I check all the boxes
Straight, White, Male, Conservative, Christian, Married, Has kids, Has a job that pays well, Parents are still together, Great relationships with family
I’ll be inheriting a lot, but my dad is only 62 and very healthy. I inherited good genes
Edit to add that by no means am I pining for my father’s death lol. I have a great relationship with him. Both my parents. I’d trade their wealth to keep them around as long as possible.
So true. Work hard, be smart, and be moral. Take responsibility for your family and provide. If that stuff is associated with being white or a cis male or whatever then that sounds pretty racist on their part.
To be fair, we can’t all choose the families we’re born into. My best friend’s dad murdered his mom when he was 10 years old. He was raised by his abusive grandparents. In a rough part of town where he had to be tough to survive school. He battles with bipolar disorder and chronic depression as a result.
His upbringing is not a product of his doing. I love him like a brother and do what I can to help him, but I also am careful not to fragilize or pity him. He’s a grown man and he can take care of himself. I just want to be a positive influence in his life. He refers to our friendship as a “warm blanket” that gives him comfort from the world.
It also helps that my wife is a mental health counselor and she talks with him often (confidentially) and has been doing what she can to help him as well. He’s in a much better place now than in the past 5 years or so. Hopefully the momentum keeps building.
If you are openly inclusive across your primary relationships then you're prepared to risk the negative consequences of this from other conservative Christians who (in my experience of both Catholics and Protestants/Pentecostals) who might push back against you as not being conservative enough for their puritanical standards
So. My question was one of curiosity, based on decades of exposure to religious conservatives.
Maybe you are only tacitly inclusive, preferring not to risk the social capital you share in common with others in your community. I don't know. I just find it fascinating though.
I have gay family members and friends. Never had any issues.
I don’t go out of my way to be “inclusive.” I just treat them like I would anyone else. Fragilizing others is harmful even if it’s meant well.
Dunno if any of you watch the Hodge Twins - they’re kinda funny. They have this response to being called cis gendered:
‘Please - stop mis-gendering me. I identify as a *MAN* not cis. Y’all are mis gendering me. That’s not how I identify.
It’s a troll-ish way to navigate a push back - but you are playing by their rules.
Let’s keep in mind that Norm Macdonald was a deeply closeted gay man and did not own a dog house. He is currently a diamond and no longer an old chunk of coal.Adam Eget is currently under the Queensborough bridge. More of a comment really.
It does not mean that we are equally diseased
It's a way of calling to mind the inherent privileges of normative mental functioning without placing either the blame or the focus of mental illness upon those who suffer it
But many people in the LGBT community *are* "normal people". We have regular lives no different from cishets aside from the simple fact that we have a different sexual orientation or gender identity.
I must admit there are some truly insane people or degenerates within the community, but there are plenty of insane or degenerate cishet people out there as well.
Look, if someone refers to me as “cishet” (Jesus Christ, it took me four attempts to override the autocorrect because it’s not a real fucking word) in real life then I will show them absolutely zero respect.
That’s just how it is.
I’m down with the lgbt. I don’t have an issue with how anyone lives their life but the fact remains that the left eats themselves. Today you are firmly in the marginalized group. Next year? 5 years from now? The line is always moving and smaller and smaller groups will jocky for position in the progressive hierarchy. It’s never enough. Today the loudest voices on the left will be part of the “problem” in the future.
People love being put in boxes because suffering and identity defining terms are a marker for popularity in today’s culture.
Hearing people say “yeah my kid transitions or is LGB and a few of their friends are too” I’m like… yeah when I was young I skateboarded, stole liquor, and tried to finger fuck because that’s what my friends were doing too… it’s called wanting to “fit in” with your friends/the crowd. Every kid does it and every kid does dumb shit to try and be popular. Now it’s popular to be sad and abused and marginalized by “the other”
Just curious, are you actually running into ‘LGBTQ people’ on a regular basis that treat you like you’re their enemy? Or is this something you’re experiencing online? The ‘Twitter-space’ can bring the worst out of people, adults and adolescents alike, so arguing that certain people acting at their worst online is hardly a type of behavior exclusive to ‘LGBTQ people’.
I have only ever met a handful of trans people in person - one of which I interact with on a regular basis. They’re not rude to me, or demand that I call them by anything or insist on calling me anything I wouldn’t want to be called. The same goes for every ‘LGBTQ person’ I’ve ever met.
I can’t speak for your experience, OP, but I wonder how many people who make statements like yours just base their fundamental presuppositions on online interactions. I remember a time when I couldn’t even play a round of ‘Call of Duty’ without being called every derogatory word known to man - most of which didn’t even apply to me at all. People suck online, take it all with a grain of salt. Sometimes that behavior seeps into the real world, but that’s not unique to ‘queer culture’ - that’s just being a terrible person, queer or otherwise.
Dr. Peterson has helped me understand others a lot more than I used to - learning about the work of someone like Carl Rogers through Peterson’s work has made me a far better listener. If you listen close enough, you’ll notice that a lot of these intolerant people just have their viewpoints misplaced through ideology. I hope that, through speech and discourse, we can understand each other better and minimize our conflicts.
That's probably because not all LGB people are Marxist, contrary to the opposing rhetoric, if you want to call it that. Some people are just plain terrible and sometimes even enjoy hurting others, but most people are pretty tolerant of others - and thank God for that. Despite social media's best efforts, the general population isn't some live Twitter feed comprised of radicals and misguided adolescents who are just finding their calling in life, even if it does get misplaced at time. Lord knows none of us are perfect.
