4 ms·

Twitter is a circus nowadays. Barely any links load, ever. So many dead links, login requirements, infinite spinners of death…

DoreenMichele 3y ago
Dead links do not a circus make. Tell me: Is it safer for People of Color, LGBTQ individuals and such to be there? Because that used to be a huge circus. I killed my "Oh, God, this was a bad idea" personal account and haven't yet figured out what to do with the account I have left. So I don't really know. Which is to say the question is sincere.
- kadoban 3y ago
  > Tell me: Is it safer for People of Color, LGBTQ individuals and such to be there? Because that used to be a huge circus. Lol, no. Musk unbanned all the Nazis and says that "cis" is a slur, to give a small taste.
  - DoreenMichele 3y ago
    I never know what to make of all the claims that Musk is transphobic. I don't really read much about him but I was friends at one time with someone who was friends with Elon and that mutual friend was trans.
    - ahahahahah 3y ago
      I mean, trump has a lot of black friends too. The "cis is now a slur" thing is true on Twitter now. Musk's one trans child hates him (though he sends like a pretty shit parent in general). He fairly regular raises anti trans views. I mean, I guess you could still assume the best and that he's just an idiot and doesn't understand what he's saying.
    - Timon3 3y ago
      He banned the word "cisgender" as a slur. This makes it difficult to talk about trans topics, because how are you going to refer to non-trans people? "Normal"? It's an arbitrary decision meant to alienate these groups further.
      - DoreenMichele 3y ago
        Your phrase -- "non-trans people" -- sounds like a reasonable solution?
        Timon3 3y ago
        It is if your goal is to create a divide between the two groups. There is a reason this kind of classification isn't used with minorities, e.g. we say "hetero" instead of "non-hono".
        gonet 3y ago
        It's different though, in that this adjective redefines the noun it's being applied to, away from the usual understanding. Consider "homosexual woman" and "heterosexual woman". Both describe an aspect of "woman" - her sexual orientation - without changing what "woman" means. Compare "cis woman" and "trans woman" though. The former refers to a female and the latter to a male. This changes "woman" away from the sex-based definition that the vast majority of people understand, to one where a subset of men claim to be women. So by using "cis", this implies an agreement with this world view that men who call themselves women somehow actually are women. A view that most people don't actually hold. This is also why in radical feminist circles they prefer terms like "trans-identified male" instead of "trans woman", to avoid adopting the linguistic contortions of the oppressor.
        Timon3 3y ago
        You can find differences everywhere if you look hard enough. The difference you identified is not objective, it's only your opinion that it "redefines the noun". I don't think that it does, at least not more than "homo"/"hetero" does. > So by using "cis", this implies an agreement with this world view that men who call themselves women somehow actually are women. A view that most people don't actually hold. You'll have to prove that most people don't hold this view, until you do it's pure conjecture. And you will also have to explain why banning the word isn't a bad thing for trans people who do subscribe to this world view, as that is the topic we're talking about.

DoreenMichele 3y ago

Dead links do not a circus make. Tell me: Is it safer for People of Color, LGBTQ individuals and such to be there? Because that used to be a huge circus. I killed my "Oh, God, this was a bad idea" personal account and haven't yet figured out what to do with the account I have left. So I don't really know. Which is to say the question is sincere.

kadoban 3y ago
> Tell me: Is it safer for People of Color, LGBTQ individuals and such to be there? Because that used to be a huge circus. Lol, no. Musk unbanned all the Nazis and says that "cis" is a slur, to give a small taste.
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  I never know what to make of all the claims that Musk is transphobic. I don't really read much about him but I was friends at one time with someone who was friends with Elon and that mutual friend was trans.
  - ahahahahah 3y ago
    I mean, trump has a lot of black friends too. The "cis is now a slur" thing is true on Twitter now. Musk's one trans child hates him (though he sends like a pretty shit parent in general). He fairly regular raises anti trans views. I mean, I guess you could still assume the best and that he's just an idiot and doesn't understand what he's saying.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    He banned the word "cisgender" as a slur. This makes it difficult to talk about trans topics, because how are you going to refer to non-trans people? "Normal"? It's an arbitrary decision meant to alienate these groups further.
    - DoreenMichele 3y ago
      Your phrase -- "non-trans people" -- sounds like a reasonable solution?
      - Timon3 3y ago
        It is if your goal is to create a divide between the two groups. There is a reason this kind of classification isn't used with minorities, e.g. we say "hetero" instead of "non-hono".
        gonet 3y ago
        It's different though, in that this adjective redefines the noun it's being applied to, away from the usual understanding. Consider "homosexual woman" and "heterosexual woman". Both describe an aspect of "woman" - her sexual orientation - without changing what "woman" means. Compare "cis woman" and "trans woman" though. The former refers to a female and the latter to a male. This changes "woman" away from the sex-based definition that the vast majority of people understand, to one where a subset of men claim to be women. So by using "cis", this implies an agreement with this world view that men who call themselves women somehow actually are women. A view that most people don't actually hold. This is also why in radical feminist circles they prefer terms like "trans-identified male" instead of "trans woman", to avoid adopting the linguistic contortions of the oppressor.
        Timon3 3y ago
        You can find differences everywhere if you look hard enough. The difference you identified is not objective, it's only your opinion that it "redefines the noun". I don't think that it does, at least not more than "homo"/"hetero" does. > So by using "cis", this implies an agreement with this world view that men who call themselves women somehow actually are women. A view that most people don't actually hold. You'll have to prove that most people don't hold this view, until you do it's pure conjecture. And you will also have to explain why banning the word isn't a bad thing for trans people who do subscribe to this world view, as that is the topic we're talking about.