Has political correctness actually gone mad?

Jippy said:
They've lopped of Cerne Abbas's knob to spare people's blushes. Pretty dumb when it's the main reason the chalk giant is so well known.

Cheese company ‘castrates’ Dorset’s Cerne Abbas Giant

https://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/23562157.cheese-company-castrates-dorsets-cerne-abbas-giant/
Click to expand...

Vic Irvine, was "apoplectic"!

"I'm not eating it if the packaging doesn't contain a hard on" he raged. "It's almost as if my own cock's been lopped off".

That's an understatement. With this act we've all lost our willies.
 
About time sensible moderates cracked down on the snowflake mob



e- for a few months in 2017 I thought left wing censorship is a real problem. Proves I'm as dumb as Rogan.
 
Last edited:
berbatrick said:
About time sensible moderates cracked down on the snowflake mob



e- for a few months in 2017 I thought left wing censorship is a real problem. Proves I'm as dumb as Rogan.
Click to expand...


What an idiot from a "free speech champion"
 
admittedly I don't pay much attention to all the gender stuff but how the feck is cis a slur nowadays?
 
I thought cis was pronounced "sy" for ages, just presumed the s was silent. Then I saw a video with someone pronouncing it "sis" and was like "Oh, that's how you say it?"

Probably because I only ever saw it online, I've never heard the word "cisgender" mentioned in real life.
 
Shane88 said:
I thought cis was pronounced "sy" for ages, just presumed the s was silent. Then I saw a video with someone pronouncing it "sis" and was like "Oh, that's how you say it?"

Probably because I only ever saw it online, I've never heard the word "cisgender" mentioned in real life.
Click to expand...

Ive sat down and like had a beer with about 2 transgender people my entire life and i still havnt heard anyone use that word in real life.
 
Shane88 said:
I thought cis was pronounced "sy" for ages, just presumed the s was silent. Then I saw a video with someone pronouncing it "sis" and was like "Oh, that's how you say it?"

Probably because I only ever saw it online, I've never heard the word "cisgender" mentioned in real life.
Click to expand...
99.99% of people have never heard it real life, but if you visit twitter, you'd get the idea cisgender is being thrown around as an insult left, right and center. It's an old strategy, if you want to ban conversation, you start by banning specific words that make the discussion impossible.
 
2 man midfield said:
Musk is a twat, but the original guy had a point.
Click to expand...

What point? Him saying that he doesn't identify as cis is like saying he doesn't identify as hetero even if he's exclusively attracted to women. Like, fine, but it's weird.

The "imagine if the roles were reversed" is even weirder, because you don't have to imagine. Just look at the comments to basically any random tweet by a trans person.
 
NotThatSoph said:
What point? Him saying that he doesn't identify as cis is like saying he doesn't identify as hetero even if he's exclusively attracted to women. Like, fine, but it's weird.

The "imagine if the roles were reversed" is even weirder, because you don't have to imagine. Just look at the comments to basically any random tweet by a trans person.
Click to expand...
I don't really like the word and don't want to pigeonhole myself by applying terms like that to myself. I don't like that this gives me something in common with Rowling and the other TERFs, but in contrast with their rigidity, if other people want to use that to describe themselves (or even me), then I don't care.

This guy seems to want to be allowed to self define, but I'll bet he has a very different stance on someone who wishes to be referred to by pronouns that differ from his definitions of them, however.
 
decorativeed said:
I don't really like the word and don't want to pigeonhole myself by applying terms like that to myself. I don't like that this gives me something in common with Rowling and the other TERFs, but in contrast with their rigidity, if other people want to use that to describe themselves (or even me), then I don't care.

This guy seems to want to be allowed to self define, but I'll bet he has a very different stance on someone who wishes to be referred to by pronouns that differ from his definitions of them, however.
Click to expand...

The equivalent to this guy, or Musk, would not in fact be a trans person wanting to be referred to as the gender they identify as. It would either be a trans man insisting that he's not trans, just a man, or a trans woman insisting that she's not trans, just a woman. And that calling trans people trans is a slur.