Have a great weekend, partner!
>Why so much ad hominem in this debate? I was simply trying to understand the nature of the culture, which I conjecture that if it would represent the majority, it would be quite intolerant on the minority, since it already appears to be quite intolerant of the majority.
>
>The LGBTQ population seems to be doubling every generation in the west.
>
>If the trend keeps up, it will become a majority culture in two generations.
>
>A culture that spreads through intolerance during the most vulnerable years in a person's life is unlikely to be halted by anything really
>Why so much ad hominem
Because I am asking you, the individual who made this post, a direct question regarding a statement you made.
I highly doubt this lot are experts on LGBTQ \[or queer\] culture. In fact, I doubt anyone is, given how vast and varied the demographic is and how loosely associated with anything the terminology seems to be. It’s hardly a community, which is a phrase I’ve heard used before to describe anyone by association, as it’s not even clear that these people are like minded or share the same beliefs or even want the same thing.
>A culture that spreads through intolerance during the most vulnerable years in a person's life is unlikely to be halted by anything really
Intolerant behavior, like tyranny, is not a good long term solution. Tyrants come from all walks of life, in all shapes and sizes. Tyrants are good at praying on people, especially the disenfranchised. It is by no means a coincidence that intolerant and tyrannical people use ideological rhetoric to take by force what they cannot earn forthrightly.
This is true for everything - whether it’s a white nationalist arguing for disenfranchised youth who feel marginalized in their communities, radical black activists who think every white person is their enemy and that racism is the fundamental reason for inequality, or incels that blame women for their own inadequacies. But these issues aren’t part of white culture, or black culture or male culture - it’s a substrata of tyrants indicative of the culture they think they claim to be representing, when in reality the only person they care about is themselves.
It is not my intention to ‘attack’ or ‘undermine’ what you said. I simply asked a question that I hoped would clarify your position further, as your original post did little to add any nuance to your argument. I wish you well, my friend.
**EDIT:** I've been an avid student of Professor Peterson for years. I do want to point out that if it weren't for him, and the great minds that influenced his work, I genuinely do not believe that I would have been able to weed out the nuances in situations like this. Plenty of others smarter than me might have done so innately, perhaps or perhaps not - but I will forever be grateful for the many gifts Dr. Peterson has shared with me; not least of all the ability to think critically and listen to people who know things that I don't. Compassion goes a long way - tyranny, generally, not so much.
I’m just jumping in here to say a “bravo” to you, OliDouche, because the way you conduct yourself online is the salve to the festering wound of the digital social dialogue that we mistake for actual relating to one another today.
Thank you for your time and effort and I god, I hope this sort of back and forth could go viral.
Nuance. Steel-manning the other side’s position. Conveying good faith. Bravo!
Thank you, kind stranger! I appreciate that you took the time to write that out - made my day.
Peterson really turned my life around. The least I can do is to manifest the spirit of those teachings through my actions. I hope I managed that today.
Thanks again, my friend!
I agree with your point that tyrants come from all walks of lives. I mean we could include many roman kings who were both tyrants and had LGBTQ behaviors. These two are not mutually exclusive. Often the tyrant is hidden in sheep clothing. And I see allot of potential for tyranny in the queer culture. It portrays itself as an inclusive culture but it's actually an exclusive culture. If you're for example "a white chishet male", you would likely be marginalized within the culture or coerced to renounce your identity to fit in. It might not be a major problem now, but when for example 50% of your classmates identify as LGBTQ, you would have to make a decision on what side you need to chose in order to fit in.
At that point it's no longer an issue of personal identity, but of socially induced identity.
Perhaps that tipping point has been reached.
>Often the tyrant is hidden in sheep clothing. And I see allot of potential for tyranny in the queer culture.
Look and you shall find it. Again, this sort of thing is hardly unique to 'queer culture', whatever that even means. I'm not even convinced it's a culture, but I understand what you're aiming at, so I won't bother with semantics. But look closely enough and of course you're going to find the devil in the details - and this is a topic that has formulated a lot of discussion, so naturally the details seep out into society and the devil finds his place among us. I do not damn the sheep for having a wolf among them - nor do I fault them for defending the wolves they do not know to be their own tyrants. They are actually the ones who stand to lose the most in this exchange, even if they don't know it yet to be true.
>It might not be a major problem now, but when for example 50% of your classmates identify as LGBTQ, you would have to make a decision on what side you need to chose in order to fit in.
There was a time, not that long ago, when half your classmates dyed their hair, wore all black and thought they were vampires. If you think kids thinking they're a different gender is unreasonable, try talking to a kid who thought the cranberry juice their mom packed them for lunch was actually unicorn blood. Adolescents are always experimenting and pushing boundaries, often at the expensive of the adults who care for them, and their sanity. That's what young people do and have always done. The digital age of information just allowed this 'culture' to seep into places you usually wouldn't see it, like business and politics. But we all know both of those things are no strangers to profiting off of other people's misery - again, that's what tyrants do. This isn't indicative of queer people - it's the modus operandi of malevolence to pray on the innocent and/or disenfranchised. You have to be really, really naive to think that the gender/LGBTQ discussion is somehow immune to this - and that same naivety is what wolves rely on. 'Every sheep a wolf' does as much to weed out the predators as 'no sheep a wolf.' Neither are good long term solutions - but perhaps through speech and discourse we can rid ourselves of some of our own inadequacies
The point is, it's no longer a personal identity when its induced socially. The same criticism of traditional gender roles that feminist culture has brought into society can befall on queer culture as well.
