It was meant as an insult, sort of. It was meant to reverse the verbal power dynamic in calling someone trans.
It was meant to make the oppressor feel oppressed and learn from the experience.
But CIS bigots go full on victim mode without the “oh is this what it is like for you” empathy moment that some people can experience.
Republicans only can experience empathy for their children, and Republicans can only feel empathy if it happens in the open and their peers talk about it. Then all the sudden the Republican is heartfelt in their sorrow for their personal ratings dip.
It’s very simple. You have a word for somebody whose gender identity is different from what they were assigned at birth; so, you also need a word for the opposite of that (somebody whose gender identity is the same as what they were assigned at birth). And no, you can’t just call those people “normal”.
The word wasn’t created in order to reverse a power dynamic or make an oppressor feel oppressed. It was created because you needed a word there.
Backing up the “normal” part of your comment. What’s normal anyway? What’s deemed to be normal by society. So of course you need a term. Especially in an age where people are informed enough and primed to know about these subjects compared to 10ish years ago. Claiming that CIS is exclusionary is so silly
It never occurred to me that was the intention. It is quite funny when people get together to come up with some clever idea but forget to tell the target audience. I saw it, understood it meant “not trans,” and moved on. I also don’t get involved in a ton of gender discussions. There seems to be an over abundance of focus on it for reasons unclear to me.
It was meant as an insult, sort of. It was meant to reverse the verbal power dynamic in calling someone trans.
It was meant to make the oppressor feel oppressed and learn from the experience.
But CIS bigots go full on victim mode without the “oh is this what it is like for you” empathy moment that some people can experience.
Republicans only can experience empathy for their children, and Republicans can only feel empathy if it happens in the open and their peers talk about it. Then all the sudden the Republican is heartfelt in their sorrow for their personal ratings dip.
No it wasn’t.
It’s very simple. You have a word for somebody whose gender identity is different from what they were assigned at birth; so, you also need a word for the opposite of that (somebody whose gender identity is the same as what they were assigned at birth). And no, you can’t just call those people “normal”.
The word wasn’t created in order to reverse a power dynamic or make an oppressor feel oppressed. It was created because you needed a word there.
Backing up the “normal” part of your comment. What’s normal anyway? What’s deemed to be normal by society. So of course you need a term. Especially in an age where people are informed enough and primed to know about these subjects compared to 10ish years ago. Claiming that CIS is exclusionary is so silly
It never occurred to me that was the intention. It is quite funny when people get together to come up with some clever idea but forget to tell the target audience. I saw it, understood it meant “not trans,” and moved on. I also don’t get involved in a ton of gender discussions. There seems to be an over abundance of focus on it for reasons unclear to me.