X now treats the term cisgender as a slur

I don’t think Elon feels personally threatened. I think he feels hate and a misguided sense of heroism. If you listen to him speak enough, it becomes painfully obvious that he not only thinks he’s the most important person in the world, he also thinks he’s the smartest person in the world. Basically he thinks he can’t possibly be wrong, no matter how many experts who’ve dedicated their lives to the pursuit of knowledge in a field that’s new to him disagree with him.

That, plus the constant stream of right wing propaganda from his Twitter addiction, has convinced him that the acceptance of trans people will lead to the destruction of society. His brain is rotten to the core at this point. So he’s made it his personal mission to make trans people’s lives worse.

bullshit. cis- is a latin prefix that means "on this side of". So for example, the Roman region Cisalpine Gaul could reasonably be interpreted as "the part of Gaul that's on our side of the Alpines". The prefix trans- is the antonym meaning "on the far side". Transalpine Gaul was the part of the Roman empire on the other side of the Alpines. When related to gender, the only way cisgender can be read in any context is "their gender aligns with their sex". There is no way that could ever be reasonably be interpreted as a slur.

When you have a trans-something you have cis-something. It's how language works.

The only way for cisgender to be a slur is if you consider transgender a slur too.

Cisgender originated on Usenet in alt.transgender in 1994.

I Coined The Term 'Cisgender' 29 Years Ago. Here's What This Controversial Word Really Means.

https://www.historians.org/research-and-publications/perspectives-on-history/may-2017/tracing-terminology-researching-early-uses-of-cisgender

Ok, I'm going to be completely honest with you. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

Are you telling me that I made a shit comment? If so, please do say so because I'm gonna be honest: I am not sure about this comment and I've been thinking about deleting it ever since I posted it. I rewrote it like five or six times before until I finally got fed up with it and said "fuck it" and posted it. :|

EDIT:

So, according to all of you, I worry too much. Thanks a lot for the support, and I'm glad you liked my comment. ❤️

I'm afraid you are putting a lot of words into my mouth and making lots of assomptions about what I'm saying here. I don't really know how to answer to this because, well, you're debating against things I didn't say.

I'm calling you cis, because it's simply a descriptive term. You are white, you are a man, you are cisgender. That's not a problem. I'm white, I'm a woman, I'm transgender. That's not a problem. These, on their own, are simply descriptors. No one here is saying that you're a problem. I'm talking about people who specifically take offense to these terms, like Musk here does, like, if you tell this man that he is "cis", he will genuienly get upset.

I have never been excluded from truth seeking conversations because I am cis. Everyone likes an ally. Some people actually like them a little too much in my experience.

If you are in a queer safe space you should treat it like you are at your in-laws house. You don't need to be expressing every diverging opinion or challenging every cultural assumption. In my experience, if you are being met with hostility, it's because you are projecting it.

So, do you believe cis is a slur?

why not come out and make your point instead of JAQing off?

The most critical component of "free speech" to a right-winger isn't just the ability to say whatever they want with no repercussions, it's also that an audience has to be forced to listen to them.

There are plenty of shithole places on the Internet where they can spout their transphobic, Great Replacement anti-Semitic shit all day long, but that's not good enough for them. They need a "lib" to be triggered.

Not to play down how absolutely terrible I'm sure Musk is as a father, but her mum's also loaded. That would certainly make the decision easier.

I think you're currently in a place where I was in myself many years ago. This is all assuming everything you said was in good faith. You see all of the pain and damage the -isms have caused (racism, sexism, etc) and it seems at first blush that if society simply disregarded the traits those -isms are based around, the problem would go away. There's enough truth in the idea to make it feel like a solution and, even if it's subconscious, it kinda takes the onus of action off of you and puts it on the people that that are actually racist or exist. I don't want to assume your political leanings, but I was farther right on the political spectrum than than I am now, and it fit well with my ideas about personal responsibility and limited government at the time...and I feel like it was regarded as common sense with everyone in that political sphere at the time. At the time, I was a 20-something cishet white guy (I'm still all of those things, except 20), and I felt like everything I had I'd earned, and I legit thought people could pull themselves out of the mire if they wanted it enough. I didn't like being grouped in with the -ists, but I also wasn't likely to call out a buddy for making an offensive joke.

That whole chain of thinking is deeply flawed, but it's an easy place to land, especially in middle-America. I feel like a good analogy that would have hit home with me at that point in my life would have been stories about places where Christianity was outlawed. I remember I had one of those old Christian comic books that were popular in the 90s about it. If you wanted to wear a cross, you'd have to hide it, you couldn't talk about being Christian or meet with other Christians (like a church service or prayer group) without having to worry about the law coming down on you. (Really makes me wonder where that infamous sense of persecution the right has comes from). At the time, I'd hear those stories and think, "Man, government sucks...it would be terrible to have to hide who you were like that." I think about those stories now and I think instead about not wearing the clothes you're comfortable in, not being able to get healthcare for legit medical diagnoses, not being able to have a club or group of similar people you couls safely meet with to build community around shared life experiences. The story about persucted Christians in some unnamed dystopia was also telling the true story of LGBTQ people in my own country. And women in my own country. And racial groups In. My. Own. Country. I never would have accepted the idea that those persecuted Christians would be OK if there just wasn't religion. Just like I know marginalized groups today won't be OK if whatever society deems "wrong" with them just went away. Societies have inertia, and without someone exerting some kind of force on them, they'll maintain their current trajectory. I came to see I didn't like my societies trajectory, so I started trying to change it, probably went a little too extreme in the other direction for a while, but eventually learned to just listen first. It's OK if I belong to a group (or several) that have been bad actors. It means I'm in a position to leverage my privileges to help change society's momentum. I grew up very poor, but I've got pretty much every other privilege society has to offer. I honestly don't know that I'd have been as fortunate as I am today if even one of those privileges was missing. Even with the deck stacked pretty well in my favor, it was a fucking fight to get here...and even now, doing so much better than most, it feels like barely hanging on some days. I agree that humanism is what we should be striving for, but I also understand that I'm part of a group that's done a lot of bad to a lot of other groups. I don't think it makes sense for me to be "proud" of any immutable part of my identity, but that also means I shouldn't feel personally attacked when people talk about that identity. Things like the whole bear thing would have probably bothered me in the past, but now it's more nuanced. I'm sad people feel that way, but I don't blame them, and I've listened enough that I believe them. Now the question I ask isn't "How is this fair to me?" but instead. "How can I use my membership in the group to help change its momentum to something better." Sometimes it's voting, sometimes it's canvassing or protesting, sometimes it's reaching out to someone I see a part of my past self in.