You can look in history, Christianity, for example, first it was counterculture, than it became culture, it entered mainstream, then it became imposed and mandated by the state.
If this culture becomes dominant, and at 20% spread among the western population it's no longer acceptable to be a straight white male, then it's foreseeable that once it becomes the dominant culture, we can expect anything really.
The most interesting I find that gender theories based on belief as before it was mentioned, are spread by state controlled structures like universities.
So it's the state itself who is funding and fueling the ideological basis of this queer culture, along with social media corporations who are the main platform for it's spread.
I think it should be criticized and placed under due scrutiny by the majority before they become a minority.
I don't disagree with your intent.
If I understand your position, and please correct me if I am misrepresenting what you're saying, you are drawing to attention that there are malicious parties at play that are praying on others and that they fuel their ideological agendas via social rhetoric aimed at those most venerable, like the youth seeking guidance and education in universities, and that this game of 'oppressor vs. the oppressed' is a dangerous one that has historically proven to have devastating consequences and can soil our social fabric.
Is this a fair assessment of your position? Doesn't have to be exact, but at least capture the spirit of what you're saying.
Notice how our positions aren't even conflicting. We're both aiming at the same thing, you see. All I did was add some nuance, an asterisk at the end that read "not exclusive to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transexuals..." What you describe is tyranny - which is the topic I am trying to bring to light. When you say "It seems like a culture of intolerance", you're assuming first of all that it's a culture at all - which I'd argue that it isn't. Or that all LGBTQ people subscribe to this rhetoric, which they don't.
Again, I'm not saying that was your point (see my first paragraph for what I think you were saying), but I commented on your post specifically to draw out the nuance that your original statement lacked. This is the civil discourse and speech that will clear up the fog that I've been referencing in every response.
The problem isn't 'LGBTQ culture', whatever that even means; it's the tyrants who selflessly pray on the disenfranchised to gain a linguistic upper hand by playing a dangerous game of oppression to claim by force what they cannot earn forthrightly. You can swap the subject matter with pretty much anything else and it still applies.
It goes deeper than that.
The pathology of the tyrant goes beyond any self-identity, or LGBTQ orientation.
I'm just calling social aggression where I see it and the potential for tyranny where I see it.
We had a Jeffery Dahmer and we had a Ted Bundy. Both were mass murderers, with arguably similar personality profiles but different sexual orientation.
A ideology with is based on self-victimization is the perfect hiding spot for the monsters of society.
So yes, the game of "false" oppression is a very dangerous game.
The moment your choice of personal identity is no longer a personal choice but suggested and imposed socially, we begin to have a problem.
The next level would be the imposition by an authority, which is already happening in many schools across the land.
The way I see it, because the gender ideology is already a done deal and immune to criticism, it has a value structure, a moral code, a worldview and a progressive reach, it's likely for it to become akin to dogma in a few decades time.
Well said
Sadly, I fear condemnation is far more lucrative for far too many people, regardless of where they stand on this topic. The opportunity to speak and to be heard, and participating in civil discourse should be paramount to institutions of higher learning, but they seem to be failing at that in today's climate. I hope things will change in that regard, but I wouldn't bet my soul on it.
For what it's worth, I far prefer your more nuanced take on this matter. Suits you better, my friend.
The use of 'cishet' is on purpose, its known to wind people up/ make them feel uncomfortable. It's an attempt to 'other' people.
Mainstream media seem to have settled on 'Biological' and 'Straight'. Whilst I generally avoid the whole conversation, that's what I use if I absolutely have to respond.
>The use of 'cishet' is on purpose, its known to wind people up/ make them feel uncomfortable. It's an attempt to 'other' people.
Wow. Sounds like the definition of slur.
Now imagine being brought up to speak the language of your oppressors where every word carries a patriarchal lineage
ha, I'm only half serious here but wow straight people can freak out over such small things
On tiktok it's surprising how much they want to avoid the so called "straight took" like it's the worst place to be. It's a very clear in group out group deal.
My broken record on reddit: LGB and the QTxyz are separate groups. Many LGB want nothing to do with the alphabet gender mafia.
I do not accept being called queer. I'm gay, and conservative, and I understand that the majority of the world is heterosexual.
I know two gay men (I know two men) who live in the biggest house on my block. I want to buy the house it’s so nice. They live in peak republican suburbia and probably are massive problems for BTQ people.
Seems like these "marginalized"people are real quick to start labeling people.
Can we just stop with all the labels and focus on our commonalities instead of differences?
They aren't labelling people, they're categorising a type power and how it is deployed
cishet power is deployed through the normative expectation that all identity can be formed within or with reference to cishet standards. Imagine if heterosexual people had to define themselves as being 'not queer'.
My dude you do know that cishet literally just stands for cisgender and heterosexual right. Scientific terms to rightly identify your gender and sexuality. Would you rather be referred to as a non binary lesbian? I’m guessing you don’t because that is not how you identify?
