.

trans people are second class citizens here, no doubtyeah, the catering to the majority and silencing of trans women here is despicable. autumn, you’re not the voice for other trans people, and unilaterally deciding to ban trans women for using CIS is a shameful, sellout move.
i suppose i’ll get banned from this.
ohwell, i’ve got better things to do with my time, like engaging in real activism about issues that affect other trans women, and not begging cisgender (oops!) gays for their approval.
and civility? i don’t have time for civility in a community that erases our experiences and appropriates our identities while denying their privilege.
a lot of us have been doing activism for trans issues for a lot longer than some of the apologist trans women here have been transitioned, and we understand that this trans activism is about communities, not individuals. so, to threaten us with banning for daring to not change this use of language because a privileged cis person feels uncomfortable? shameful.

I get what you’re sayingBut, you are wrong to create a “cisgender” group and use that concept to convey the message that injustice and privilege exists at the hands of a real, organized entity.
I wrote on another thread that it can be compared to making up a new term for everyone who is not a person of color — cispigmented.
Then, you make blanket statements like:
“Cispigmented people oppress us and deny their privilege.”
I’m sure you can see why that would offend people. What about all of the white folks who fight for racial equality? What about people who are biracial? What about those who recognize the privilege offorded to them and reject it?
You have to stop and look at the people who you are dumping into an ugly bucket of stereotypes and characterizations. How many of them have their own gender issues? The straight man who wants to be a ballet dancer. The straight woman who wants to be diesel mechanic. The little boy who pees sitting down.
If you want to view this cisgender group as a social construct that should be abolished, I’m all for that. But, it isn’t real.
There’s no block of cisgender gays organizing against you. There’s no cisgender group waiting for you to ask for their approval. It is an academic concept — one that is outmoded and a relic of our unenlightened past. Give it up.

Why do you let that slide?That was pure misogyny and transmisogyny. Why are you giving it a pass here?

Your refusal to condemn Aravosis and Savage are the problemWhy do you not want to distance yourself from bigots such as Aravosis and Dan Savage?

Giving up on “cissexual” and “cisgender”I think you are making a really big mistake there.
How do cis people self-identify? As “real women” (or “real men”); as “normal people.”
Allowing cis people to dictate that talking about them as cis people is OFFENSIVE is a really gross distortion of the concept of self-defermination, and overlooks the power dynamics.

What do non-trans people want to be called?People who aren’t transgender who don’t like being called “cis” should probably tell us what they really do like to be called.
What is it, lane? How would you like me to talk about, for example, how some women are trans, and other women are ___?

white peopleWhy do you refer to “white people”?
Why is that not at least as offensive as “cis”?
People have been killed for being “white.” (Not as many as are killed for being non-white.) Nobody has ever been killed with the supposed slur “cis” used against them.

R-E-S-P-E-C-TWho said it’s a lack of respect?  If you personally find it offensive, I won’t use it about you.  What would you rather I call you, to clarify you are not trans?  :)

People who aren’t transgender are MANY groups!That’s the point. You can’t just lump everyone together — especially if your aim is identify that group as your privileged oppressors!
Why can’t you understand that?
Here’s my final example:
I belong to a group that supports marriage equality.
In order to have a discussion about those who enjoy the privilege associated with having the right to marry, we have to have terms that we can use to identify these groups.
Marriageplusgooders – They have the right to marry.
Marriageplusbadders – They do not have the right to marry.
(A little Orwellian Doublespeak never hurt anyone, right?)
Of course, transgender people have the right to marry. So, they all fall in the marriageplusgooders category.
As a marriageplusbadder, I am ANGRY that ALL marriageplusgooders don’t realize that they are privileged. ALL marriageplusgooders, including transgender people are my oppressors!
Now that we can identify the enemy, let’s have a discussion about everything that is wrong with those horrible marriageplusgooders. They see us as second class citizens. None of them support us. Boo! They are all horrible people. It is us versus them!
How do you like it? Does it feel good to be a marriageplusgooder? I bet it does. You get to get married and have a family. I’ll never have YOUR privileges. Shame on you!
Don’t even get me stated on those Iowa gay marriageplusgooders! They are the worst! They have joined the enemy camp by getting equal rights!

Nobody has ever been killed with the supposed slur “cis”Not yet anyway.
But, you’re heading down that road. Too bad you can’t see it.

Seriously?Are you seriously saying that? Seriously?  

lolzcould you be any more sensational?

Except they all share one common quality, FritzAll of them are Not Trans.
And, therefore, cis applies

I don’t think you actually do get it. No one is creating “cis” group. It already exists objectively as the people who are not trans. Giving it a handy name doesn’t magically create it. It’s also a group for which there was no other term that did not automatically other trans people.
And what I don’t think you get is that the term “cis” doesn’t include all that other stuff you’re adding to it. It just means “not trans” as a neutral descriptor. That “ugly bucket of stereotypes and characterizations” is something YOU are ladling into it. The term is not accusatory and negative, and no one thinks of “cis” people as a unified, organized group anymore than people think of, for example, “redheads” as an organized group.  

The largest problem herein is Privilege, not languageAnd, like that discussion on race that never really happens here, it is time to discuss privilege and how all of us have it.
Tone arguments (fallacious reasoning that the tone establishes context), oppression denials, and worse are being used.
People were banned yesterday for defending transfolk, and today they come in en masse.
As was pointed out elsewhere:
transfolk have really only two “LGBT”/QUeer safe spaces that are news sources of respect.
This is one, Bilerico is the other.
Bilerico was long considered inferior to this one in terms of such.
It is, apparently, no longer a safe place for transfolk.  Because when they speak truth to power, they get punished for it.
Uppitty men and women who happen to be trans, being picked on (in four threads) by the very people they are trying to tell that they are picking on them.
That’s privilege, not language.
IT is not the same as racism — and that is what needs to be looked at.
Because otherwise its a failure.
And it would be nice if you brought dyssonance back.

I’m looking at how the term is being usedI don’t believe that the group did exist. It is a rhetorical device. It is not neutral. Trans people are using it to marginize and steroetype people — cisgender gays, etc.
It is ugly and it has a chilling effect. I am now being treated as an outsider by trans people who I thought were my allies. I am being called “privileged” and an “oppressor” — screw that. I get enough shit from the religious right.
I don’t think trans people fully realize how much damage they are doing by alienating “cisgender gays” — whatever that may be.
If you want this “us vs. them” situation, that fine. Have fun fighting your own battles.
Bye!

What’s to understand? Any given individual is going to belong to countless “groups”.
My question is why you think being counted together with other cis people is inherently negative? That’s like a person with red hair resisting being called “red-haired” because “people with red hair are a rich and varied group and can’t all be lumped together!”
And FWIW, your overblown analogy is factually wrong, since transgender people don’t have a right to marry. We are allowed to marry only someone who is legally considered opposite sex to us, regardless of our gender identity (which is the same “right” everyone else has).  