Cisgender is a descriptive term. If you have seen it in a derogatory context, then you should take issue with the context.

The definition of cis is, "a person whose gender identity corresponds to their sex assigned at birth." Does you gender identity correspond to the sex you were assigned at birth? Mine does.

People made the same arguments about "heterosexual" and "straight", at least with the latter I could see why someone would see that as a slur (it's a term originates from animal farming), while "heterosexual" just describes someone is attracted to the opposite gender (go on, and use it as an "a ha!" moment against me by claiming it as a proof that even I know there's only two genders, like fundamentalists do with atheists saying "oh my god!"). "Cis" is just the opposite of "trans", even if Musk had the techbro-level idea of treating "cis" the same way most sensible people treat that "cool and funny" gamer word, he wants to say out loud in the public, like he used to do it in apartheid Africa.

CSI Gender. It's a spinoff taking place in the town of Gender, New Mexico.

No women allowed club, only bros

Because cis people are banned

if used descriptively it's not a slur.

if used to harass, intimidate, and demean, it's a slur.

These snowflakes are ridiculous.

Don't use a bully rhetoric.

Gender dysphoria, the psychological suffering caused by feeling like you are in the wrong body, is the disease. Being a trans person is not a disease, and using that as a basis for insulting or discriminating is inappropriate. Somewhat like autism is the mental disease but having autism is not a disease and it is inappropriate to treat a person as if it is the entirety of their existence. Way too often illness has been used as the basis of mistreatment and outright extermination. People have diseases, they aren't their diseases. We have introduced this notion from the fields of ethics in medicine and it's why a lot of things are no longer used in language nor in concept: the disabled, the retarded, the syphilitic, the autistic, etc. People aren't diseases and they aren't their disease.

If you knew a thing or two about the history of gender, you'd know that medicalization of gender is precisely one of the main historical roots to justify discrimination, criminalization and abuse towards trans people. Medicalization of gender has literally killed millions of people throughout history.

Believe it or not, your understanding is not essential. Unfortunately for you, truth is nuanced and not conveniently delineated. Just because you can't grasp it, doesn't make it a mystery.

Give me a break.

Cis people have received an inordinate number of breaks for the entirety of recorded history. You will never be killed for holding hands with the wrong person. No nation has a death penalty for expressing your love openly.

That should be the human race.

I think it's okay for a queer app to focus on queer shit and not associate with a label which is overwhelmingly used to virtue signal being a bigot, that's not really an attack on equality.

I would also reject such a pull request. Straight folks aren't systematically shamed for being straight. They don't need pride to counter nonexistent shame.

I bet all the conservatives are gonna be mad when they find out that even I have no idea if I'm truly male or not. That would make me genderqueer, which is a subset of trans. I mean, I do look very masculine, and use he/him pronouns, but my voice is a bit too... "gay", and I like wearing tight clothing and oversized sweaters with bucket hats (bonus points if it's a color that isn't even close to being associated with manliness, at least where I'm from, such as... idk, pink, and in the case of what I would wear, purple).

What's the percentage of cis in that case? 50%? Less? More? How would being aroace affect my het percentage?

Well, imagine being aromantic AND asexual at the same time. The former refers to experiencing no romantic attraction (so... no feeling of love outside of friends and family), the latter refers to experiencing no sexual attraction (so... the lack of a desire to have sex basically).

You need to have sex to have children, which is also something I don't want. Hell, I don't even wanna be married. Most people I know are mad at me for just that, let alone associating myself with the LGBT community for basically not wanting marriage and children... and also not feeling manly enough.

You learn new stuff everyday.

This is beautiful. Shutting down the discourse completely by virtue of being inarguably correct. I applaud this comment.

You illustrated the point better than I had the energy to do-- I simply don't care enough to be that eloquent because the majority of what I get is nonsense in return. So instead of wasting my time, I chose to take the lazy route and encourage people to come to a consensus on this one key point so that the point you made would become irrefutable.

Neither trans nor cis are slurs by default, but anything can be a slur if used in a derogatory manner-- I think some comedian had a bit about this, but I can't recall who and I'm sure even if I did there's a good chance someone would give me a nasty label for saying such comedian made a good point....

But the same people that say trans can be a slur, cannot deny in good faith that cis cannot be a slur. They are both simple classifiers with no basis on prejudice. But some people will still argue they are slurs simply because they are used prominently in derogatory contexts.