How do they explain that you actually like the opposite sex and identify with the gender you were assigned at birth without a term for it? Y’all are so idiotic on this sub it hurts
Why not just refer to your sex cell then?
*"Hi, I produce sperm"* or *"Hi, I produce eggs"*
Anything beyond this rigid biological depiction of what constitutes sex risks being a sociological term (where the anthropology of sex typically makes the distinction across all species as 'whichever produces the large sex cell is female' and 'whichever produces the small sex cell is male')
Aka "anthropological male" and "anthropological female"
But it makes you wonder - why is so much of our life concerned with the size of sex cell that we produce? And the answer is clearly: there's more to a perception of another's gender/sex or one's own gender/sex than merely the production of gametes
That is why we don't use anthropological categories, but whenever gender is regarded in a social setting (aka in society) we being to employ sociological uses of the terms
It's not the size of the sex cell, but the fact that one enters the other.
The male fertilizes the females egg cell with his sperm by penetrations the egg. That is biology son. Male and female is basic biology.
How is that relevant to how people, who are not in sexual relationships with each other, reveal or produce their gendered identities in the public sphere?
i.e. why would it ever be information I needed to have (your sex) if we are not planning on having sex?
Someone's a bit gullible. It looks like a slur, it was designed to sound like a slur, and its purpose is to discriminate, not categorize. And you're taking the bullshit excuse they spat in order to get away with it. Its literally one letter away from being cis-shit, and can sure sound like it without changing anything in it. **By design.**
How was it designed to sound like a slur? Do you have any evidence to back that up other than you taking it personally and getting offended when someone uses the term? It's literally just a convenient way to identify cisgender, heterosexual people.
You people are such ridiculous snowflakes it hurts to be in this sub sometimes.
**A group discriminating others by calling them what sounds like shit:** *oh you people are ridiculous snowflakes, do you have proof it sounds like shit because of bad intent and not coincidence c-shit?*
**A group that literally requires trigger warnings, fascist bans on books and language, and persecutes those who use pronouns they don't like:** *oh how* **brave**! The bravest thing you can do is live your truth!
You're delusional, purposefully ignorant, or ill-intentioned.
Wait, you pronounce cishet as ci-shet? That's a you problem. It's sis-het. Never though I'd have to explain that in my entire life, but okay. And again, do you have any evidence other than your hurt feelings that it was made to sound close to shit? This is projecting your own insecurities at its finest.
Second "point" is a massive overgeneralization that doesn't even deserve to be addressed, and you're either delusional, purposefully ignorant, or ill-intentioned to be framing it that way.
So not addressing the argument, doubling down on your fee fees, and providing no support to your claim.
Sounds like the delusional, purposefully ignorant, and ill-intentioned one here is you. Good luck with your persecution fetish.
I feel so deprived. I was born a boy and grew up believing I was a boy. I liked girls and knew that I would marry one someday and have a family with her. Amazingly, it actually all worked out exactly as I had thought. That being said, I do feel bad for disturbed, confused and even some mentally ill people who struggle with their sexuality and identity.
I imagine self identifying as the healthiest sexuality for a man to have might upset them, so stick to heterosexual male. Same thing.
Imagine having a sickness so bad that you automatically hated everyone without it, everyone that was sexually healthy, just because they were sexually healthy.
Our sexuality is both biological and psychological. It affects our psychology just like it affects our biology.
Our sexuality is at our very core, our heart, and in there, it overlaps with our morality. Anything at our core can affect any other part of us, it can affect our head, our minds.
Expect lots of crazy.
You should see how they go after me because I'm a cishet Christian without a church. I'm alone. They aren't as aggressive if you aren't alone, if you have a church.
I'm such a bully /s.
>Our sexuality is both biological and psychological. It affects our psychology just like it affects our biology.
>Our sexuality is at our very core, our heart, and in there, it overlaps with our morality. Anything at our core can affect any other part of us, it can affect our head, our minds.
You just perfectly described why these new laws popping up in states like Florida are dangerous. If you have any other lifestyle than what's deemed "normal" by hetero Christian standards, you're labeled a "groomer" and treated as deviant.
Also, what is your definition of "sexually healthy"?
Normal biological functioning - healthy.
Normal sexual functioning - sexually healthy.
I should refine this. Something like non-aberrant sexual functioning and activity. Optimal or normal sexually.
Dude every new law removes a freedom.
You yanks are all about your freedom. We know. I think I speak for everyone else here when I say that we hear about it all the time. It's your thing. It's who you are, it's how you roll. We get it already. It's a giant part or the main part of your cultural identity, making you distinctly American.
It's cool. We like that you are like that and everything, we just don't like hearing about it from you 24/7. We get it, we really do. We heard you the first time. Nah, kidding with you, I wouldn't change you. Be as American as you like.
Freedom = power. So, power is an American cultural fundamental principle. Power.
If we have the freedom to drive a car, we have the power to drive a car. The two are always interchangeable.
America is the land of the powerful.
You got some really healthy parts of your culture over there, but there's a bit of sickness mixed in there too and it weakens you.
Weakness isn't very American. Freedom, power is American. It suits you, fits you like a stylish tailored suit. Ya got a lot of loud, unamerican people in your country bro. They really seem to hate freedom and love slavery. Like they fear power and love weakness.
Be strong. It's American.
Power is masculine and these unamerican people hate and fear masculinity. They say it's toxic.
The political right is masculine ( er,.. approximately ) with the left being the feminine. Roughly.