All of them are Not TransThat’s not reality. It is a simplistic view of the many groups who deal with gender issues.
There aren’t just two groups.
No one as answered my questions.
Where do bigender people fit into this black and white world?
What about people who have transistioned and live as non trans people?
How about drag queens? Female impersonators? Sissy boys? Butch dykes? Many of these people become trans later in life.
Who gets to decide who is trans and who is not. People have written that they want people to make up their own minds as to which group they belong. Who gave them power to create such a narrow choice?
You people just don’t want to admit that you’re being narrow minded and prejudiced in your view of what is trans and what is not.
You’re taking a complicated issue and turning it into a something that I think could be damaging in the long run. But, who am I to say? I’m just a stupid cisgender gay who doesn’t have the right to say how I should be labeled by transgender people.

That privileged cisgender gay Matthew ShepardHe had a lot of nerve, didn’t he? Died like a real man.
I’m tired of this.
Label as whatever you wish. Make me feel shame for being a privilged cisgender.

Us vs. Them? So being an ally is a one-way street? So … people who aren’t trans don’t exist? That’s all the word means. So if that group didn’t exist, who the hell are all these not-trans people I’ve been talking to all these years?
As for trans people using it to marginalize people (aside from the laughable fact that we don’t have the power to marginalize squat), where is this? I haven’t seen anyone using cis as anything but a neutral descriptor (and no, using it as a descriptor of people who are also behaving badly doesn’t make the descriptor any less neutral).
If people are calling you “privileged”, did you ever think that maybe you could consider WHY they felt you were behaving in a privileged manner? Did you ever wonder why they felt that way, or did you automatically write it off as the trans people’s fault in order to distance yourself from it? I mean, you’re speaking as if trans people are supposed to worry about how you feel, but you don’t seem to be taking much effort to understand their feelings. Do you expect trans people to be your allies, but never expect you return the favor?  

Autumn, I never said that YOU said it. I pointed out how you and others lauded the apology that said, “men in general are clueless.”How about a course in reading comprehension?
And if you don’t know what I’m talking about go back and read the man’s apology and tell me that he didn’t say that he never intended to offend “women or transgender” people.  His intent was to make fun of men and how men in general are “clueless”.
Is that not what he said.
Did you not oooh and ahhh over his apology?
My point AGAIN is that you only seem to take offense when certain people are the butt of a joke but not when others are.

Yes, it is seriousDo you think trans people are superhuman? They aren’t subject to the same prejudices and evil impluses as everyone else on the planet?
If that’s what you believe you are dangerous.
When you label people and paint them with broad strokes, you create prejudice. Prejudice can lead to hate. Hate can lead to violence.
How do you think things started in Nazi Germany? It began by dividing the population into two groups. It began by labeling the Jews as oppressors and a privileged class.
Don’t believe me? Read a book or two.

“You people”? What is THAT supposed to mean?It’s not a simplistic view, you’re just viewing it simplistically.
Transgender is not a strictly-patrolled border … many trans folks would consider ALL the examples you gave to be welcome under the trans umbrella.
“You people just don’t want to admit that you’re being narrow minded and prejudiced in your view of what is trans and what is not.”
Wow, just … wow. Now I’m starting to understand why people were calling you on your privileged attitude.  

And to be specific…
LAcarGuy in his apology said:
“Our intent in both spots was to have fun with the kinda clueless guy, and guys in general, not either of the women he encountered.”
Autumn Sandeen relied:
So, my personal thanks goes to Mike at LAcarGUY for apparently “getting it” so quickly — for pulling the ads so quickly. Thank you, sir.
Not narry a mention of the man bashing.  Nor was there any mention of it in the comments.
Hey, I can understand if you didn’t catch the insult to men, people seldom do, but it was there.  Rather than being defensive how about acknowledging it.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/…

See above.

You know whatunderstand my feelings.
I didn’t use this precise terminology, but when the subject arose I actually attempted to defend trans folks to my very, very homophobic cousin (I mean, dude can’t even acknowledge the difference between sex and gender or that gay people are anything more than confused people who have gone through psychologically difficult times that made them “gay” (which would include myself and his own son)
I told him that trans folks (and I included both drag queens and L., a pre-op transwoman whom I lived with for a year) 1) Trans folf are people and not freaks People and not freaks 2) That I have found them to be great judges of character most times 3) That I have found trans folk to be very kind hearted. 4) That they have always made me feel welcome even when noone else did.
Some in the Blend know of the troubles that I have had with my family simply on the gay issue. Yet in this thread and the previous on, I am almost finding myself lumped in with the rest of the cis-folks.
I am attempting to merge the language with my own lived experiences and what little I know about educating others. And, yes, I am starting to feel alienated from those here who are trans. And I don’t want to feel that way.

PrivilegeI’m sure Matthew would appreciate you dragging his corpse in for your rhetorical device.
“Label as whatever you wish. Make me feel shame for being a privilged cisgender.”
HAVING privilege is not reason to feel shame; ABUSING it is.  

“What is THAT supposed to mean?” You started it. If you don’t want to live in a “us vs. them” world in which “you people” rears its ugly head, you have to stop dividing us.
If you want to put me in an imaginary “cis” group and for you to be in a “trans” group, then you better get used to being referred to as an outsider.
Do you get it, now?
I’m giving up on this argument. But, you should know that I will never interact with trans people the same way again.
Many trans people see me as an outsider — a privileged outsider and an enemy. That is more obvious now.
That’s too bad. It is too bad for everyone.

You’ve lost an allyI’m not alone in this.
It is happening all over the Internet.
I don’t really care how you view me at this point.
And, Matthew doesn’t appreciate anything. He’s DEAD. He’s not a magic sky fairy looking down on me and shaking his head.

IT was answered, Fritz, Elsewhere.
You were welcomed to the trans side.
We are, indeed, talking about the way people treat you because you are bigendered, which is one of the forms of trans.
You are trans, being bigendered.

OK..I’m sure no trans folk want you to feel alienated. None of us want to be cordoned off like that.
I think the reason a lot of trans people get angry and fly off the handle is because while most of us want to be like the great qualities you mentioned, we often get slapped (or stabbed) in the face for it. All of us would be better off if more cis-folks were like you, because then when we opened up to people we might actually have our efforts appreciated.
Not wanting to be lumped in with the hurtful cis people is a good thing; it shows that you’re aware of the crap trans people go through and you don’t want to be the type of person that adds to that suffering. I think it’s just important to keep in mind that most trans people are aware that there are plenty of good cis people, just the same as most gay people are aware that there are plenty of good straight people.  

An ally?Not if having your assumptions called out makes you this defensive.

You’re breaking my heart. If your allegiance could be lost over something so minor, I wonder why you expect me to be upset over losing it.
And note that I said “would”, not does. Of course he has no current feelings on the matter, but if he were still alive he might, hence my phrasing.  

Fritz is bigenderour generqueer (roughly the same thing) and so his particular feeling about is that he’s one of us.
HE just hasn’t fully realized it.

