I find the notion of inventing words for negative assertions to be ridiculous and hereby dismiss this new knowledge from my mind.
Words catapulted to fame by the internet
- Thread starter fade
- Start date
It's not; that's just the easiest way to explain it (to me, because I'm a negative person).
HCGLNS, you are cisgender if you are happy with your pee-pee.
There's nothing negative or positive here, just different. If people will say "there are people that are transgendered and normal", that's kind of implying that trans folk are abnormal/weird/bad, etc. So you just say "People are transgendered or cisgendered". Then the "tumblr strawman" you guys love so much (and isn't as prevalent as you think), calls people "cis-scum". Even if everyone did it, I don't really fucking care since cis people aren't getting murdered in droves (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mya-adriene-byrne/stop-killing-trans-people_b_6721064.html) for being cis, and you can't get fired from your job or denied housing or any other amount of things for being cisgendered.
GasBandit
Staff member
Hence the pejorative suffice -normative. One of the cardinal sins of our new enlightened age is to call anything "normal." Unless it's climate, of course, because THAT definitely hasn't been in constant flux for millenia, and it's definitely abnormal now and it's our fault! Why, those Romans growing wine grapes in Britain 2000 years ago clearly drove their in their SUVs and powered their war machines with coal and oil. And we do it so much now that even Mars' icecaps are melting. All our fault! We need to go back to stone age technology so that the climate will return to normal, and any discomfort we feel will just naturally be our deserved penance for being awesome for far too long.
But don't you dare call a trait held by a majority of people normal.
But don't you dare call a trait held by a majority of people normal.
lmfao why are you bringing climate change into this
GasBandit
Staff member
To show the discontinuity of getting mad when you call normal things normal but arbitrarily assign a "normal" to something that has never had a normal.
He meant in the way I defined it. I didn't explain what cisgender is, I defined by what it isn't. EDIT: Ninja'd.
It's really as simple as "there isn't a word for this, there should be a word for this, let's have a word for this." Ignoring that it sounds assy to say "you're trans, I'm normal," the word normal is vague and of poor descriptive use. If I need to describe someone and I say they have normal eyes, what does that mean? Normal height? Etc.
And now I've looked at the word normal so much it's lost all meaning.
GasBandit
Staff member
Two.
If someone said "he has normal eyes," I would needing more info, because that could mean their number, or color, or their shape, or they need glasses, etc. It's too vague for specificity, even when contrasting it with another term.
And hell, we can go higher up in the population percentages from gender orientation.
"Are you gay?"
"No, I'm normal."
"Are you Jewish?"
"Normal religion."
"What's your ethnicity?"
"Normal."
Binoculist scum.
GasBandit
Staff member
There are actual demographic studies that back up number 1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States
Basically, as far as we can measure, the human race is still 90%+ heterosexual.
As for religion, while christians are by far the largest minority, there is still no simple majority (much less overwhelming majority), so "normal" in that use is incorrect. Similarly, Han Chinese is the largest ethnic group on earth, but is nowhere near a majority.[DOUBLEPOST=1424538262,1424538248][/DOUBLEPOST]
BURN THE TRINOCSBinoculist scum.
On a global scale? What about America, the most important demographic? What you're talking about is majority, which is a word with more specificity than normal. Normal has several connotations, is vague at best, and is overall useless as a descriptor.
Why is Dave allowing hate speech?
Not in a mathematical sense.
GasBandit
Staff member
Not at all, it denotes the absence of a special case. Being homosexual is a special case. Being transsexual is a special case. Being handicapped is a special case. The very lowest prerequisite hurdle to something being considered "normal" is that, at the very least, it should manifest in the majority of cases. Otherwise, it can't be said to be "normal," but perhaps merely "common."
Because he knows the threat posed by the trinoc scum. They take our jobs with their added perceptional advantage, and seduce our women with their heat vision!
But I'm speaking in a linguistic sense, and maybe that's where the wall is.
I can understand that, but if someone were to go around saying "GasBandit's a normal guy," what different people get out of that is going to be more on their perception of normal as opposed to actually informing them on anything about GasBandit.
I don't see as a helpful or particularly useful word.
it's really easy for y'all to make those jokes, isn't it
So, you have trouble with calling yourself a straight man, then?