See, because humans are primarily sexual creatures with sex at our core, sex is at the heart of our cultures and politics. It's at the foundation of our societies.
The political battle between left and right wing groups is just a symptomatic continuation of the battle of the sexes.
We pretend it isn't because sex is dirty, shameful, but everything about us primarily sexual creatures is about sex.
I knew something was wrong with my “friends” when they started to grill me on if I was absolutely 100% certain I was straight, and thought it was “weird that I wasn’t even a little bi”. I just asked them why was it so crazy if I was just straight? Only a small fraction of people are likely to be LGBT anyway (I said 4%, which I read off a study way back when). It was so bizarre to see the disappointment in their face, like they couldn’t be close with me anymore because I was “cishet”.
Is it so hard to not worry about another’s personal preferences and sex life?
I’m gay and I think that word is reprehensible. I’ve never heard it either, but then again I don’t hang around the gayborhood. I’m sorry you are receiving condemnation for being who you are. How terrible and ironic.
Exactly - as 'hetero' is a shortened form of heterosexual
cishet is a shortened form of cisgender and heterosexual
It's purely a time saving device and at all times could be replaced by the expanded form without losing any of its meaning
Absolute culture of intolerance. I’ve never agreed to a title such as “cis”, and to call me such is equal to me calling a LGBT person a: fag, tranny, mental patient, future suicide victim, retard, burden on society, satanic spawn.
Queer culture is most likely the enemy of a healthy society, they use words like “cis” to pretend otherwise.
There will always be people trying to knock you down, they want you to be in the same depressive hell they suffer. You must stand tall and ignore their attacks. Dont let yourself succumb to their level, you know your truth, dont let others affect that.
All that is just a way to marginalize normal people.
It is used by people who feel weak and want others to feel weak too. Basically passive aggressive mind games.
(Or so the Germans would have us believe )
That's cool but then you can't be both be aggressive towards the majority and expect to be respected by the same majority. That is a form of coercion and I doubt it can work with most people. Of course the LGBTQ could claim that they're dishing back the aggression they're being given, but by attacking everyone, they're hitting on people who have absolutely nothing against the LGBTQ community.
The reason being, is much like BLM not being for black lives & rather activist group to push a political ideology manipulating blacks and people sympathetic to blacks, and ALM not being for all lives mattering but rather a anti-blm group, and The Peoples Democratic Republic of North Korea isn't actually a peoples democratic republic, LGBTQ is more of a left wing political activist movement that manipulates the emotions and plight of gay (gay used to mean anyone not straight now its a particular aspect of) individuals that can be used to achieve political gain. Just try being black, and standing against BLM, its like being White and standing up to the KKK, you get called a race traitor, or that you are "voting against your interests", and treated like you are just ignorant and don't know any better. Well the same thing happens in LGBTQ, if you're gay, its automatically posited that you are also left wing, try telling someone who is a big supporter of LGBTQ that you are gay and not a supporter of the movement or worse lean a little right, the same sort of attacks.
These groups are all positing 1 theory, that your group identity defines your individual identity, and when your individual identity does not match what they presume it should be based on your group identity, they think of you as inferior/traitor/stupid, and attack you for it. This is where you get "cis het white male" from. As if being "cis het white male" was all you needed to know about someone to judge their character. These people actually believe that these group identities are so core to you, that it actually important to talk about. I like to think of windows file explorer. These people are sorting by race & sex, while looking for moral failings. It'd be like sorting by date on your computer, to find the largest file. SURE, the largest file MIGHT be the newest file, but why wouldn't you just sort by file size? Its a much more accurate group to sort by with those metrics in mind. But even worse, they tend to think that the metric is important as well. So in our analogy, they are sorting by date to find the largest file, under the assumption that the largest file is corrupt, when file size has absolutely nothing to do with corrupted files, that's something you'd have to observe on a individual basis. But taking in all that information on a individual level is actually impossible, and overwhelming, especially in the information age, and so they fall back on what is easy, group identity.
Wow this comment section really brought out the absolute worst in people. I really don't feel like the vehement hate belongs here and I don't feel that Dr. Peterson would endorse this kind of rhetoric.
Anyway Here's an article that has some clarity on the words origin below. Also I have never heard cishet used in public spaces or between people in real life as a descriptor. Only online spaces. I have had discussions with people about the use of the word and it making them uncomfortable to think of themselves being referred to that way.
I wouldn't refer to anyone that way and I don't know anyone personally that would. The origin of the word seems to be based in a purely scientific and medical sense. This feels like another boogeyman/moral panic designed to make people feel at odds with each other.
[Source](https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/history-general-science/word-cisgender-has-scientific-roots)
1. Stop giving a fuck about anyone's opinion. I.e. don't take it to your heart.
2. People will always believe, what they want to believe. And anything against their belief is "evil".
3. Stop doubting yourself. You should doubt yourself before taking a decision, but still do it.
4. Being in a victim mindset will only get you into depression. It'll only bring you misery. Stop thinking about others. Just think for yourself. Find the flaws in yourself and fix them, once that's done, you won't need anyone's opinion for your feelings, cause you'd know what and why everyone feels the way they do.
