X now considers the term “cisgender” a slur. On Tuesday, the platform reportedly began posting an official warning that the LGBTQ-inclusive terms could result in a ban from the platform.
We’re talking about a hypothetical example. What I’m saying it is only comparable to a cis person objecting to being called cis if your example is a trans person objecting to being called trans. Both would be wrong as they are factually correct technical terms, and thus they aren’t being used as slurs.
A closeted trans person would be offended that you outed them, not that you called them trans when they are. Although, if they were closeted then you’d probably have no reason to think they were trans.
Calling someone “cissy” is almost certainly meant as an insult, though, because that’s not the technical term. That’s like calling a gay person a fag, or calling a black person the n word. Calling a cis gendered person cis or cisgender is like calling a gay person gay.
Rejecting a label isn’t really valid when the label applies to you. You can’t eat pizza and then claim you’re not a pizza eater.
And, at the end of the day, the measure that matters is not whether or not you like it, it’s actual harm. Calling someone cis is very unlikely to cause them harm. Calling someone a fag could lead to harm (eg Top Gear people driving through Alabama with gay writing on their trucks).
I don’t think it necessarily matters even if the label technically does apply to them. I can very well imagine a black person for example taking issue with someone bringing attention to their skin color. Not because they’re not indeed black but because they don’t want to be described in a way that might diminish other features about them that they actually take pride over.
Or in my personal case while I’m technically part of LGBTQ I still don’t want to be associated with what I consider a political movement and when asked I’d wish not to be described in that way and would absolutely be offended with people dismissing my request and labeling me as such nevertheless. Labels often are inaccurate and overly simplifying so plenty of people rather describe themselves with sentences rather than abbreviations/generalizations.
The point isn’t really wether it’s a correct term or not but ignoring the wish to not be called that and instead doing so with the intention to insult.
Yes, I intentionally gave examples that were open. Some black people take offense to that label, others take offense to “African American”, or whatever. People take offense to all sorts of things. In the words of Stephen Fry, "So fucking what? It’s just a whine.”
The point isn’t really wether it’s a correct term or not but ignoring the wish to not be called that and instead doing so with the intention to insult.
The term is not inherently an insult, though. You would have to alter it (eg “cissy”) for it to reasonably be considered an insult by default. Merely objecting to a term that any reasonable person would see as accurate and not an insult is not enough - it would just be a whine. If it was used further after an objection, then maybe intent could be proven, but that’s not what Musk is talking about here. He’s banning the term altogether and saying it is inherently insulting, when it is not.
He’s not banning the term. There’s no problem using it as long as it’s used appropriately.
TechCrunch reported on Tuesday that trying to publish a post using the terms “cisgender” or “cis” in the X mobile app will pop up a full-screen warning reading, “This post contains language that may be considered a slur by X and could be used in a harmful manner in violation of our rules.” It then gives you the choice of continuing to publish the post…
We’re talking about a hypothetical example. What I’m saying it is only comparable to a cis person objecting to being called cis if your example is a trans person objecting to being called trans. Both would be wrong as they are factually correct technical terms, and thus they aren’t being used as slurs.
A closeted trans person would be offended that you outed them, not that you called them trans when they are. Although, if they were closeted then you’d probably have no reason to think they were trans.
Calling someone “cissy” is almost certainly meant as an insult, though, because that’s not the technical term. That’s like calling a gay person a fag, or calling a black person the n word. Calling a cis gendered person cis or cisgender is like calling a gay person gay.
Rejecting a label isn’t really valid when the label applies to you. You can’t eat pizza and then claim you’re not a pizza eater.
And, at the end of the day, the measure that matters is not whether or not you like it, it’s actual harm. Calling someone cis is very unlikely to cause them harm. Calling someone a fag could lead to harm (eg Top Gear people driving through Alabama with gay writing on their trucks).
I don’t think it necessarily matters even if the label technically does apply to them. I can very well imagine a black person for example taking issue with someone bringing attention to their skin color. Not because they’re not indeed black but because they don’t want to be described in a way that might diminish other features about them that they actually take pride over.
Or in my personal case while I’m technically part of LGBTQ I still don’t want to be associated with what I consider a political movement and when asked I’d wish not to be described in that way and would absolutely be offended with people dismissing my request and labeling me as such nevertheless. Labels often are inaccurate and overly simplifying so plenty of people rather describe themselves with sentences rather than abbreviations/generalizations.
The point isn’t really wether it’s a correct term or not but ignoring the wish to not be called that and instead doing so with the intention to insult.
Yes, I intentionally gave examples that were open. Some black people take offense to that label, others take offense to “African American”, or whatever. People take offense to all sorts of things. In the words of Stephen Fry, "So fucking what? It’s just a whine.”
The term is not inherently an insult, though. You would have to alter it (eg “cissy”) for it to reasonably be considered an insult by default. Merely objecting to a term that any reasonable person would see as accurate and not an insult is not enough - it would just be a whine. If it was used further after an objection, then maybe intent could be proven, but that’s not what Musk is talking about here. He’s banning the term altogether and saying it is inherently insulting, when it is not.
He’s not banning the term. There’s no problem using it as long as it’s used appropriately.
And I’m certain your tweet won’t be rated in any way that limits its visibility to others…