I didn’t start the fireOh please. I’ve been an outsider since I was born, you’re not going to scare me with the thought of it now.
But oh well. If that’s how you feel, OK. You can go inflict your new outlook on all trans people. I’ll continue to treat cis people (gay or straight or whatever) as I always have, as people who have the opportunity to prove themselves to be good or bad or whatever else.  

No, Frtiz.We didn’t lose one.
You made a decision based in defensiveness about being informed of something that you haven’t fully grasped yet.
You took an ally from us.
And what strikes me as terrible is that you don’t realize that in being bigender, you cannot be cisgender, and so what you are arguing is actually against your own sense of self, not a reality.
And for your matthew shepard, let me give you a tyra and a Gwen.
And, again, the argument is privilege.

I mean, don’t get me wrongI have my transphobic tendencies too.
1) On several occasions transwomen have been attracted to me; one even offered to be my sugar mama. I will confess that I was repulsed by the idea.
2)The one time that I did put on a wig, i was repulsed by it and literally threw it off.
3) In my younger days I was a very femme gay man; nowadays, not so much. The instability of gender and gender roles, etc. makes me very, very uncomfortable. I am a man (a cis man, I suppose) who enjoys being exactly that.

AhhhhhThank you for the clarification.  

As your sarcasm suggestsYou really do not care.
You only care about those who you view to part of your group. You want to alienate everyone else, regardless of how they feel and whether or not they are a friend.
You want to believe that there is this imaginary group that is privileged and excludes YOU.
That’s sad. And, these attitudes have lost me from these particular threads about transgender issues for a very long time if not forever.
Do whatever you want to do. It is clear that the LGB in LGBT has no voice that can influence you.
Language does matter. Rather than accepting the fact that lesbian and gay people object to being pigeon-holed by their trans friends, I’ve seen far too much anger and the word “privilege” tossed around as if those of us who are second class citizens should not be offended by it. Some are angry that we would even dare object. Not our place.
If I’m beaten to death like Matthew Shepard, be sure to let everyone know how much I benefited from my cisgender privilege.
We can play the “who is the bigger victim” game forever.
But, what you may end up doing is pushing away someone who may end up being trans in a few years. That’s probably the number one reason why we need to be unified.
Look at Chaz Bono. He identified as a lesbian for most of his life. Maybe working with trans people and feeling a bond and shared purpose made it easier for him to transistion.
Tear down the bridge and people will lose their way. More people will commit suicide. More people will feel lost and alone.
If you put me and people like Chasity Bono in a group of outsiders, you risk losing them. If you can live with that, so be it.  

I don’t care about cis-I’d never even seen the word until it was used here, so it has no emotional content for me, positive or negative.
However, the argument that Party A can decide Party B will be labeled, categorized and pigeonholed by Party A as a form of personal punishment for systemic oppression is asinine. The dynamics, the relative positions, all that is smoke screen. The argument I’ve read in here again and again boils down to “We’ll call you whatever we like, because you’re not like us!” Fine, call me whatever you’d like. Just don’t expect me to respond unless you’re willing to show me the courtesy of referring to me as I choose. It’s the same courtesy I show you, and I expect nothing less in return.

TendenciesIf you’re a gay man then I wouldn’t expect you to be happy about a woman coming on to you. ;3 I wouldn’t consider that transphobia (now, if you turned around and got yourself a cis sugar mama I might change my mind). I’ve had times when I’ve expressed an interest in gay men (hoping: Maybe this one’s got bi tendencies?), but of course that didn’t work because they recognized me as a woman.
As for 2 and 3, it might be useful to try and figure out why you have such a visceral reaction to such things; I say this not because I think it’s exactly transphobic, but for the sake of your own comfort. Gender roles suck and I imagine it would make you feel better if they didn’t bother you.  

Not about meI’m educated enough to know who I am.
Most people don’t have that luxury. They’ll never hear the word bigender.
There is a huge blurry space between being trans and a bunch of other “states” — none of which are fully trans or cis.
I think that space is much larger than many people realize.
And in bringing up Matthew Shepard, I’m just pointing out that my life is just as dangerous.
My former sister-in-law’s aunt is transgender and she has everything. Beauty, money, a handsome husband, children, grandchildren. Her family accepts her. A person could not be more privileged.  

wait a second…What makes you think that they are:
1 – An imaginary group
2 – that they are not privileged
3 – that it is exclusionary
Seriously.

What do you want me to call people who are “cisgender”?You avoided answering the question.
Once more: What do you propose instead of “cisgender” as the complement of “transgender”?
(As a general rule, the answer from most cisgender people is “normal,” which is offensive.)

I agree.I’m cis, I identify as cis, and I cannot imagine what’s supposed to be objectionable about it.
Moreover, it is a term that’s needed, at least if you ever want to refer to people who are not trans, to say that someone is not trans, etc. Consider some of the alternatives offered here, like “natal woman”, etc: my best friend, who is a transwoman, would insist that she was born a woman, if she were reading blogs now. Gender reassignment surgery doesn’t make you a woman/man, it brings your body in line with your gender, if you’re trans.
Cis has the signal advantage of avoiding all these loaded assumptions, plus it’s short, not some horrendously long term that would be hell to type repeatedly.
That said, I’ll give it up if someone can convince me that there’s something objectionable about it that I haven’t noticed. I just don’t see that one person’s objections should be decisive: human nature is endlessly variable, there’s bound to be someone who objects to just about everything, and if we let that stop us from using any word to which someone objected, we’d just have to stop communicating altogether.

You are talking out of your assI don’t think you understand anything about how privilege and oppression works.
Did the creation of the term “heterosexual” lead to the deaths of thousands of straight people in the way that “homosexual” has killed gay men and women?
No?
Then you’re talking out of your ass and trolling.
God, I used to like this community.
Now I see that it’s horribly, horribly unsafe for trans people. And the site administration — with Autumn playing the “good tranny” role — is on the side of enforcing that lack of safety.

Well, I was clearly awarein most (if not all of those cases) that the transwoman had…uh, male equipment…at least I know that was a contibuting factor.
As far as the visceral reaction is concerned…I’d have to give that more though but I really do enjoy being a man even if I invest very little in the concept of “normality.”

Except that if she wasn’t transone of that would apply.
And you are trans.  That is, you are gender variant.
One of the errors people are making is thinking that trans = transgender.
it doesn’t.
Trans = those who are not traditionally gendered.  In other words, that includes bigender people.  It includes genderqueer and androgyne (which are extremely similar to bigender and you should look into them).
It includes drag queens (who do it part time) and Tri-Ess transvestities (who are heterosexual males and *know it
And even more variance beyond that.
That was the point Dyss was coming from.
That’s the concept.
Cis is the opposite of that — people for whom the traditional gendering is all that’s valid.  It has nothing to do with being gay, or lesbian, or bisexual, or straight, nothing to do with any element of race.
And in order for people to stop seeing trans as something lesser, there must be something to make it even — to remove the tier that exists even if some people don’t like it.
Nor is this ongoing fight anything new.  Its been happeneing all over the internet for years, because when you call someone on their privilege — for example, a gay man calling a straight man on their privilege, or a hispanic man calling a european man on his privilege — then those with the privilege react the way people here do.
Because they have it and they don’t like to be told they have something others don’t.
That’s not made up.  That’s just the way it is.