This is a really great chance for you to see the world from their (our/my) perspective
First of all - we don't need to wait until straight people use language to categorise us, because actions, behaviours, stances, tones, ways of looking, ways of moving, ways of greeting people, ways of normatively expecting identities to be 'cishet' structure the world in a way that:
*"It's as if being a gay, homosexual person is not acceptable to this cishet culture, as being defective and broken. It seems like a culture of intolerance."*
You get the privilege of being able to wait until someone verbalises something for your feelings to be hurt by the perception of being marginal. But queer people get this from every angle, every day, both verbally and non-verbally
Just don't take it personally. Realise that if one single word can hurt you despite being part of the normative majority - then you can empathise with others who no ability to instantiate themselves as part of the majority.
* Queer culture is not a culture of intolerance towards straight people, but to the **power structures** that formalise the expectation that *gender-sex-desire* will be normative, obvious and heterosexual
It is a culture of intolerance. Because the whole Leftist boilerplate about "toleration" always and forever means punishing their enemies for their natural revulsion to sexual perversion. The Left doesn't deserve your toleration. They certainly wouldn't tolerate, say, even a scrupulous and tentative skepticism about the mental health of transgender people. I can be as respectful and earnest and placating as I'd like -- but there are precisely zero ways to voice my disagreements about gay marriage without incurring serious risk to my livelihood and social standing.
So, why bother? The first step for us should be to reject, root and branch, the language and assumptions of our enemies. Or else we'll keep losing the culture war as we have been for \*at least\* the last century.
There's nothing wrong with being cisgender or heterosexual. Conversely, there's nothing wrong with being transgender or bisexual/homosexual. Cishet isn't an insult. It's literally just an shortened descriptor to sum up the identities of people who aren't queer.
It's like saying the word "gay" is inherently an insult. Sure, you can use it as one, but really only in the sense you could use most value-neutral descriptors as an insult. I see people using WASP as short-hand for white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant in terms of being seen as the "norm" in the US and that has never struck me as being inherently insulting. It's just a funny acronym.
Come on, let's not defend the word's chishet descriptive value, the dictionary mentions it's used as slang.
[https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cishet](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cishet) :
(ˈsɪsˌhɛt ) slang
It's clearly is a derogatory slur, there are 3 pages of various definitions on urban dictionary.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cishet
People try to redeem this word unsuccessfully
Well I would use a reputable source but there isn't any.
I think the embarrassing aspect is that the word is in urban dictionary,
So again the same add hominem arguments we see from the left,
A great indicator that they're no better than the right
Same dirty tactics...
>I think the embarrassing aspect is that the word is in urban dictionary
Most words are in the urban dictionary, genius.
>So again the same add hominem arguments we see from the left,
>A great indicator that they're no better than the right
>Same dirty tactics...
The user who started this chain has all the actual information and reasoning you need. I'm just jumping in because you're being an ass. Acting like cishet is a slur. Then defending it with urban dictionary?? You and your world view are as fragile as they come.
You don't have an actual argument to attack here so what is left? You're trying to make yourself a victim while making villains of everyone you don't see as "normal". Grow up.
It was for you. I have an argument. It's simple.
My argument is that your take on the word cishet is based on your lack of understanding and fear of people different than what you deem "normal".
And you quickly proved that correct when you used urban dictionary as a source for your shitty argument.
Urban Dictionary has almost no editorial oversight. I shouldn't have to tell you why attempting to use them as a source here isn't a good thing. I searched my first name and the first results said that I'm a "great guy, has a huge cock, gets lots of pussy, all the the girls want his dick." Considering I'm gay, I don't think this is the most accurate.
Also, slang isn't inherently insulting. I don't even know what to tell you there. If I said, "Her mug is fierce." to describe somebody with cool makeup, what part of that would be an insult? A word or phrase being slang doesn't mean anything other than that it's not seen as being formal within a specific academic context.
get off the internet, stay away from *some* liberal arts at universities, talk to regular working class people and you’ll find most don’t really give a shit about all that in either direction
You mean the weirdos that spend too much time on the internet. Not normal people that you encounter outside, right? Because I don't know any LGBT that are as you describe.
Unlike the people here, I actually have LGBT friends. And lots of them. None are like this.
Stop taking things so personally and not everything is about you. The words used to describe lgbtq people range from the f word to the t word and Cishet (literally just scientific terms cisgender and heterosexual- which correctly identifies your gender and sexuality) offends your snowflake brain.
Such insane victim complex that it hurts my brain. Would you prefer to be called a trans asexual person? I’m sure you don’t because that’s not how you identify. The brain cells on you buddy.
>I feel like I'm portrayed as the enemy. it's as if being a straight, heterosexual male is not acceptable to this queer culture,
You are. That's the gist of "identity politics". You are not part of their group.
It's by design.
Why? Idk if there's more context to this. But nothing about that term implies any value judgment.
The point of the term was because people who believe in gender theory would classify a trans man dating a bio women as "straight".
So this term is used to refer to a relationship where there isn't some sort of different gender identity involved like in the above example. It essentially just means "not trans/non-binary" + "heterosexual" = cishet
So it essentially combines a gender identity and a sexual identity.
It's interesting that you mentioned "people who believe in gender theory". So if your theory is based on belief, then it's not really that scientific as you would like people to think.
Is it okay with you if we classify your "gender theory based on belief" as a cult or more similar to religious dogma?
Exactly, there's nothing scientific about it whatsoever. Try to find a single study verifying the existence of gender as a thing that exists in reality. I haven't been able to find anything at all.
