Opinion of Memphis

[traininthedistance]

Used to be reasonably high, but sinking fast as he keeps digging deeper.

[traininthedistance]

Crazy people on tumblr who believe they're "transracial" or some other bs != the vast majority of people who use the term cisgender. I don't do it out of malice or because I have a chip on my shoulder, just because its a lot less awkward to say than "non-transgender" or something.

Do people who that word is supposed to apply to even say "cisgender"?

I've used it to describe myself.  (Often in a string with "straight, white, male, etc etc.", but still.)

It's a useful, neutral word for a concept that actually exists.  And I'm a fan of its etymology.

[traininthedistance]

Crazy people on tumblr who believe they're "transracial" or some other bs != the vast majority of people who use the term cisgender. I don't do it out of malice or because I have a chip on my shoulder, just because its a lot less awkward to say than "non-transgender" or something.

Do people who that word is supposed to apply to even say "cisgender"?

I think its the play on the word 'sissy', n'est-ce pas?

N'est pas.

It's a play on Latin prefixes, cis being the opposite of trans.  As seen in cis and trans molecules from high school chemistry, or Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul.

[traininthedistance]

Identifying as cisgendered is about as useful as identifying as a non-lawyer or not a paper bag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL

Yeah, pretty useful.

[traininthedistance]

Identifying as cisgendered is about as useful as identifying as a non-lawyer or not a paper bag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL

Yeah, pretty useful.

Perhaps it was a bad example, but again, this is only relevant in incredibly specific circumstances.

Eh, most words are only useful in specific circumstances.  I wouldn't really bring up "cisgender" unless there was a discussion about gender issues going on.  But since there is such a discussion going on, of course it's relevant.

[traininthedistance]

Wait, Dr J is a female impersonator as well?

It's a harmless hobby. I don't hold it against him.

Well, the fact that you disrespect her by using the wrong pronoun makes it hard to believe that.

And, yes, it is simply just a matter of basic respect.

[traininthedistance]

memphis, why do you insist on not even pretending to understand trans issues or doing even the basic respect of...ugh, never mind.

I don't pretend to understand psychology. And I'm very suspicious of those who claim to. Not even the best medical professionals understand more than bit about the brain and how it works. I do, however understand the basics of human anatomy, English language pronouns, and their intersection. Those issues are pretty simple.

May I simply request that you step back, take a breath, and at least entertain the possibilty that:

a) these issues might not be simple, and that
b) other people know more about them than you do.

That shouldn't be hard for any reasonable person to do, no?

[traininthedistance]

I'm not resenting or judging anybody. As I've said many times, if a guy wants to wear a dress and take hormones, it doesn't effect me or bother me. Full stop. However, I'm a bit of a stickler regarding baloney. I was the kid in 2nd grade jumping up and down insisting that Santa Claus was not real. The dress and the hormones do not magically turn a man into a woman even if they make him happy and he strongly wishes they would. I also rather resent King's comment. I am not currently dating any of the ladies pictured, but they are all beautiful inside and out.

The problem is less that you hold the views you do regarding trans people (at first blush, they'd strike me as well-intentioned but ignorant), the problem is that you utterly refuse to listen or learn from people who have actual experience and expertise in the matter.  And that is a problem.

Calling gender dysphoria "baloney" is simply an example of you falling prey to the Dunning-Kruger effect, rather than any sort of straight shooting (pun intended).

[traininthedistance]

What's "sjw"?

[traininthedistance]

lots of stuff

Speaking as someone who is pretty obviously on Nathan and drj's side of the argument here, I think this is quite thoughtful and reasonable, and I have a hard time disagreeing with much of it at all.  As I alluded to, my problem is not so much memphis' views (I fully accept and understand that they are ingrained within many well-meaning people who just don't know any better), but his resistance to re-examining them at all.  I just put a high premium on "the examined life", as it were, and I think it's important to listen to people with divergent experiences, in general.

FWIW, I do think there is one person on "our" side of the argument here who has overstepped the line from justified, righteous indignation to counterproductive, gratuitous assholery in this thread.  And it's neither Nathan nor drj.