Off the rails nowI notice how no threats of moderation have been made against you, even though you are directly comparing trans people to Nazis and suggesting that the term “cisgender” is just a few short steps away from the Great Transsexual Menace coming along and rounding up all the cis folks and sending them off to death camps.
You are trolling and are offensive, but I don’t expect that the Pet Trans Woman here is likely to ask you to stop because you’re “offending people” — only cis offense counts.

Yeah, it’s way inappropriateThere oughta be some sort of law or something on the Internet, about bringing up Nazi Germany.

None of that is transphobicReally.
I get lesbians attracted to me all the time.
A wig isn’t a person.
That discomfort isn’t transphobia. It’s just discomfort — you have a strong gender identity (not a gender role), and that’s why you find it uncomfortable.
There’s nothing wrong with any of that.

You are not objecting to the term, but to your privilege being pointed outThere’s no “chilling effect” — people who are cisgender do have cisgender privilege, and you are just freaking out because you don’t want to come to grips with your own privileges in this matter.
“I don’t think trans people fully realize how much damage they are doing by alienating “cisgender gays” — whatever that may be. “
Thank you for your concern trolling, Cisgender Gay! You’re very good at the whole derailing thing.
“If you want this “us vs. them” situation, that fine. Have fun fighting your own battles.”
The whole way you’ve been participating here shows that you were never on our side.

I’m not kind-heartedSo maybe you’ve just been lucky so far.
If you don’t want to feel alienated then stop denying that you are cisgender and stop denying that you have cis privilege.

Doing an awful lot of mind-reading there, aren’t you? ‘Cause I sure didn’t post any of that mess. But hey, if you really can tell all my thoughts and motivations with only this most brief and tenuous of contact, I think that means I might be your true love! :3
And I’m sorry, but comparing yourself to Matthew Shepard is not going to get any traction with a group of people who share that exact same danger.  

Oh, it’s bothI’m not going to explain it here in detail. But trust me, I have defintely have had gender role issues, I knew what I was saying.
Sheeesh, I don’t even want people to know that much about me…

“I will never interact with trans people the same way again”Because you’re a privileged cissexist bigot.
No, really. Face your privilege here, and acknowledge it, and work through it, and you might get better.
But anyone who claims to be a trans ally and then, because a handful of trans people get in an argument with him, decides that he is now the enemy of “you people”?
You’re a bigot. And your “get used to being referred to as an outsider” line backs it up.

Not lucky sweetieI’m a pretty kind-hearted, overall, I just don’t like being bullied, I don’t like seeing anyone being bullied, and I am a fan of the underdog. Nothing more, nothing less. You give me nastiness, I will give it back.
I just try to the best of my ability (and often fail) not to put it out there.

Speaking in my role as spokesperson for all trans peopleI say, no, Fritz isn’t welcome to be one of us, as long as he’s not willing to deal with the cissexist bullshit he’s been spouting.

Being gay doesn’t mean you have no cis privilegeWhat’s next? Are you going to deny that Matthew Shepard, when he was alive, had white privilege and male privilege?
You’re a troll, Fritz. I wish we could trust the admins here to come down on your offensive and insulting statements — but it’s been made clear that the real problem is those “rude” trans people.

You aren’t an allyYou weren’t ever an ally.
You’re a classic derailer.
Here, have a bingo card:

So, what then?What about the other, more rational argument that cis is NOT a form of personal punishment used to pigeonhole cis people? That it’s just a neutral descriptor for when someone needs to refer to the status of not-being-trans?
By all means, if you have some other term that you would accept being called in the context of not-being-trans, then feel free to present it.  

Oh, pleasesome trans people are rude as all at hell. I mean, aren’t all people?

It’s not a “personal punishment”Most of the angry non-trans people here aren’t actually objecting to the term “cis” but to the concept of cisgender privilege — which definitely does exist, no matter what they think.
So, the thing that I would call “cisgender” — what would you rather it be called? What is your personal self-identification when it comes to your trans status or lack thereof?
So far, cis people haven’t come up with a name for themselves yet as a group — can you guys form a committee or something? It would help a lot.
(You are just referring to the term bugging you, right? And not the concept represented by the term, right?)

no.Fritz is not a troll.
He’s just too emotional on the subject.

OkayIf that’s the case, I’m never going to write anything like this ever again:
http://blog.albumartexchange.c…
As the editor of a popular new blog, I could influence and educate a lot of people.
I’m not going to bother again. You can go it with me.

without me that is

Bingoits not the word.
its the idea behind it.
The word is just the excuse to avoid talking about the concept of people who are not trans having privilege.

PrivilegeThe Cisgender (non-transgender) Privilege checklist (author unknown)
1) Strangers don’t assume they can ask me what my genitals look like and how I have sex.
2) My validity as a man/woman/human is not based upon how much surgery I’ve had or how well I “pass” as a non-Trans person.
3) When initiating sex with someone, I do not have to worry that they won’t be able to deal with my parts or that having sex with me will cause my partner to question his or her own sexual orientation.
4) I am not excluded from events which are either explicitely or de facto* men-born-men or women-born-women only. (*basically anything involving nudity)
5) My politics are not questioned based on the choices I make with regard to my body.
6) I don’t have to hear “so have you had THE surgery?” or “oh, so you’re REALLY a [incorrect sex or gender]?” each time I come out to someone.
7) I am not expected to constantly defend my medical decisions.
8) Strangers do not ask me what my “real name” [birth name] is and then assume that they have a right to call me by that name.
9) People do not disrespect me by using incorrect pronouns even after they’ve been corrected.
10) I do not have to worry that someone wants to be my friend or have sex with me in order to prove his or her “hipness” or good politics.
11) I do not have to worry about whether I will be able to find a bathroom to use or whether I will be safe changing in a locker room.
12) When engaging in political action, I do not have to worry about the gendered repurcussions of being arrested. (i.e. what will happen to me if the cops find out that my genitals do not match my gendered appearance? Will I end up in a cell with people of my own gender?)
13) I do not have to defend my right to be a part of “Queer” and gays and lesbians will not try to exclude me from OUR movement in order to gain political legitimacy for themselves.
14) My experience of gender (or gendered spaces) is not viewed as “baggage” by others of the gender in which I live.
15) I do not have to choose between either invisibility (“passing”) or being consistently “othered” and/or tokenized based on my gender.
16) I am not told that my sexual orientation and gender identity are mutually exclusive.
17) When I go to the gym or a public pool, I can use the showers.
18) If I end up in the emergency room, I do not have to worry that my gender will keep me from receiving appropriate treatment nor will all of my medical issues be seen as a product of my gender. (“Your nose is running and your throat hurts? Must be due to the hormones!”)
19) My health insurance provider (or public health system) does not specifically exclude me from receiving benefits or treatments available to others because of my gender.
20) When I express my internal identities in my daily life, I am not considered “mentally ill” by the medical establishment.
21) I am not required to undergo extensive psychological evaluation in order to receive basic medical care.
22) The medical establishment does not serve as a “gatekeeper” which disallows self-determination of what happens to my body.
23) People do not use me as a scapegoat for their own unresolved gender issues.

