how is being called cis marginalizing
most people are cis, it's like... the complete opposite of marginalizing
you are not a minority
oh cool, so what were the opinions
i bet they weren't hateful or bigoted
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Opinions on the anti-lgbtq legislation.
- Thread starter Bunjolio
- Start date
- Views 8,572
- Replies 150
- Likes 6
- Status
most people are cis, it's like... the complete opposite of marginalizing
you are not a minority
i bet they weren't hateful or bigoted
Calling someone cis is marginalizing because it reduces relevance, the same way that calling someone gay does. It's not that difficult to understand that subcategorizing people is marginalizing in function.
I rephrased my "opinion", though I consider it a reconciliation of sorts. If you don't see anything bigoted now, then you are probably leaning on your appeal to authority for a baseless insinuation.
And that's why I pose the question of it having to be. Because that is a single interpretation of what it means to be drag. But it doesn't have to be only one thing. Sure it CAN be sexual when appropriate, like at a late night show where there shouldn't be just any old child around to see, but in a situation where it shouldn't be, well obviously it shouldn't be. Just like I can be super goofy and be dressed relaxed at a party, but then suited up and solemn at a funeral. I'm not locked in to being one thing, and I certainly wouldn't want someone to keep interpreting me as goofy when I'm trying to be solemn.
The funny thing is, it kind of is. Humans love to define and organize and group things. It helps, of course, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's funny to admit that we can get so bogged down by things that we just arbitrarily decided one day based on information and interpretations of that information at the time. It really is one of the funniest and most frustrating things.
I think that's exactly why nuance is so important and why it's so hard, because from what I can tell, it's both. It does matter and it doesn't. It's arbitrary but it's so important to us. It really is a contradiction that can be difficult to work through. Which is why being open to discussing things and not being locked into one opinion or interpretation is important, especially if those opinion are founded on false or outdated science.
Yeah, I suppose one wouldn't have to take a deep dive into the gender spectrum, but to not acknowledge that science has been steadily pointing to the existence of a spectrum is a whole other thing.
And kids tend to pick up on things easily, so long as the education itself isn't confusing or contradictory. So many know "MITOCHODRIA IS THE POWERHOUSE OF THE CELL" because we were consistently taught that.
I would argue that teaching that there are 2 sexes but a spectrum of gender representation isn't too difficult to get, especially if there are no previous biases or anything preventing that idea, but then again, I only dabbled in educational psychology, so I'm only working off of the little I can remember and I imagine there's so much more to it than I realize or can recall.
I kind of agree with some of your points, but the drag thing is reactionary to a system that we seem to both believe is archaic. Being reactionary, it still incorporates the sexualization of gender.And that's why I pose the question of it having to be. Because that is a single interpretation of what it means to be drag. But it doesn't have to be only one thing. Sure it CAN be sexual when appropriate, like at a late night show where there shouldn't be just any old child around to see, but in a situation where it shouldn't be, well obviously it shouldn't be. Just like I can be super goofy and be dressed relaxed at a party, but then suited up and solemn at a funeral. I'm not locked in to being one thing, and I certainly wouldn't want someone to keep interpreting me as goofy when I'm trying to be solemn.
The funny thing is, it kind of is. Humans love to define and organize and group things. It helps, of course, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's funny to admit that we can get so bogged down by things that we just arbitrarily decided one day based on information and interpretations of that information at the time. It really is one of the funniest and most frustrating things.
I think that's exactly why nuance is so important and why it's so hard, because from what I can tell, it's both. It does matter and it doesn't. It's arbitrary but it's so important to us. It really is a contradiction that can be difficult to work through. Which is why being open to discussing things and not being locked into one opinion or interpretation is important, especially if those opinion are founded on false or outdated science.
Yeah, I suppose one wouldn't have to take a deep dive into the gender spectrum, but to not acknowledge that science has been steadily pointing to the existence of a spectrum is a whole other thing.
And kids tend to pick up on things easily, so long as the education itself isn't confusing or contradictory. So many know "MITOCHODRIA IS THE POWERHOUSE OF THE CELL" because we were consistently taught that.
The "spectrum" approach is a step in a better direction, but it undermines the message that people should feel free. It's more focused on countering what was instead of backing off and learning from people who aren't already as biased. (The kids). It's imposing on them with a stupid culture war that they could save us from if we didn't interfere.
two things
first: do you think gender categorization is marginalizing
it's a subcategory of a human, male and female
it's actually much more aggressive than cis, because the overwhelming majority are cis, male and female cut half the world out
second: how does it reduce relevance
categorizing people is a necessary part of language, it helps us determine key factors
i'm sure you'd have no issue responding in the negative to the question "are you trans?" so why so mad that the non-trans label is attached to you
why resist identification
I said it was a couple posts back, by saying that 2 genders is too much.