You can find those people as well if you look enough, I suppose, but the reception they would get is way worse.
 
decorativeed said:
I don't really like the word and don't want to pigeonhole myself by applying terms like that to myself. I don't like that this gives me something in common with Rowling and the other TERFs, but in contrast with their rigidity, if other people want to use that to describe themselves (or even me), then I don't care.

This guy seems to want to be allowed to self define, but I'll bet he has a very different stance on someone who wishes to be referred to by pronouns that differ from his definitions of them, however.
Click to expand...

So you're telling me the bloke is actually non-binary? Fair enough I suppose.
 
The context is pretty obvious, surely?

You shouldn't use any of these prefixes as an attempt to insult or belittle someone. And if that's happening, the individual at the sharp end of these insults is well within their rights to object.

The weird bit is Musk/Twitter intervening.
 
J.K Rowling is in for a shock when she hears about cis fats and trans fats, considering that she believes that cis is ideological language.
 
Surely cis is just a way of clarifying what we mean, usually in a conversation specifically about trans rights/issues. It isn't something you would need in most everyday contexts, but it also isn't insulting is it? No more insulting than trans or hetero or ????
 
Last edited:
maniak said:
99.99% of people have never heard it real life,
Click to expand...

everybody with high school chemistry has!

Geometric_cis-trans_isomers_in_alkenes-1.png
 
Wibble said:
Surely cis is just a way of clarifying what we mean, usually in a conversation specifically about trans rights/issues. It isn't something you would need in most everyday contexts, but it also isn't insulting is it? No more insulting than trans of hetero or ????
Click to expand...
I don't know, it seems to me a lot of the time it is used in derogatory context. But that is my impression. Imagine calling someone Homo. I can certainly understand if someone would get offended by being labeled if they believe their behaviour is normal/standard. Particularly because cis is a new term (first used in 1994) and most people will not have heard it or learned until fairly recently. Also most of the time it's used in LGBTQ+ discussions, where most conservative people are not a part of. It's a term used to describe conservatives by their political adversaries most of the time. It's no wonder they are resisting it and refusing to accept it.

If you can understand that black people take offense to terms like negro or coloured (neither word is offensive on it's own, but is considered due to historical and political context), I guess you could understand people being offended by cis word.

I believe, right now it's a race in time whether the term will be eventually accepted (because I assume younger generations will own it), or it will be considered offensive due to desire to be politically correct (paradoxally, it seems to me that most offended by this term are opponents of political correctness).
 
Jotun said:
I don't know, it seems to me a lot of the time it is used in derogatory context. But that is my impression. Imagine calling someone Homo. I can certainly understand if someone would get offended by being labeled if they believe their behaviour is normal/standard. Particularly because cis is a new term (first used in 1994) and most people will not have heard it or learned until fairly recently. Also most of the time it's used in LGBTQ+ discussions, where most conservative people are not a part of. It's a term used to describe conservatives by their political adversaries most of the time. It's no wonder they are resisting it and refusing to accept it.

If you can understand that black people take offense to terms like negro or coloured (neither word is offensive on it's own, but is considered due to historical and political context), I guess you could understand people being offended by cis word.

I believe, right now it's a race in time whether the term will be eventually accepted (because I assume younger generations will own it), or it will be considered offensive due to desire to be politically correct (paradoxally, it seems to me that most offended by this term are opponents of political correctness).
Click to expand...

But we refer to people as gay (or whatever the appropriate term) and not homo unless the intent is to insult. As far as I'm aware cis doesn't have negative connotations and I've only ever seen it used to clarify conversations about trans issues. I've never heard it used in everyday conversations where the norm is to use the pronoun of everyone's gender identity (he/she) unless someone requests you to use they.
 
Wibble said:
But we refer to people as gay (or whatever the appropriate term) and not homo unless the intent is to insult. As far as I'm aware cis doesn't have negative connotations and I've only ever seen it used to clarify conversations about trans issues. I've never heard it used in everyday conversations where the norm is to use the pronoun of everyone's gender identity (he/she) unless someone requests you to use they.
Click to expand...
My personal impression is that the term is often used in inflammatory context (but I guess it's because most often I read it in this thread from an inflammatory tweet). Even if the term is not intended to be insulting, the whole context can lead to people resisting the word.