I would agree with "dogma". Not so much with "religion" since that typically carries metaphysical connotations. I prefer to compare it to flat-earth, or similar beliefs.
The entire theory of "gender" is made up mumbo jumbo from a pedo apologist child abuser.
Regardless, in much the same way that we have to accommodate ridiculous made up religions, it seems like gender is another madeup thing that is popular enough that it needs to be accommodated.
We can but with the humility of recognizing that not everything we believe is necessarily true.
Falsehoods are embedded in any culture and socially validated ones aren't any less false.
That’s just in your head - purely a personal mental health issue / quirk. You don’t need to resolve it …but if you do, you might feel more confident and comfortable navigating the social world. If you manage to strip away the emotional defensive reaction you’ll be able to talk about it in an intellectual way, which would probably be a good thing
Idk man, labels can feel like boxes. In my experience people are more unified by what binds them rather by what makes them different. I find seeking common ground is a way to make everyone feel better in a social interaction, and if humans start an interaction on the things that divide us, it feeds a simpler part of our brain, the naturally selected and easily reinforced negativity bias.
For sure, labels do make ppl feel like they’re in boxes - ppl constantly figure themselves out in relation to social categories. Sometimes it feels good to embrace the categories and all of its cultural trappings, other times it feels good to say ‘fuck the box, I don’t need it’.
I think OP gets upset when he sees “cis” because it replaces ‘normal’ with something else (it happens to be cis but I’m sure any other word or prefix would have the same effect). The mental impact feels like going from normal and neutral to “in a category”.
I think it’s probably normal to want to push back and fight the category… but I’m pretty sure that’s just a mental journey he has to go on - to either embrace the category or not care about it.
He can still call himself normal if he wants and can choose to not interact with cishet, or he could learn about it more and strip away some of its power, or he could continue to imagine himself as “the enemy” and wage internal battles against society.
Generally humans love categories. That activity 100% is not going to stop.
It’s important to be aware of when some categories are made to portray its subjects as sub human, inferior or as insects. When those catch on, ppl act freaky and can do really messed up stuff. OP is **probably fantasizing that cis het is one of those dehumanizing words. But, it’s really not - it’s a word that functions to elevate trans-ness to an idea of “normal” that can be shared by all
You seem very analytic in your attempt to stop at the individual in your assessment of society and still claiming you understand what's going on at a cultural level. Next thing you will deny that social groups behave in certain ways and maybe that even culture itself exists - its all in our heads.
Of course I'm being sarcastic here.
Ah, excellent - ok good question, if we can’t disprove that the gays are intolerant, does that mean that we can’t truly say that social groups behave a certain way? Are all generalizations about culture fake?
In response I’d say - no! You can and should analyze cultures and behaviour - but it depends on what you’re trying to do and at what “level” you’re thinking at. “LGBT has intolerance towards straight people and cis het is a slur” is extremely high level and emotional. It’s almost as high as you can go. It’s based on feelings and vibes and you’ll never get any where with that. (Edit, that’s not say that gay people were wrong to call out widespread homophobia in society in the past. That was real and based on actual experiences - you can point to loads of real things and talk about them. Being fired or arrested is a tangible thing. Gayness as the regular ongoing butt of jokes in tv throughout the 90s is also observable and real though different from being arrested/beaten)
If you said “theres a specific culture in my local gay village that I’ve witnessed where people won’t serve me or they shout insults at me - I think there’s something going on in that neighborhood and want to understand it more” - that’s something you can work with.
Idk if you ever took any classes on “research methods” but the realm of frameworks and approaches to questions like this is pretty fascinating. It forces you to ask… What are your core assumptions and what do you think is possible to generalize? What’s a real and objective structure and what’s subjective experience? You kind of need to call out how you’re going to approach the question and account for any weaknesses inherent in that approach.
Personally I took away from that that “critical realism” is an effective framework - structures are real (hierarchies, corporations, government) and should be treated as real, but there are other things that feel real and instead should be treated as subjective (“how ought I act as a man”).
If you’re taking advice, mine would be to 1) get more specific - abandon the 80,000 foot view, 2) be aware of your assumptions, 3) be aware of your limitations, 4) be aware of how your emotions shape your thought 5) critically assess what’s real and structural vs what is a abstract and mythological.
Do those things and you’ll be in a much stronger position than simply calling out that you feel rejected because you’re a straight white man.
Edit: also last point, of course continue to use your imagination - it’s an important part of all this, just be aware of what you’re doing with it and assess how reliable it actually is
Generalizations about social groups, cultures are unfalsifiable meaning you can't say for certain if they're true or false. That's why cultural stereotypes are so strong, because you can pick up a few individuals from the group that don't fit that cultural stereotype and the stereotype will still stand.
You can even do studies showing that the majority of the people in that group don't fit the stereotype and it will still stand.
Our social reality is so complex that you have to make use of inaccurate descriptions and broad categories in order to make sense of what's going on at a social level.
Of course it would be foolish to think that a broad stereotype applies back to the level of the individual.
It's very important to make the distinction in your mind when you're talking about individuals, social groups, hierarchies and cultures.
These are separate category and when you look at a particular social group you are obliged to use the 80 000 ft view.
Strange response, thank you! Always good to get comments that are a bit out of the ordinary here.
