• Allero@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Devil’s advocate (kinda)

    I’m not on Xitter, but I did see attempts to shit on cisgender people, and the word can serve as a slur or even ground for discrimination in certain contexts. Doesn’t mean it should always be considered as such, but, hearing enough of what’s normally going on Xitter, I wouldn’t be surprised there’s a genuine take behind such moderation.

    • recapitated@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      As a cisgender white man, I think the most offensive thing I could possibly do is be offended by what people call me or assume about me. Which, in a way I sort of wonder if that stance is also offensive, like I’m not even bothering to play on a level playing field. But, at the end of the day I know these attributes don’t cost me any tier of opportunities… Maybe they cost me some specific opportunities but definitely not any level of equivalent opportunities.

      The right wing are total babies.

    • DanteFlame@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah you can see the effect even with something simple like the words “Mexicans” or “Jews” or “Men”, depending on the heat and spin you put on the word it can either just be a descriptive word in a benign sentence or it can have a silent “those dirty fucking” just before it. So I can definitely see how some people have been using it as a slur but context matters and probably shouldn’t be blanket moderated

      • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yeah the amount that it’s offensive is dependent on the context, but that’s really true of any descriptive term. In those contexts it’s the insults or animosity that determine offensiveness, not the descriptive terms.

        I.e. “those dirty fucking cyclists” in this phrase which would be offensive to cyclists it is the insult and the animosity that make it offensive, not the descriptive term itself.

        Obviously it’s different when you use actual slurs to describe the person but in the situations described with use of cisgender that usually isn’t the case (there are slur uses of cis but they’re rare and not used much, therefore have low recognition).

        • DanteFlame@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Thing is that’s how slurs are born isn’t it? All slurs started as descriptive words for groups of people but when enough people use them with disdain or malice for long enough, suddenly the word becomes irredeemable and it can no longer be said without having all that hate automatically added on intentional or not.

          Even the n word would have started out as a regional term simply for black people (hear me out). If you look at the word or the way it’s pronounced it’s really just a mangled or incorrectly pronounced version of the word negro which is simply the Spanish/latin word for the colour black. But because of the people that said it, in the way that they said it, in the region they said it, at the time that they said it, it can no longer be said lest you be magically transported back to the 1800’s with a whip in your hands.

          So even though cisgender is not currently a slur, if it continues to follow the path of all slurs before it, one day it will be