Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Eric wrote:It must be said, hypocrisy is not among the seven deadly sins.

Of course it isn't. It's not a terrible thing. But I prefer honesty, always.

It must be said, hypocrisy is not among the seven deadly sins.

Ah, so if the word "cisgender" hadn't been invented, the majority of people wouldn't exist? Then we really needed it, so true...

Sorry to disagree with you Flipp. Original BJ's e danfrank's posts in this thread are a triumph of good intentions and hypocrisy. But you are part of that, too, so of course you find them SO comforting, don't you?

The only posts worth anything in this entire thread are the last ones by The Original BJ and danfrank. Everything since their posts was just bizarrely defensive pablum and Internet-searched Wikipedia copy-and-paste jobs.

Also, to underscore (yet again) how important words are in defining and, thereby granting the right of existence to heretofore hidden sexualities, we have this article that came out today in which a conservative claims that transgender people simply do not exist. Luckily they can't erase the word that labels them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/1 ... _ref=media

From Gender Wiki:

"In gender studies, cisgender and cissexual are a closely related class of gender identities where an individual's gender identity matches the behavior or role considered appropriate for one's sex.[1] There are a number of derivatives of the terms in use, including "cis male" for a male with a masculine gender identity, "cis female" for a female with a feminine gender identity, and "cissexism".

Kristen Schilt and Laurel Westbrook defined "cisgender" as a label for "individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity", complementing "transgender".[2] A similar adjective is "gender-normative"; Eli R. Green wrote, "The term 'cisgendered' is used [instead of the more popular 'gender normative'] to refer to people who do not identify with a gender diverse experience, without enforcing existence of a 'normative' gender expression."[3] Jessica Cadwallader characterizes the slightly wider "cissexual" similarly, as "a way of drawing attention to the unmarked norm, against which trans* is identified, in which a person feels that their gender identity matches their body/sex".[4]"

These are all clinical terms. For the layman, the term "anatomically content" would seem to me to be a much more sensible and sensitive term to use in place of "gender normative".

The Original BJ wrote: But here you have made an argument that, dare I say it, I hear often in America, particularly among many spokespeople for the most conservative arm of American culture. It can be applied to many minority groups -- "if blacks consider themselves equal to whites, why do they need affirmative action?" or "if gays argue that they're no different than straights, why do they need pride parades?"

You didn't understand me, must be my English. I'm not stupid, so I know that minorities, of any kind, have problems. What I meant is that these problems must be solved by laws and by culture, NOT BY WORDS. Because words have the opposite effect: while they seem respectful and polite, they only hide the real problems. But I mean, it's obvious, only in America people can think that finding new, politically correct names for each single form of sexuality can be the answer! It''s just an easy device, and the terrified reactioms from you and others here just confirm that once you make them open their eyes, they are scared. Because, Original BJ, words are easy. TOO EASY. Remember this.

So I hope that one day we will stop having to be called THIS-sexual and THAT-sexual - that will mean that differences will be over. Tell this to your transexual friends. This is what I meant by "not thinking of themselves as different".

And by the way, can I be completely honest? I find it interesting that America, the most politically correct country, the one with the most "respectful" language (and I think I am much more respectful than you, let's be clear, because I don't play with words, I dont stay on the easy surface of things), is also the most puritanical when it comes to sex. Isn't this a bit strange? So for example you get Sabin who yes, has learned to pronounce the word "cisgendered" and is very proud of this, but then is obviously unconfortable watching the sex scenes in Blue is the Warmest Color... Oh, true, they don't say anything new about the characters, right.

This is what I call hypocrisy, Original BJ. American hypocrisy or Dutch hypocrisy, I don't care. I will always fight it, in the name of TRUE sexual freedom. Tell this to your transexual friends, too.

From my perspective we are barely emerging from the dark ages when it comes to cultural perceptions about gender. Newer concepts about gender necessitate the creation of new language, including words like "cisgender," "agender," "genderqueer," and others. New words are going to be awkward until they're not. As someone who works with many people across the gender spectrum, I know that these new-ish words have great utility for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that they go a long way towards validating the experiences of those who are too often invalidated. The fact that some privileged people have no use for these words is of no matter.

