Goldsmiths University Diversity officer facing sack

[brogdale]

It'll probably catch on eventually. I didn't use to describe myself as straight either but now I don't think twice about it.

You may be right, and I'm fully aware that I may be struggling with some latent reactionary aversion to the term, but I have to say that I am personally very averse to self-describing by my sexuality, gender or sexual proclivity. If asked directly (for good reason) I would know that I was 'straight' or 'cis' or even 'vestite', but I would feel as uneasy self-describing in these terms as I would calling myself an atheist. These descriptors accord an importance to the particular criteria chosen that I don't share.

 

[Pickman's model]

It'll probably catch on eventually. I didn't use to describe myself as straight either but now I don't think twice about it.

do you think about it at all?

 

[Pickman's model]

I would know that I was 'straight' or 'cis' or even 'vestite',

you're not a naturist then.

 

[Sea Star]

I cant continue to argue this - i felt dysphoria kicking in yesterday and if i keep discussi bc this ill end up suicidal again like i did over xmas.

But just to wrap up my viewpoint. It seems to me that trans women, who are women, are excluded from some spaces because a small number of feminists consider is still to be men and that our continued existence and our self identification as women is an affront to their theoretical view of what gender is.

And so we are excluded by cis men and by cis women.

There are more than one theories on gender and i just ask for tolerance and inclusion instead of hatred and exclusion.

Why cant the TEs accept that most other people dont agree with them?

Im lucky - all the cis women in my life have accepted me as a woman and i am involved in a few womens groups now.

It helps that i look female. But not every trans woman is so fortunate.

 

[Treacle Toes]

FWIW, I don't think name calling (mean/closed minded) is helpful and will probably do more to derail the discussion than anything else.

What is clear from the conversation is that some of the opinions that are being discussed haven't been formed through actual experience. As such, much of this discussion is a theoretical/exploratory one. Whilst you could argue that there is a lack of understanding I really don't think anyone is trying to be mean spirited or malevolent.

 

[smokedout]

For one thing it appears to suffer from the same weakness that antagonises some described as atheists; the word defines people on a parameter selected as important to one group, but not the other.

are you comparing transsexuality to a religion?

 

[brogdale]

are you comparing transsexuality to a religion?

No

 

[Sea Star]

FWIW, I don't think name calling (mean/closed minded) is helpful and will probably do more to derail the discussion than anything else.

What is clear from the conversation is that some of the opinions that are being discussed haven't been formed through actual experience. As such, much of this discussion is a theoretical/exploratory one. Whilst you could argue that there is a lack of understanding I really don't think anyone is trying to be mean spirited or malevolent.

I havent name called anyone

 

[cesare]

do you think about it at all?

Yes

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes

but just the once

 

[Pickman's model]

I havent name called anyone

it's early days yet

 

[Treacle Toes]

I havent name called anyone

I know you haven't. Maybe i should have quoted those that did to avoid any confusion.

 

[cesare]

but just the once

No; more than that but not twice.

 

[cesare]

I know you haven't. Maybe i should have quoted those that did to avoid any confusion.

It's only littlebabyjesus that called Thora mean so more direct criticism from both you and Nancy_Winks will help avoid confusion, I agree.

 

[brogdale]

FWIW, I don't think name calling (mean/closed minded) is helpful and will probably do more to derail the discussion than anything else.

What is clear from the conversation is that some of the opinions that are being discussed haven't been formed through actual experience. As such, much of this discussion is a theoretical/exploratory one. Whilst you could argue that there is a lack of understanding I really don't think anyone is trying to be mean spirited or malevolent.

Speaking theoretically, I can't imagine that many trans people would expect/desire the absurd proposition that others would self-describe using the antonym of their gender status. I fully agree, that for the basis of mutual understanding, that it useful for the wider population to appreciate what the prefix means, but its effective use appears most likely within and between the trans population.

 

[joustmaster]

While it's always useful to appreciate the etymology, I'm not at all convinced about the usefulness or need of the prefix beyond the minority that perceive themselves to be 'othered'. Just because a term operates as an antonym does not necessarily give it 'coinage' amongst the population outside of the minority. For one thing it appears to suffer from the same weakness that antagonises some described as atheists; the word defines people on a parameter selected as important to one group, but not the other.

It is always helpful to know how and why a term has evolved, but I would be surprised to hear non-trans people use the term 'cis' to describe their gender status.

I was in a twiggy real ale sort of bar at the weekend, and a man used the word cis in conversation, with me. So its being used.
There no trans people there. Just bearded (cis)men drink real ale and talking about computer servers.
It wasn't the most rock and roll weekend I've ever had.

Out of interest - If you were with your mates, and you had a conversation about trans people, what term would you use to describe people who weren't trans?

 

[Sea Star]

it's early days yet

No i had my heated moment yesterday and i kept it together

 

[Sea Star]

Speaking theoretically, I can't imagine that many trans people would expect/desire the absurd proposition that others would self-describe using the antonym of their gender status. I fully agree, that for the basis of mutual understanding, that it useful for the wider population to appreciate what the prefix means, but its effective use appears most likely within and between the trans population.

Cis people in my circles regularly use the term. And not just when im around.

Similarly i refer to myself as straight and heterosexual even when there arent gay people present.

Just because were a minority it doesnt mean you can get away with disregarding us im afraid!

 

[brogdale]

Out of interest - If you were with your mates, and you had a conversation about trans people, what term would you use to describe people who weren't trans?

People.

 

[joustmaster]

People.

you would call a trans person a trans person, and you'd call a cis person just a person?

 

[Sea Star]

People.

And that is how trans people become non people

 

[Sea Star]

People.

Youre actually taking the UKIP line on this. Just saying.

 

[brogdale]

Cis people in my circles regularly use the term. And not just when im around.

Similarly i refer to myself as straight and heterosexual even when there arent gay people present.

Just because were a minority it doesnt mean you can get away with disregarding us im afraid!

If people want to self-describe in that way...fine.

But anyone not particularly wanting to self-describe on the basis of gender/sexuality is also fine...and doesn't necessarily imply any deliberate disregard.

 

[brogdale]

Youre actually taking the UKIP line on this. Just saying.

May be so, but it happens to be my preferred 'line' personally.

 

[Sea Star]

. . These descriptors accord an importance to the particular criteria chosen that I don't share.

Which is cis and heterosexual privilege

I wish i didnt have to think about gender or sexuality but its been a bit in my face all my life!! Not helped by the fact that many people who usually believe in human rights dont appear to give a shit about trans, or are against our very existence. This is not a time to be sitting on the fence.

 

[Sea Star]

If people want to self-describe in that way...fine.

But anyone not particularly wanting to self-describe on the basis of gender/sexuality is also fine...and doesn't necessarily imply any deliberate disregard.

I feel very strongly that youre missing the point here.

 

[brogdale]

And that is how trans people become non people

I can see that. But tbf I was asked specifically about non-trans people. Had I been asked about how I might describe trans people I would have offered the same answer. FWIW.

 

[brogdale]

I feel very strongly that youre missing the point here.

go on...

 

[joustmaster]

I can see that. But tbf I was asked specifically about non-trans people. Had I been asked about how I might describe trans people I would have offered the same answer. FWIW.

the question I asked was about an imaginary conversation about trans people and the terms you would use.
you are saying that in such a conversation, you would use the same word to describe both groups?

sounds like back pedaling, to me..

 

[Sea Star]

go on...

Your implication being that somehow this is my fault?