Sorry to dyssonanceWho posted this in a diary here:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/…

I’m rude as all hellAnd I don’t deny it.
But the cissexist bullshit being thrown around here is even ruder, and what’s more, it’s rudeness that aligns with oppression.
Autumn is calling out the rude trans people, and giving the rude cis people a pass — just like she ignored the misogynistic and transmisogynistic slur against Ann Coulter.

The problem is, that’s not the issue.The issue is, nobody has bothered to define a word that means “not transgendered,” that does not identify transgendered as abnormal.
“Non-trans”? Non-close. That’s like saying that a hetero woman is “non-gay.” It’s only useful when a distinction is needed between trans and non-trans, it doesn’t define non-trans on its own.
“Natal woman”/”man”? Nope. I was a girl from the moment I was born, I just didn’t accept it until I was a teenager (and then suppressed that knowledge until I was 30). “Natal woman” or “natal man” is also just a slightly less obnoxious way of saying “womyn-born-womyn.” It still privileges birth over identity and cis identities over trans. The fact that people who understand how transphobic “womyn-born-womyn” is, can turn around and use “natal woman,” which means the exact same thing, is a little astounding, honestly.
“Normal” is what most cissexual people would call themselves and that fails for the same reason that calling heterosexual “normal” fails.
For discursive reasons, the words “cisgender” and “cissexual” are necessary as part of a linguistic structure that normalizes transgendered identities and facilitates the movement of our experience to within that broad framework of normal.

He’s acting like a trollSo I don’t mind calling him one.
He’s doing classic derailing behavior and flaunting privilege.

Not with meit’s the assumption that such a person is aware of the privilege. I’ve never been in denial, really, that I have privilege, that’s one of the reasons I avoided these trans threads for so long. I’m willing to be challenged, but I do react when someone want to get all up “in my face” with it in a confrontational and angry tone.
But I do that with everybody. Trans people are no exception to that rule.

On this listI don’t know if #20 should be on it at all. There is a long, long history of gay people going in for “mentally ill” type stuff.

“I was on your side but your anger changed that”Somehow I expect that trans world will have to manage to get along without you and your very influential blog about album covers.
I guess that’s just the price we’ll have to pay!
WAIT NO, I’M SO SORRY TO HAVE OFFENDED YOU, PLEASE PROTECT TRANS RIGHTS ON YOUR CUTE LITTLE BLOG, WE TOTALLY NEED YOU MORE THAN YOU NEED US!!1! HOW COULD I HAVE QUESTIONED SOMEONE SO INFLUENTIAL AS TO HAVE A BLOG?!

TrueBut have ya ever noticed that angry and in your face is pretty much the usual way its brought to one’s attention?
I know a transwoman who used to post here until very recently.  She got a wake up one day in exactly that manner over her own het privilege.
By a drag queen.
Only time I’ve ever known dyssonance to shut up…

So much for civility, I supposeand I am honestly trying.

That would be the rational argumentabsent all the arguments in here saying just the opposite.
As for what I prefer to be called? A gay man. It’s vague, it doesn’t tell you whether I’m a top or a bottom or versatile. It doesn’t tell you whether I prefer oral or anal. It doesn’t tell you the size of my dick, or whether I’m a bear or a twink or a daddy. Because, frankly, none of that is any of your business unless you and I are about to have sex. So vague is good for me.

No, angry and in your faceshuts me down pretty much. I had enough of that growing up.  

Yes, you areBut so was Dyssonance.
To be civil, one must remember that one’s personal feelings really can’t be expressed to their full extent.
You have to be reserved about it.
Hard to do

HehFunny how your account was created within a couple of hours of the trap door, and you continued conversations that dyssonance started. But I’m sure that’s all a coincidence. And I’m sure no one is inferring anything from it.

Hmm … OK, but … what about the trans gay men? Now we’re back to square one, what’s the term we can safely use for a not-trans gay man? Vague may be good for self-identification purposes, but it’s not so good for being able to express specific concepts via discussion in language.
I mean, can you at least see how this would be like a hetero man saying that he should be referred to as only “a man”, and that only gay men have to have the added descriptor?  

That is an *intersection*One place where we share stuff in common due to privilege.

yeah…Nothing like a phone call, huh

Well, I don’t know what to say about thatother than what you’re inferring would not exactly be honest (I created an account when the trap door was opened on me but I never used it).

It could be honestbut not truthful.

Why do you feel the urge……to tell us of your “transphobic tendencies” at this point?
We’re not here to offer you absolution, dude. Speak to your priest.

Do you have cisgender privilege?Well, do you?
(PS: Do not call me “sweetie” like that.)

And?Ask the trans gay man how he wants to be identified, then use that. You asked, I answered. Ask him, he’ll answer. Nothing tricky there, nothing terribly difficult.

How do you separate gay trans *men* (plural)from gay men?
Without demeaning or defining the gay trans man as other than?

I wasn’t talking about you, kevinchiI was talking about ynsaen.

That’s pretty much what I was thinkingit was nothing like a phone call.  

To be fair … I was engaging him in a discussion of his personal reaction to cis privilege, so it was relevant. I don’t think it’s about absolution, just awareness.

civilityCivility seems to mean “shut up and take it, bitch” more often than it means “I will respect that you have strong emotions on this topic due to the oppression you struggle against and the privilege I possess.”

Hey, I’m continuing dyssonance conversations too……want to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, also?

Terminology or privilegeDo you believe that non-transgender people possess something which I would call “cisgender privilege”?
If so, what should we call that term when talking about the oppression faced by transgender people?

Of courseNext question.

EhI worry about people with privilege who complain about “tone” while feeling free prove their privileged bona fides by recounting their own bigoted attitudes.

True! But it’s not the full story.
Someone belonging to a privileged group automatically negates any viewpoint they have?
Does that go for all, or just those of us who use ‘trans’ as self-descriptive?

Next question:What should we call this cisgender privilege, if “cisgender” and/or “cis” is offensive to you?
What term do you use to identify your cisgender status?

No, I got that part QISC

its ok
You are doing a better job than I am, though.

LOLthat was a good one

Uhh … I wasn’t talking about what terms the trans gay man wants … I didn’t think I was speaking in particularly difficult language.
You said you wanted to be just called a gay man.
I said there are trans gay men, too, so how do we refer to the non-trans gay men when discussing the context of trans-ness? I’m not talking about identity politics here, I’m talking in simple descriptive terms, like saying, “There’s the blond man standing over there. There’s the red-haired man standing next to him”.  

