Illinois judge cites “cisgender” subjects in transgender bathroom ruling

A word from our sponsor:

Printer-friendly version

Author: 

Blog About: 

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/19/illinois-judge-cites-c...

And yes the comments are just as stupid as you think they are.

Comments

"HotAir" is correct

Teresa L.'s picture

the hot air is definitely coming from the "rear entrance" as it were, lol.

Teresa L.

The article itself...

The article itself has a very clear moral conservative bias. According to whoever wrote that article, the terms cisgender and transgender were "made up" by SJWs, not by the people actually living the shit-hole people like them have made the lives of those who happen to BE transgender.

Also, the writer clearly has no sense of the history of language. The correct English term for a new word that has only recently entered the lexicon is coined. The fact that there is a word for it, and it's not simply saying it's a "made up" word, signifies something important: at some point in time, every single word in use in every single language had to be COINED by a person or group of persons. That's the nature of a LIVING language. It either grows and evolves with people constantly contributing to it, or it dies. Transgender and cisgender are words. They were coined fairly recently. Their definitions are still in a malleable state. But they ARE words. New ones.

Assholes who want to stay in the past are more than welcome to do so. They're only required to do one thing: die. That is, after all, what history is: Things that are dead and gone. Yes, they shaped the present. However, despite what actual intelligence would say ought to happen, history never shapes the future. History gets forgotten, sometimes a good thing, usually a bad thing, but whether it's good or bad to forget history, the reality is the same.

Here, in the present, the future is being shaped, and that future is looking a whole lot nicer for transgender people. After all, we're increasingly being recognized as even BEING people. The writer of that piece of literal idiocy would rather we remain what we were in the past: a statistic.

Abigail Drew.

Something else...

Something else we're watching happen right now is another sad truth about history: History repeats itself.

This pushback against transgender people getting the same rights as everyone else and being seen as people is the same pushback that happened against gay people, against women, against black people, against Jews, against the unlanded, against tenant farmers, against the merchant class... All throughout history there have been a small, but powerful and vocal minority, which have ALWAYS opposed any new group of people getting rights.

It's also always the same group, generally speaking, the group that actually has something to lose in people with nothing to lose actually getting something: the entitled. What do they lose in people with nothing getting something? Another piece of their entitlement. Each time this happens, they lose a little more of the power they wield against everyone else. Eventually, system change is inevitable. Eventually this group of entitled pricks will finally get what's really coming to them. That time is, unfortunately, not now.

Abigail Drew.

Oh really?

Patricia Marie Allen's picture

Quote from article:

"Yes, you read that correctly. “Cisgender” isn’t even a word,"

Oh really???? Merriam-Webster.com seems to think it's a word, As does Oxford Dictionaries.

Hugs
Patricia

Happiness is being all dressed up and HAVING some place to go.
Semper in femineo gerunt

The Illegitimate cisgender word.

It is commonly used in LGBT circles out here, and google returns results on it. Probably not in Websters yet. This is going to be a long, very long battle; perhaps 100s of years.

As Patricia already mentioned...

In fact, both words ARE already in both Websters and Oxford. And heck, Oxford is the real proof against newly coined words in the English language. Once you're in the Oxford dictionary, it's official, you're part of the English language as a whole, not even some particular dialect of it, but as a whole.

Abigail Drew.

When I read that in the article

I Googled "cisgender." Google popped up a definition, a bunch of links to this articles, and others about the ruling. Merriam-Webster had a definition, as did Dictionary.com, Oxford, Cambridge, along with other sites.

Personally, I think it's a bit silly. Kind of like a beer company labeling their beer "Alcoholic Beer" as opposed to the "Non Alcoholic Beer."

CIS

Every few days someone rants against the use of the prefix, and while they may be different types of bigot they are usually TERFs or evangelical nutjobs of a whole range of religions. I was asked once, professionally, what an alternative term would be, one that would not "cause offence", and I had to answer that no term could be developed that would give equal conversational weight to trans and cis folk without "causing offence". The people complaining are offended by my existence, and the only term that they would accept would be along the lines of "normal". They would never even apply the word "woman" to me, even with a prefix.

Why the obsession over a word

Why the obsession over a word when the ruling itself is important? Are people here purposely seeking out an argument when there isn't one?

Frankly the original article that set that blog post off is more interesting than the complaints about a word especially as it has links to more important cases that point to the upcoming end of debates on the topic.

I'm told STFU more times in a day than most people get told in a lifetime