• rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      155
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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.

      • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        72
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Those kids on Tumblr, infamous for their coining of slurs, knowledge of Latin and history of Rome in equal measure.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Ok but you did describe a specific chunk of rome nerds. You’ve really got three kinds of rome nerds: the “I just think it’s neat” folks, the ones who think of it as glorious western tradition and lean fascist (it’s how they turned the symbol of Roman right to rule into the “kill everyone in the name of tradition” ideology), and then there are those of us who see a society that’s full on clown shoes where a bisexual twink managed to talk his way into destroying a republic among many many many other fucking bonkers things that just kept fucking happening while this empire refused to trade with China because of dipshit toxic masculinity. So yeah us in the last group lean anti fascist because rome was a shit show of a caliber only America and Russia can compare to

        • ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          39
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Most people don’t see cisgender as a slur. Only complete asshole transphobes do.

          Honestly, not even they do. They just lie about it as a gotcha.

          • Djtecha@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            8 months ago

            I’m not a fan of you assuming my identity. Did I ask to be referred to as that?

          • _cnt0@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            18
            ·
            8 months ago

            From wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender

            The term cisgender was coined in 1994 as an antonym to transgender, and entered into dictionaries starting in 2015 as a result of changes in social discourse about gender.[4][5] The term has been and continues to be controversial and subject to critique.

            I think there’s some confirmation bias on your end here. The local community (including me) tends to be young and liberal and knows the term cisgender. I’d bet that the majority (by a huge margin) of English speakers (including as a second or third language) has never even heard the term cisgender or doesn’t know what it means. Lots of them will react negatively if you label them cisgender out of pure ignorance and false assumptions - no transphobia needed.

            Only complete asshole transphobes do. Honestly, not even they do. They just lie about it as a gotcha.

            Sure, they exist. But what’s their percentage of the population or the X user base? I think you’re making a false generalization by an invalid extrapolation.

            And just to be clear: I’m not saying cisgender is a slur. I’m just pointing out that the notion that community A or an individual can decide whether some word is a slur or not in community B is ridiculous, and that the argument, from the first comment I replied to, for technical correctness or intended meaning of a word is irrelevant for who considers what a slur.

            I hope that made my point clearer to your dry-nosed primate’s brain.

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              I’m just pointing out that the notion that community A or an individual can decide whether some word is a slur or not in community B is ridiculous,

              As a member of group B I consider the word community a slur (purely because it is convenient for my argument to do so). Never use that word again because it is a slur and it would be ridiculous for you to say otherwise.

            • BmeBenji@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              I’m pretty confident the slur-status of a word is closely rated to whether or not it is used in a hateful way to refer to a people group or member of a group that is in some way disadvantaged. For example the n-word is obviously a slur and “cracker” or “whitey” obviously are not. That’s why cisgender isn’t a slur, even if people can and have use(d) it in a hateful way.

    • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      79
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • vithigar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        You could construct a cis- form of the word, but it’s not always going to be useful, or even sensible.

        Cismit? Cisaction? Cislate? Cisportation?

      • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        8 months ago

        Well, damn.

        The word is a threat because it linguistically separates biological sex from socially constructed categories of “woman” and “man.” That gender is a social construction undermines heteronormativity, critical to defending patriarchal sex roles and procreation.