Believe me, I am one of the latter partyIf I wanted to say “shut up and take it, bitch” I really would say it. Trust me on that.

I am a better sockpuppet or somethingNeener neener.

He wants to be the defaultCis people expect that cisgender status will be the default, and thus not need remarking on.
It’s a result of cis privilege — cis people expect that they will be seen as “normal” and need no adjective, while the “abnormal” people are those who require a label.
This is why, for example, we speak of people being “disabled” but there are few times that people WITHOUT disabilities are spoken of (and able people object to “able” too) — because of able privilege, able people never have to confront their status with regards to disability.

Call it whateveryou want. I’m a gay man. Address me as such when you are talking to me.
I’m with QISC on that. Don’t call me out of my name or what I choose to identify myself as. At no time have I done that to you.

Of courseYou know that and I know that, I just wanted HIM to see it. ;3

Worry about your own distancing n/m

There is a solution to thisWrite Toni and ask her.
She’s usually pretty forthright about such stuff, wouldn’t you agree?

Now this pissed me off1) I am not used to entering trans conversations precisely because of this type of vitriol that I see.
If I didn’t admit my own attitudes and biases in entering this , then I wouldn’t be having honest communication with you, now would I?
2) I don’t want anything from you but the same respect and civility that I am attempting (and rapidly failing at this point) to show you.
3) I react badly to anyone who attempts to foist any type of behavior or characteristic on me without my knowledge or permission. I have the list, I’ll look it over and examine myself. That’s the adult thing for me to do.
You act like people who want to tell me how to be black and people like that piss me off to no end.

How about…Trying to find that common ground with those who support the concepts?  This whole dramatic set of posts and comments seems to have kicked up some dust…
There is privilege, I don’t see anyone denying that here.
But does that negate the right to self-determination, even if it doesn’t mean the same power-dynamic?
“Allowing (people) to talk about themselves as (a label) is a really gross distortion…”
It’s not comparable to social and legal oppression, but am I mistaken that this is supposed to be – at least in part – about self-determination for everyone?

if you’ve thought of her, referred to her, orconsidered her trans, you have.
And in so doing, you make it so that trans is somehow not normal.
Its not about individuals, its about groups.

Determine away, please!OK, so in the spirit of that, what word are we supposed to use for not-trans people? What word do you want us to use?  

OK, so … Can we call it whatever we want or can’t we? I thought that’s what this whole hullabaloo was about?  

Among yourselves, surein “mixed company” everyone really needs agreement on terms as well as respect and civility. I wouldn’t call any of my white friends, for example, any name or broad brush them solely on the basis that they’re white. If I see whute privilege funcctioning, then I tell them not in an accusatory way or anything.
But of course, those would be my “acquaintances” and “friends.”
Not Johnny come latelys to the discourse or those that don’t know me at all (my opinions here are my real life opinions)

And now its back to You can only talk about how the privilege of others is impacting you among yourselves, not others, and your language is irrelevant to me, personally, and I summarily dismiss it.
Is that correct?
(no sarcasm, no meanness, just asking directly and civilly)

but … You can still call them your “white friends”. If a discussion of race comes up, it would be ludicrous for them to insist that they not be factually described as white.
What word are WE supposed to use in discussions of trans status to denote not-trans people?  

No, I’m not saying that at allI can’t speak for anyone else civility issues, only mine.
Angry confrontation turns. me. off. Nor do you get the right to tell me who I am. You can say these are the characteristics that I see and I accept and work on it or I don’t accept and say fuck you.
I do it in working with friends of mine who let white privilege slip out unknowingly all the time.
But you will not speak to me anyway that you would like about anything that you would like. If I am adult enough and honest to put my own transphobic tendencies out there (without much fear of reprisal) I am putting a little trust and faith in you to respond to me in what I would consider a civil matter.
Of course, you and I may have differing concepts of civility. Don’t judge me by anyone else’s actions, regardless of rather I’m a “cisgendered privileged male” or whatever the fuck you want to call me. Respond to how I treat you. That’s all I really ask.

actually i don’t call them my white friendsI call them my friends. They just happen to be white.
I would call you my friend. You would just happen to be trans.
Around me, one on one, you could use the word, now that I know what it is, even if you’re calling me on som cis bullshit; I can take that. Especially the number of times I’ve been called a “white boy” by members of the African American community.

No anger here.In your statement you say “white privilege”.
We are talking about wanting to be able to say “non trans privilege” just like that. Just like you said “white privilege” in a thread full of white people.
Would your friends tell you they find that offensive?
Because what’s going on here inthis thread is exactly that.  People taking a term and finding that when it is applied to them and it makes them aware of their privilege, they don’t like it.
And so they call it offensive.
We will use cis to mean people who are not trans.
We will not stop.
We have been silenced over it here, we have been attacked for it here, and we are talking about it all over the place.
The things you said, as was pointed out, were not transphobic.
The thing that is such is telling us we can only speak to power among ourselves.
You are cis, you are trans, you are inter.  You figure out which one.
ANd then remember that we are talking about people who are not trans. In groups.
For now, and after this, I surrender.  FIne.
You want us to be silent.
We will be silent.
Shutting down dissent is not progessive.

None of them will sayNone of the non-trans people say anything other than that they want to retain the privilege of having their cis status be the “unspoken default.”
They don’t want their cis privilege to be looked at or examined. That’s why they are refusing to tell us what they want to be called.

What?Someone belonging to a privileged group automatically negates any viewpoint they have?
Nice straw person.

I will!Seriously: I really think people underestimate the importance of a short, non-ugly term. (And for those of us who had to slave over European history in high school, there’s the joy of having all memorized that stuff about the transmontane/cismontane split in 17th century France finally pay off…)

Actually, I don’t believe youYou’d certainly think it — misogynistic slur included — but I doubt you’d say it after you’ve been prattling on and on and on and on about how you don’t like in-your-face aggression.

Of courseYeah, but that’s just what I’m saying. Up a couple of posts, you called them your white friends. My point is that in that context, where you’re discussing their race, it’s not in any way insulting to refer to them as such. That’s how most trans people view the use of “cis”, as no more loaded than that, just as a descriptor. I think we’re pretty much in agreement overall, it’s just a semantic thing.  

No, my “friends” wouldn’t be offendedbut I will tell you this
A few years ago there was an African American co-worker of mine who called me a nigger in the course of a disagreement. I did not accept it at all, in fact, I went straight to human resources and she was suspended.
So even though she felt she had the right to say that (based on an assumption of shared racial identity) she did not.
Now if I was pretty intolerant in that case, why should I be tolerant in this one? Just because you say so?
 

I get thatbut it would help if it wasn’t accompanied with what, IMHO, was slurs and broadbrushing of folks. I would think you need a little more evidence (based on statements made, for example) that a specific item or category of “cisprivilege” is in play rather than the mere fact that they are “cis.”
When I point out that someone is assuming or saying something based on white privilege (it comes up all the time as regards African American religion, for example) then I will point out something very specific.

huh?