Isn't there a term in english "Offense isn't given, but taken". Neither terms coloured nor negro were considered offensive at the time, actually they were the polite versions ( at least I believe so, I'm neither american nor old enough to personally verify, but I get this impression from period movies, which is a flawed source in itself). I don't believe someone would use those words to offend, yet they are still considered highly offensive. Remember Cavani and Negrito incident?

If people take offense at the term, isn't it politacally correct not to label them as such?

So basically a new, ugly sounding word, used to describe people that consider themselves normal and healthy, mostly used by their political opponents and people that the first group considers suffering from mental illness or medical condition. As the word is often used by minority people that are often abused by the first group it's no wonder their usage (particularly the most public/viral one) of the word will be in inflammatory context.

I think also the issue is, the group that doesn't like the term, considers them healthy and normal and want to be referred as that. They consider trans people as having mental illness or at least medical condition. I believe they take offense at the term as it implies an equivalence with trans people, meaning by accepting the term it means their gender is also a condition.

I guess if you would go around and talk to your average Joe and call him cis, he'd first not know the term and after explainig he would say: "I ain't any of that cis BS. I'm normal!"

Now, what they actually mean is that they are standard, but there is a whole philosophical and linguistic discussion between what is normal and what is standard behaviour/state/condition.

I'm not at all surprised that the term is controversial. It's possible it will become normal with time as it gets adopted with younger generations. It's also possible it will remain controversial and dependant on political affiliations, but it's possible that it will be considered an insult.

English is not my first language, but I hope I'm managing to explain my self.
 
Jotun said:
My personal impression is that the term is often used in inflammatory context (but I guess it's because most often I read it in this thread from an inflammatory tweet). Even if the term is not intended to be insulting, the whole context can lead to people resisting the word.

Isn't there a term in english "Offense isn't given, but taken". Neither terms coloured nor negro were considered offensive at the time, actually they were the polite versions ( at least I believe so, I'm neither american nor old enough to personally verify, but I get this impression from period movies, which is a flawed source in itself). I don't believe someone would use those words to offend, yet they are still considered highly offensive. Remember Cavani and Negrito incident?

If people take offense at the term, isn't it politacally correct not to label them as such?

So basically a new, ugly sounding word, used to describe people that consider themselves normal and healthy, mostly used by their political opponents and people that the first group considers suffering from mental illness or medical condition. As the word is often used by minority people that are often abused by the first group it's no wonder their usage (particularly the most public/viral one) of the word will be in inflammatory context.

I think also the issue is, the group that doesn't like the term, considers them healthy and normal and want to be referred as that. They consider trans people as having mental illness or at least medical condition. I believe they take offense at the term as it implies an equivalence with trans people, meaning by accepting the term it means their gender is also a condition.

I guess if you would go around and talk to your average Joe and call him cis, he'd first not know the term and after explainig he would say: "I ain't any of that cis BS. I'm normal!"

Now, what they actually mean is that they are standard, but there is a whole philosophical and linguistic discussion between what is normal and what is standard behaviour/state/condition.

I'm not at all surprised that the term is controversial. It's possible it will become normal with time as it gets adopted with younger generations. It's also possible it will remain controversial and dependant on political affiliations, but it's possible that it will be considered an insult.

English is not my first language, but I hope I'm managing to explain my self.
Click to expand...

What you seem to be saying here is that a group that doesn't want to respect other peoples preferred pronouns are very earnest in believing others should respect their preferred adjectives.
 
Also, aren't the people who take offence at being labelled as cis supposed to be on the opposite side of the culture war to the snowflakes? My understanding was they just love freedom of speech, and they have super thick skin, so they can dish it out, but can also take it.
 
Wibble said:
Surely cis is just a way of clarifying what we mean, usually in a conversation specifically about trans rights/issues. It isn't something you would need in most everyday contexts, but it also isn't insulting is it? No more insulting than trans of hetero or ????
Click to expand...

You wouldn't think so but a lot on Twitter are pretty sensitive.

It's not something I would ever use to refer to myself but I wouldn't find it insulting or offensive either if anyone else ever used it to refer to me.
 
I hate Piers, but doesn't one of famous singers(or is it someone from fashion indistry?) actually identifies as a cat?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.