• juliebean
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    uh, they always could? what’s your point?

      • spiderjuzce@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        You asked what to say and then said the solution, cis, was cringe. You clearly don’t want a solution you just wanna complain

          • spiderjuzce@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Reread my comment because you missed the point and I’m not a babysitter anymore so I’m not teaching you how to read.

            Also if you wanted this private then shoot that person a message instead of, once again, complaining in a space where anyone can comment.

            Edit: if you’re offended by cis then go outside and see how many people care.

              • spiderjuzce@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Lmao don’t comment on Lemmy if you don’t want others chiming in. Cis is the correct term. We’ve learned more about the world we live in and our language changes according to the new information.

                This is nothing new and has been going on since language was invented.

          • juliebean
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            you didn’t really answer, as far as i can tell. you just took the opportunity to go on a tangential rant about hard it is for you to use simple words to communicate more clearly and be respectful of others. you want to call women ‘females’? that’s your perogative, but don’t be surprised when people look at you like a weird objectifying misogynist ferengi.

              • juliebean
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                okay, well, have fun beating up that straw man.

                • Rustmilian@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  Is that the best comeback you have? You realize that’s your logic right? If you don’t say “Cis Women” instead of “Women” as you clearly did just then, you’re a horrible person.

                  Did you not get the reference?

                  I’d prefer to call biological women… Women. Wow what a shocker.

      • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Having to invent a word like “cis”… lol have You tried education? It is one hell of a drug! Cis is a latin word. Like trans, homo, hetero, anti and so on. So maybe now you realize that “non-native speaker” is hilarious to say considering there are no native latin speaker.

        Edit: btw. Trans means as much as on the other side. Cis means on the same side. Cis is literally just the opposite word of trans. So by calling trans women trans women, you imply that cis women are cis women. Crazy made-up word that have a story older than e.g. the new testament and probably older than any old testament manuscript that we have.

          • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            I have heard people say it. I haven’t heard anyone say it in a derogatory manner but it doesn’t matter like your experience is also only anecdotal.

            trans women implies cis women. It makes as much sense as trans woman. I don’t care what some random people think. Yes, Cis existed before in science and what did it mean? Oh it means this side too. Crazy!

            If you ask me, someone is very cringe and it is not the people using cis.

            • Rustmilian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              I don’t care if you want to use Cis or not.
              I’m not going to judge you for it, unlike some of y’all I’m not that obnoxious of a person to care about what others say. Doesn’t change my opinion of the word; nothing you say will ever change that; I’ll continue to cringe at the word and you’ll just have to accept that and move the hell on.

              I don’t care what some random people think.

              This right there.

              If you ask me, it’s y’all whom are getting so butt hurt over this that are truly cringe, even more so then “Cis”, “Female”, & “moist” combined.
              It’s just an opinion on a word, it’s not like I’m killing your family by holding this opinion.

              • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Oh how embarrassing… someone is unable to understand the difference between pointing out bad arguments and caring about the person opinion… yikes…

                Let’s look at the conversation and see what happened.

                • I pointed out that your non-native speaker is nonsense and you didn’t even attempted to justify it because it is that poor of an argument.
                • I point out that it is a latin word like trans and that trans implies cis and so by calling trans women trans women, you are without vocalizing it, that cis women are cis women. Because that is how language works. If I talk about the 2nd point of my argument, I am implying that there is a 1st. You agreed that it is a latin word and already used in science. (I point out that it was there the same meaning, so… what?) And you apparently want to state that if there is a abbreviation, you can’t have an older word that looks the same. We should stop using “if” because there are investment funds. In other words, again I argued your argument. You stopped trying to argue your position here too. I wonder why…
                • you express that random person 1 and 2 think XYZ and that you experience ZYX, I state that I am not interested in your anecdotal evidence and the opinion of some random people, as I am interested in arguments; so when you imply that if I don’t care about your opinion why am I arguing with you, the answer is because I care about good arguments. So… you are just wrong there.
                • you are complaining about people expressing the cis woman is more inclusive and therefore more appropriated in most settings, but they are butthurt. You are too, and that is fine. Also not an argument for your position.
                • “I will never change my opinion” is really weird flex but I believe, but I am not arguing to change your opinion but to challenge your bad arguments, so keep going.
                • Rustmilian@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  Non-native English speakers would confuse “Bio Women” with “Bio Weapon” did you actually even read that part?
                  Your Latin rant was completely irrelevant in first place, you’re lucky I even humored it. I’ll give you the latin origins bit but even so it’s irrelevant to the actual Non-native speakers point because I wasn’t referring to Latin speakers in the first place (why do you think English was bold text?). So in the end your argument was just a strawman.

                  Also the point of it being artificially introduced still stands because the vast majority of English speakers say and have basically always said “Women” in reference to biological women, and even gave you examples from this very thread.
                  The English definition of the word “Women” is “Adult female human being”, which clearly doesn’t work because “female” means a person with XX chromosomes. So you’d have to redefine the word; which is funny because I know why it hasn’t changed. Because the pro-cis people can’t seem to come up with a consistent re-definition of the word Women.

                  You’ll never change my opinion regardless, it’s not a flex it’s a fact. You wasted your time writing all that.

                  Go ahead and write another paragraph about how “you’re right and I’m wrong” and waste more of your time, be my guest. I’ll sleep just fine. FB_IMG_1693602071895

                  • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    I didnt address the bio weapon because honestly that is just insane. Like what is that argument? People with bad listening/reading skills will mistake words? Let’s not use the word word, world is too alike … but “enough” is fine, so is “nation” or “women”. Google “ghoti” and be honest to yourself, would you have been able to explain why “ghoti” isn’t read like “fish” in English. If you couldn’t, maybe words that sound similar, aren’t the biggest issue. And as you are against “artificially introducing” words, how do you fix the mess that is “ghoti”? How do you make it understandable to at least the average native speaker? Not with new words with understandable spelling rules, that is for sure, that would be “artificial”.

                    my point was, your whole native English speakers and non native English speakers thing is completely incoherent. In one section, you express that cis got “artificially” introduce into English, then you say that it is a word already in english to be specific scientific English, then you express how cis is confusing for non native English speakers. Like what? Make Up your mind. Was it part of English already or did it get “artificially introduce”? If it isn’t English as it got “artificially introduced” why are we worried about the non native speakers? They might speak a latin language like Spanish. If it got “artificially introduced”, are you also mad about its usage in scientific language too or just in “normal” english? Should we drop Latin words from scientific language? Or should we avoid scientific language in our daily life because it has latin in it? Also is scientific language not English? If it isn’t, again, why are we worried about non native speakers? Help me on that one.

                    The whole “definition of the word” thing is a stupid talking point of right wing reactionaries. The reality is that even without a complete and accurate definition of the word, the word could have utility and would work just fine in daily conversations. If you doubt me, give me a definition of the word “culture” and/or “consciousness” that everyone agrees with and without making it seem meaningless. And that is assuming that there isn’t a good definition that would work in every way.

                    Seriously, sit down and argue with yourself your own point. Like play the devil advocate to yourself, then see if your arguments even remotely work for yourself.