Someone belonging to a privileged group automatically negates any viewpoint they have?
Does that go for all, or just those of us who use ‘trans’ as self-descriptive?

I don’t get what you are saying here.
I’m talking about how power (and violence) works in this society and how naming and defining is part of that.
But really, I have no clue what your reply has to do with what I wrote, so I won’t even try to guess.

Thank you very much for saying it, and for just understanding in general.
The more I think about it, the more sadly telling it is that a neutral, intentionally-non-ugly term like cis gets so much resistance while no one has been offended by me saying “not-trans” up and down the thread.  

Oh, I would say itmisogynistic slur and all, I used to have a really, really bad habit of it. Am I one of those misogynistic gay men? Absolutely, I realized that long ago. I also realized, however, that if I didn’t want people to call me a faggot then maybe I shouldn’t be calling women bitches; I should not put that type of energy out into the universe.
Do I practice it perfectly? Of course not? I’m a work in progress and I am a lot better than I used to be as regard the b-word.

Believe meif I was talking about a specific instance of cisprivilege I would definitely get nice and detailed. I merely object to the general reaction of some against “cis”.
Now that I think of it, I can name a dozen slurs for trans people, but I can’t even think of a single slur for cis people. Even if someone said something like “Those damn cis people”, “cis” still isn’t even a slur in that phrase, it’s still just a neutral descriptor that the speaker is modifying negatively with “those” and “damn”.  

The slur is to call themtrans people.

Let’s seebreeder, faggot, bulldagger, homo, sissy…
those are a few.
And again, it was the broad stereotypes and the assumptionof privilege that I think people were objecting too.
When they knew what “cis” was at all. And if it’s accompanied by broadbrushing and stereotypes (as it has been) then you wonder why people (rightly or wrongly) see it as offensive?

I’ll try to respond anywayEh, I’ll try to respond anyway:

Someone belonging to a privileged group automatically negates any viewpoint they have?

No, not from what I observe of how this system actually functions.
My observation of how things work in this system I live inside and deal with everyday is that the viewpoint of someone in a privileged group can carry massive institutionalized power backing it up, while masquerading as “just another viewpoint.”
This situation happens when that viewpoint fits with the maintenance of power required by the larger system. It masks the maintenance of power under what appear on the surface to be individual viewpoints, but that is an illusion in situations like this.
In this case, objections to cisgendered as a term are carrying that institutionalized power behind them. It’s like being way bigger than you actually are.
To my eyes this whole conversation at some level is about dominance and control inside a nasty violent system that has a stake in centering cisgendered people as “just people” and the prototype of human-ness when it comes to gender identity.
The objection to cis as a term was a move to assert and maintain a certain kind of control of how things are defined. It is backed up by massive institutionalized power running through our everyday lives and the larger system we live in.
The nasty trick in this (or, one of them) is that people who do have privilege in some areas while being oppressed in others can be feeling like “I am just expressing my individual viewpoint!” when speaking from that privilege. But in fact they are actually acting as an agent of a violent system that would just as soon kill them too, when it comes down to it.
Someone in that space will defend that huge violent system as if they are defending their own perspective, their own self. They won’t even feel (or will feel but suppress/ignore) that massive power behind and through them, it will feel like “my individual viewpoint.” That is an illusion in situations like this.
Someone in that space will fight challenges to the system as if they are fighting challenges to their own selves, and will call on those around them to “help/support me!” when they are actually functioning as channels that funnel help and support back into this violent system as it maintains its overarching power and control. It’s a way to get those people tied into defending and identifying with something that doesn’t even care if they survive. A sort of bait and switch kind of move.
And in the end, I think the real winner is this violent system that causes us all — meaning, in this context, this site, all LBGT people — tremendous and varied violence and pain in our everyday lives.
The reality I see is that it is not trans people who are doing harm by naming cis gay people as cisgendered.
The reality I see is that the real harm we face is from a violent horrific system that at some level wants all of us either dead or suffering.
In fact, those who have put a name to cis/cisgendered are doing a serious favor to all of us queer people by de-centering cis people as the un-named normal ones and making visible yet another way that this violent system twists reality into confusion and disorientation.
IMO it is best to be able to clearly see how this thing works in all of its many layers and dynamics.  And naming what is supposed to be “just normal” and universal as the specific thing it is (in this conversation, using the term cis or cisgendered) helps a great deal in making the landscape of this insane system more clearly visible.

I feel somewhere between disappointed and confused.I do not understand what has happened to PHB.
Why are we being told that genders mismatching birth sex can be described as “trans” but genders matching birth sex cannot be described with the natural value-neutral counterpart, “cis”?
Why are long-time contributors getting “trap-doored” (whatever that means)?
Why are threads being closed, voices being silenced because a couple of cisgendered people have taken exception to having their genders put up to the same sort of analysis that trans genders endure?
If I object to anyone being referred to as “transgendered” because endless sensationalised news outlets have used the word in negative / misinformed / ignorant ways, will we pull that term out of everyone’s dictionary, too?
I thought this site was supposed to be much more trans-friendly than this. Please tell me that I’m mistaken, or that this is all a dream or something. I want to believe.

Hey!

“I don’t believe that the group did exist”I don’t even know how to say this but will try.

I don’t believe that the group did exist.

I am cis but in other areas of my life have to deal with what I would call perceptual violence related to what exists and what does not.
I know, firsthand, that denying that something exists is a way to make certain aspects of reality invisible. Backed up by institutionalized power, it is a very powerful tactic to suppress aspects of reality that we are not supposed to be looking at because to look there would question the view we are supposed to accept. That view denies the violence we are all walking through and in.
I myself walk through the world with dual perception. I see the landscape that this cultural system I live in says is “what  is” — I learned to perceive it because I have to in order to survive. It is ugly and filled with lies.
And I see another landscape, overlaid. In that landscape I can see things that are violently denied by this system.
So when you say that something that is clearly going on “doesn’t exist” and claim that an unpalatable (to some) aspect of the ugly reality of this ugly system we all live inside is just made-up words (“a rhetorical device”) you offend me at levels I could not begin to express to you.
And the what is actually offended here, and what I mean by offense — these don’t exist in this insanity either. I could say you have offended one of my parents, but that doesn’t exist either.
False definitions of what does and doesn’t exist creates boundaries on what we can even talk about and see.

eh wot?…those aren’t slurs against cisgender people.

He won’t ever see itHe wants to avoid the question, which is why not a single cis person on this thread has said how they want their cisgender/cissexual status to be talked about.
They want it to NOT be talked about.

LookThis is all I have to say on this today!
I am not where you want me to be as far as the trans community is concerned.
Fine.
Then meet me (and everyone else) where I am at. Don’t drag me where you would like for me to be (whereever that is) kicking and screaming.
But of course you are painting my attempts to dialogue with the same broadbrush of privilege.