ITALIANO wrote:I probably wouldn't correct them openly... This probably means alot to them, though I'm sure that the most intelligent among them know that the problem lies elsewhere, that it's not a question of terms (I dont like "transgender" too much, even). And while I know that it's not easy, they should be the first not to see themselves as different in any way. (In some societies they arent considered different at all, actually. And guess what? In these societies the word "cisgender" doesn't exist).

Italiano, even in your bluntness, you are often a very well-reasoned individual. But here you have made an argument that, dare I say it, I hear often in America, particularly among many spokespeople for the most conservative arm of American culture. It can be applied to many minority groups -- "if blacks consider themselves equal to whites, why do they need affirmative action?" or "if gays argue that they're no different than straights, why do they need pride parades?" Yes, in a perfect world, one with no prejudice, and no power structures that favor the rights of certain individuals over others, transgendered individuals might not see themselves as different. But we don't live in that world. We live in a world where those who have gone through gender reassignment surgery often have a very difficult time accessing the necessary health care, where majorities have the opportunity to vote on which bathrooms pre-op transgendered youth may be legally allowed to use, and where hate crime laws specifically exclude protections for transgendered individuals. So how anyone could tell a member of this community that they need to stop viewing themselves as different -- when in fact for many of them their very survival depends on educating those in the privileged majority about their differences -- is beyond me.

And as for you not liking the word transgender? Well, luckily you don't get to be the Royal Decider for the words members of victimized minority groups use to speak about themselves. Thank god for small favors.

This will be my last post on this subject, because it's already gone way off topic, and I am more interested in discussing the Oscars with you people than debating about whether using respectful language is somehow a PROBLEM when it's essentially just basic human politeness.

Rant over.

Well, of course we base our knowledge of words on our personal experience! It's true that English isn't my first language, but I read often English texts, and honestly the fact that some Americans, like me, had never heard it before must mean something. So yes, I think that, while probably invented decades ago, only recently people have started using it.

As for the importance of words, I completely agree. And like all important things, even words should be used carefully, shouldn't be imposed on people but rather grow with people. And again, like all important things, we shouldn't invent one every day. It doesn't work like this. Words aren't like fashion - or shouldn't be.

ITALIANO wrote:Well, neologism in the sense that some have started using it only recently... Or is it a word that you have been using for the last 20 years?

It's a word I've known about and used for the past 10-15 years, but that's really beside the point.

I really don't understand your "some have started using it only recently." Does "some" refer to you, Mister Tee and Big Magilla or the larger society? Again, just because you just learned of the word's existence yesterday, doesn't mean that it's not a known and used term. This is why words are so utterly vital and important. They're constantly in danger of being corrupted, misused, even threatened and misappropriated.

Well, neologism in the sense that some have started using it only recently... Or is it a word that you have been using for the last 20 years?

The fervent arguments against the existence of a word such as "cisgendered" make me think that it's even more important of a word now than I ever would've thought. So, thanks for validating that.

Also, a word that's been around for 20+ years and is in use today is not a "neologism."

rolotomasi99 wrote:Unlike my sexual orientation (homosexual), there is nothing in my brain that identifies my gender.

I also have a very weak, if any, identification with my gender. While I think people who are born with a strong identity of the gender to which they are not born should be able to have sex-change operations and not be discriminated against, I have a difficult time relating to their feelings of needing to change their gender; because, with my feelings, changing my gender would mean going through a great deal of difficulty for not much difference. I think this also relates to my bisexuality, as I also do not identify much to the genders of other people; in that, to me there is not much difference to being attracted to a man or being attracted to a woman.

Chalk it up to professional hazard, but all of this cis and trans talk keeps making me think of this:

http://www.chemicalconnection.org.uk/ch ... =9&topic=2

The Original BJ wrote:

ITALIANO wrote:The point is that transgendered shouldn't be persecuted, and creating the world "cisgendered" is only a hypocrite way of facing this issue - it's like looking elsewhere.

Please let me know how I should correct any transgendered friends next time they unironically use the word "cisgendered" so as best to display my respect for them. I definitely don't want them to be engaging in hypocrisy.

I probably wouldn't correct them openly... This probably means alot to them, though I'm sure that the most intelligent among them know that the problem lies elsewhere, that it's not a question of terms (I dont like "transgender" too much, even). And while I know that it's not easy, they should be the first not to see themselves as different in any way. (In some societies they arent considered different at all, actually. And guess what? In these societies the word "cisgender" doesn't exist).