I still have yet to grasp why people have such a problem with a word classifying something. It's just an identifier, nothing more. Normal is too broad a term. The point that is being made is that normal could apply from anything to blonde hair to heterosexuality.
And again, I love pointing out the irony of how people are so irked by this word. Because someone using who you are as an insult encapsulated in one word really must suck. Not that I would know or anything.
GasBandit
Staff member
It's really easy for you to harsh on our jokes, isn't it
Well, it at least tells them I have the right number of eyes, arms, legs, am not a psychopath, don't have any overt odd proclivities, etc.
(In other words no one will ever come close to uttering that sentence)
Bartleby the Cis-norm?
[DOUBLEPOST=1424539939,1424539881][/DOUBLEPOST]
It is easy to poke fun at that which is ridiculous, yes.
(and by that I mean the amount of value/passion people assign to this stuff)
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
I'm not irked by being called straight (actually, some charlies have pointed out that "straight" is too close to "normal" and so it is also heteronormative). I'm also not irked by being called a "breeder" or "non-fabulous american" or any other number of terms. What I'm irked at is not being allowed to use a perfectly cromulent word in a normal (HA!) fashion because of manufactured social edicts. Some of the more vocal decriers of the term are the same types who wear T-Shirts that say "Normal is boring" on them, having their cake and eating it as well.
Also, blonde hair is not normal. Black is the most common hair color, if wikipedia is to be believed, but I couldn't find a particular study of it quickly.
My point is that you don't HAVE to use the word cis if you don't want to, but it has every right to exist as an identifier. What I don't get is why all the ire over this one word when words like cracker, breeder, etc... never made any headway in the way of being an actual insult towards the "normal" folks, but everyone's flipping their shit over being called cisgendered.
GasBandit
Staff member
I only object that *I* am expected to use it, and am chastised for saying "normal." Well, that and to the few, loud people who are actively trying to use it as an epithet.
Maybe it's the scientist in me, but normal is just far to broad of a term for me to use for just about anything. It can be applied to so many things in so many situations as to be nigh useless as a descriptor.
Then again, I'm a pedant, and love clear operational definitions, so there's that.[DOUBLEPOST=1424544065,1424543977][/DOUBLEPOST]
I seem to recall someone telling me that the sign language for hungry and horny are so close that there are often issues with mistaking one for the other.
GasBandit
Staff member
Thirsty, however, is more than just horny, it implies desperation and lack of success. A horny guy might get laid. A guy is thirsty because he can't.
Well, that's what the internet is for, after all (after porn).
Cat pictures have been demoted to third?
doomdragon6
Staff member
I have been a part of the Halforums community since the PVP Forum days, and here is my question:
WHY IN THE DICKING SHIT DO PEOPLE ACTUALLY STILL ARGUE WITH CHARLIE
He may as well be an antagonistic spam bot, or at the very least a bot that identifies the topic and offers the alternative.
To be clear, I have no problem with you at all Charlie, I appreciate a Devil's Advocate, but I honestly don't understand why people still feel the need to defend or persuade against you.
Carry on.
WHY IN THE DICKING SHIT DO PEOPLE ACTUALLY STILL ARGUE WITH CHARLIE
He may as well be an antagonistic spam bot, or at the very least a bot that identifies the topic and offers the alternative.
To be clear, I have no problem with you at all Charlie, I appreciate a Devil's Advocate, but I honestly don't understand why people still feel the need to defend or persuade against you.
Carry on.
Just because some one is addle minded does not mean we should exclude them from our community. We must welcome everyone equally.I have been a part of the Halforums community since the PVP Forum days, and here is my question:
WHY IN THE DICKING SHIT DO PEOPLE ACTUALLY STILL ARGUE WITH CHARLIE
He may as well be an antagonistic spam bot, or at the very least a bot that identifies the topic and offers the alternative.
To be clear, I have no problem with you at all Charlie, I appreciate a Devil's Advocate, but I honestly don't understand why people still feel the need to defend or persuade against you.
Carry on.
Because gender and orientation are two separate issues, and people these days are more weirded out by gender ambiguity than they are by orientation.
--Patrick