No it’s not. It’s a feature that language incorporates, but you can talk in a way that doesn’t categorize people. Different languages have come from different cultures, but those cultures didn’t give birth to their language by saying “we are different”. To the contrary, it was because they found a common consensus, sameness among themselves, that they were able to create language in the first place.
I’ll give you a gold star if you can comment on how it’s relevant to my gender.
this is... a take
we are all the same species, we share enormous similarities with each other
it is worth interacting with each other as equals
but acting like the differences aren't relevant to interaction is just wrong on the face of it
straight-up factual inaccuracy
like this thread, for example, is about laws oppressing minorities
knowing whether you're being affected directly by this is absolutely relevant
it isn't
linneaus' work is not relevant to this discussion
you're missing tabzer's argument
he's not saying that categories don't exist
he's saying categories are unnecessary
If you care to provide an example, we can have a discussion instead of whatever you are doing.
This thread has yet to demonstrate what laws are oppressing minorities or how. It’s just a bunch of people losing their shit. I can be trans regardless of what anyone says.
i provided an example a line break down from what you quoted
it is amazing how much bad faith you can fit in a single sentence
seems this isn't worth it
on my way out, though, shout out to walter, the man's mouth is full-up right now
the online version of the guy whose only role is to stand behind a pastor and go "preach, reverend"
Did you fail “connect the dots” as a kid?
Kind of. They are relative. For people who want “all inclusiveness” they need to divorce themselves from subcategorizing people.
He’s literally barred from having an opinion here, so he is relegated to the position.
Do you know what an example is? It’s not an opinion, which is what you are referring to now.
Actually they aren't at all, to them it is just something fun to do. If it were about sexuality then they would be getting railed in their dresses.
Actually the opposite, as many drag queens do not show off their normal day to day attire either, there were even videos done to show that during professional settings they wear normal attire and would look like any other average Joe on the street, and this while showing where they work normally when not dressing in drag. Unless of course you consider a button up shirt, grey slacks, black work shoes, and black socks sexual or inappropriate somehow then that's a you problem.
Even then that is like saying taking your kid to any kind of convention that feature cosplay is teaching them that they can dress like their favorite game, comic, movie, TV, or anime character, when in reality it is just for fun.
As for reading to kids, if it were about sexuality or grooming, there would be a lot more reports about goings on considering the parents and staff at these libraries are present at all times, and are usually recording everything. Some people just like to do nice things for kids and want to have fun while doing it too. If a clown decided to read silly stories to children would you question why the clown is wearing their outfit around the children?
Let's be honest though it's not about the kids at the end of the day, because it were about the kids, the laws would only be there for the children, however, it is going after adults as well who might just be doing this on a stage or performance.
Being real on this point too, if it were really about stopping sexualization/grooming of children, then these same people would be going after something that was actually harmful to children like child pageants, but again, no US conservatives politicians haven't said its bad so US conservatives don't care and it is absolutely hilarious and sad that Drag Queens weren't seen as an issue in any setting until the US Conservative Politicians within the last couple of years.
While I try to show that categorizing isn't necessarily a bad thing!
Did you know what "connect the dots" and "kids" have together?
Categories!
Categorizing isn’t a bad thing, by itself. But when you start picking out “what” people belong in “which box” you have started playing god. It becomes about managing race, managing sexuality, managing what people can and cannot do/think/feel. At least attempting.
There is a reason why you chose to become a mod and why I never would. It may be a “necessary evil” for now, but if you aren’t aware of that, then this point is lost on you.
The thing is we categorize people in our daily life subconsciously already, or heck even consciously!
"That guy got long hair and a scraggly beard. Must be a homeless person or a junkie"
"That woman looks like a bimbo! Probably a escort or instagram model".
So having the word "cis" to describe someone is imho not a bad thing. It's more or less just a different word for "straight".
"That guy got long hair and a scraggly beard. Must be a homeless person or a junkie"
"That woman looks like a bimbo! Probably a escort or instagram model".
So having the word "cis" to describe someone is imho not a bad thing. It's more or less just a different word for "straight".
It looks like you are using the existence of shitty human behavior to rationalize more shitty human behavior.
But that’s just my opinion.
“Straight” and “gay”, as I have mentioned before, are relatively modern terms that the ancient world couldn’t be arsed to differentiate. People have the luxury of being bored now, and create stupid shit.
Well languages and terms evolve. It always have. I mean gay was a common word for "happy" not to long ago, now days it's a term for a homosexual rather than the word "happy".
Just because you don't wanna agree with it, doesn't mean it's wrong. What you describe is the typical "boomer" behavior people talk about. If you don't like the term "boomer" you could also call it "A grumpy old man".
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Locked
-
- Locked
- Locked
-
- Locked