NoThe terms upon which “we” can communicate have not been agreed upon, at this point, obviously. I am willing to talk. But it’s on terms that both you and I agree upon, period.
For the record, let’s try kevinchi and Kynn for the time being. Deal?

cis….cis….cis….cisI’m sorry there was no explanation about why the term is offensive. All the original writer said was the he found the term offensive. That is not an explanation. We can explain why tranny is offensive. Some find Trans offensive, but I embrace the term. Many even find trangender offensive, again I like the term. I think there was no real argument against the term cis. So, go ahead, give me that trap door, but I would want to hear a legitimate explanation about why and how it is offensive. There was non. It is not, it is a neutral term. Anyone can take exception to any term used to describe them. Many women take offense to the word women, and yet it is still uses here and in many other places. If you don’t like trans people, then just be honest and say it, don’t hide behind fighting against terms to mask your own deep transphobia.

cis….cis….cis….cisI’m sorry there was no explanation about why the term is offensive. All the original writer said was the he found the term offensive. That is not an explanation. We can explain why tranny is offensive. Some find Trans offensive, but I embrace the term. Many even find trangender offensive, again I like the term. I think there was no real argument against the term cis. So, go ahead, give me that trap door, but I would want to hear a legitimate explanation about why and how it is offensive. There was non. It is not, it is a neutral term. Anyone can take exception to any term used to describe them. Many women take offense to the word women, and yet it is still uses here and in many other places. If you don’t like trans people, then just be honest and say it, don’t hide behind fighting against terms to mask your own deep transphobia.

Too medical?This was previously discussed about another word, I don’t know why I didn’t reference this discussion earlier.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/…

We’re already at least two groups, regardless of the wordWe’re already two groups, trans and … uh, not trans … whether we have a special word for the … uh, PWIATGTWAAB (“people who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth”) … or not.  At least in the contexts where such a word would even come up:  when we’re discussing differences in life experience, how we’re perceived, differences in how the law (and some organizations) treat us, medical issues, ownership of words for purposes of reclaiming, and so on.
The problem isn’t whether differences are labelled; it’s how and when the differences are observed.  The differences between a trans man (excuse me, I mean MWHTFTBRAAM — “man who had to fight to be recognized as a man”) and a … uh, MWNHTONGA (“man who never had to overcome natal gender assignment” … matter when we’re talking about what growing up meant, what forms oppression takes (and thus some political issues), medical issues, bureaucratic issues (getting gender altered on various documents), and inclusive versus ‘othering’ language.  In those conversations, labels make communication easier and the differences are already in front of us.
OTOH, when we’re just talking about things-that-apply-to-men in general, or differences that break down along male/female/agendered/genderqueer/etc. lines rather than PWKTGDMTSAAB (“people who know their gender doesn’t match their sex-assigned-at-birth)/PWIOTGTWAAB lines, bringing up PWKTGDMTSAAB/PWIOTGTWAAB status or trying to introduce that as an additional division is at best a distraction and at worst the kind of intentional divisiveness you warn against.  The same goes for women’s issues, where both WWHTOHBPCM (“women who had to overcome having been considered male”) and WWWAPAGUTWPAW (“women who were always perceived as girls until they were perceived as women”) should both be called, simply, women.
When we talk about things that apply to all people, dividing us into men, women, and alternatively-gendered (as opposed to just talking about people) is divisive (and usually antifeminist); but that doesn’t mean we have no use for the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’, because there are other contexts in which those differences are meaningful and the labels are pretty darned convenient.
So casting the idea of having a more concise (and not ‘othering’ to PWKTGDMTSAAB) label for PWIATGTWAAB as a Nazi-like division of the population to foster enmity is … well, a big distraction at best, and a sneaky way to hold onto ‘unmarked class’ privilege most likely.  Either way, it’s a rather dis-productive allegation to make, as well as being sloppy history and sloppier linguistics.

Quit telling US how to deal with YOUR privilegeYou are just reinforcing the power dynamic, i.e., I am cis man, I expect you to please me in order for me to treat you with respect.
People have been meeting you where you are, and nobody has been dragging you anywhere. You just seem to insist that any time someone meets you, they’re assaulting you.
Grow up.

What terms do you like?Unless I’ve missed it somewhere, you haven’t said what you prefer instead of “cis.”
Your desire to bend the language so that the difference between a trans person and a cis person — while still talking about cis privilege?! — is absurd.
Go ahead and have a discussion about racism in America without mentioning “white” people. Call them “Americans” vs “African Americans.” See how far you get with that.

It’s not a medical termAre yu going to tell transsexuals they can no longer identify as transsexual?
In any case, what is your non-medical equivalent to “cis”? I’m dying to hear it. You haven’t proposed it yet.
The fact that you resolutely refuse to identify a better term shows that you aren’t really worried about “medical” connotations of the tone. You’re afraid of anyone talking about your cis privilege in any terminology.

No, I’m kevinchiand I, personally, have said nothing to you or asked anything of you that I haven’t said to my own mother (you think she isn’t privileged in that situation?)
I’m not treating you any differently.

I didn’t say that it wasI suggested the possibility that maybe it’s received as a quasi-medical term just as “heterosexual” and “homosexual” once were. I suggested (maybe I didn’t say this) that it sounds like a medical term.
And while I do get that that would touch on issues of privilege (particular as it relates to medical issues) there’s also a point of intersection, as “homosexual” also the nomenclature used by “ex-gay” quacks.

Since you wanted to drag this to QT……I’ll reply to you there.
For the record, I ain’t your mother and you sassing back to your mom does not make it okay for you tell trans people that they have to carefully repackage everything they say about your own cissexism in order to win your privileged cis approval.

What term do you prefer?As an alternative to “cis”?
I’ve asked this on the thread, as have other people, REPEATEDLY.  The only answers have been that cis people really want their status as cis people to be “invisible.” (If you can’t see how that’s offensive, then you don’t understand and refuse to grapple with your own cis privilege.)
So, please, kevinchi, tell me this:
What term do you prefer instead of “cis” to refer to cissexuals/cisgender people?
Will you at least have the decency to answer that question, or are you going to continue to use your fake butthurt at the pain of being called “cis” to oppress trans people?

I answered your questionBut not here. For now, anyway.

You sure are not my momand really, I could care less less about approval….if you only knew.

“I’ve asked this on the thread, as have other people, REPEATEDLY. “And the fact that no one has answered you, or is even willing to TALK to you, after days of badgering, should tell you most of what you need to know.

Yes, because you expect trans people to not talk about trans issues hereAs you made quite clear on QT, this whole charade by you is borne out of your desire to have PHB become unsafe for trans people to discuss trans people in front of cis people — sorry, I mean, “in front of kevinchi people.”

That the whole issue is a dodge to silence trans people?Yep that’s clear.

Say what?????????????? Nazis????????Y’know, I can’t even take two days off from The Blend to recharge without having to deal with a completely new nightmare regarding trans people and issues.
This cis- divide has just gone viral, and taken on a life of its own. Unbelievable.
Fritz, this comment is just beyond the pale. Trans people and Nazis? Are you kidding me?
Obviously not. Trapdoor dropped.