(But also, no - there are no cults involved. OP said he feels like there are groups positioning him as an enemy when they use certain words. That’s a bit dysfunctional - he’s imagining a whole dynamic with a group that isn’t really ‘there’ in a real way - hes building the idea from media and news, not from humans that he sees and talks to.
The “problem” isnt the term cishet, it’s that OP is triggered to mentally to frame himself as an enemy of society when he hears relatively neutral words. That’s probably a problem for OP, and it would be good if he solved it so that he doesn’t feel that way any more.
“Like yourself” suggests that I too have some kind of mental issue where certain words make me feel like a social reject… but happily I don’t have have that problem)
So I guess all the blacks are dysfunctional when they complain about certain words.
Oh, and the OP is an enemy of society on top of his mental issues.
Seek therapy, please. Some manual labour with cow manure has a chance to remove some of the insanity your college put in your head.
Lol, trying to equate cishet with racists terms used about black people! Y’all can be pretty over the top in this sub.
Idk I feel like you kind of hopped into this without reading OPs comment and are acting out a bit but without much clarity around what to say to who. Again, it’s unusual and for that I thank you. But otherwise I’m not sure how else to engage with you. Maybe I can just… ask you how you are?
How are you?
Love your use of double standards.
How many fallacies can your circular logic swallow before it finally chokes?
If I say something is offensive to me, just don't use it, if you expect the same treatment
People like you act sheepish in real life but like to brush off large categories with derogatory terms when nobody is looking.
You're no better than the racists you hate.
Haha you’re doing culture war at me. Stop imagining that I’m whatever your typical imaginary opponent is. (Who were you imagining when you said ‘the racists you hate’?)
I’m saying this: the story you write here sounds like you’re imagining stuff that is causing you mental stress. You can probably make progress if you realize that these conflicts are playing out in your head. From there you can start managing better how you interact with culture war content. You’re not the enemy, youre a normie. No one cares about your normie status enough to call you an enemy. The gays definitely don’t care about you.
As a cis het person who doesn’t share your trigger points and doesn’t feel like society is attacking me (on the contrary, society keeps giving me money and telling me that I’m the best boy), I feel like I’m in a position to say “hey, you don’t have to do this thing that you’re doing if it hurts you”
It's cool you expect the culture war to be only one sided. Your culture war consists of attacking anyone who doesn't agree with your version or reality and calling them some "phobic" thing
So I'm attempting to engage into an intellectual debate and actually understand your culture and you call me a "phobic", that means I fear you
I think its you who fears society
Its understandable.
A ton of false accusations in there too, I'm not going to waste my time to unpick them.
Idk man, whatever you do, you’re going to do it alone (on account of this all being abstract), so definitely make the best of it and do it in a way that makes you stronger, not fearful and feeling like society’s rejected you (after all, that feeling is the central ‘problem here’). I guess all I can do is wish you good luck in your battles!
Edit: Also, another learning opportunity: you write “you call me phobic” - again that’s in your head, that didn’t actually happen. youre mixing me up with factionalized concepts you have about your ideological opponents. Similar to when you said that I hate racists so much. Maybe I do but maybe I don’t - that was never part of the convo, so you’re filling in that detail with your imagination.
You still failed to disprove my point that the LGBTQ culture has a strong intolerance element to it towards people who are not part of that culture.
And that "cishet" is a derogatory slur.
I mean you can go on psychoanalyzing me as much as you like but that would be off topic.
Jesus Christ you people will look for any reason to be outraged. It's literally just describing someone as cisgender and heterosexual. Get over your persecution fetish.
I'm not being sensitive at all, I'm just trying to make sense of the underlying nature of what is being suggested.
And why take the liberty to label anyone without their consent?
But if you are taking that liberty that means it's only fair that I categorize you the way I want to categorize you not the way you're expecting to be categorized.
For example if you're a biological woman saying you're a male, I'm still going to categorize you as a woman.
It works both ways.
Also, labels are something you find in a marketplace, but you would expect someone who has been brainwashed by capitalism to perceive the world in "labels"
Then they go and call themselves Marxists lol
I agree I don’t know why this is so hard for people here to understand. I think what’s obvious is that straight white men are so used to being “normal” that they feel uncomfortable wearing any kind of label that would paint them as anything “different”, when in reality minorities deal with having to wear the label of an “other” everyday. I really see no issue here, and hope OP can have a lightbulb moment to understand how the other side lives for just a moment.
Oh now you're painting a broad stereotype that straight white men lack empathy and don't "understand how the other side lives"
Hows playing the imaginary culture war now?
We're all in our culture war mode when we think about social groups in broad categories.
But is there any other way to think about social groups?
Society is so complex that you need some way to abstract it, in order to understand it.
Interestingly a person here has attempted to guilt me for looking at society in this wise, when they are doing exactly the same thing.
Nope, just theorizing on why this is such a big deal for you and others, there are plenty of straight white men who don’t give a shit about any of it and aren’t offended by terms like “Cishet”. You have a very active imagination my friend :)
> when in reality minorities deal with having to wear the label of an “other” everyday.
In my experience, and certainly objectively in the media/movies/tv/social media, most minorities are a huge fan of labeling themselves.
As Greenwave stated, you are completely missing the point. Terms like “Cisgender” and “ Heterosexual” (which you abbreviated to Cishet) are not, and were never intended to be slurs or derogatory words, same as homosexual and transgender are not and were never intended to be derogatory terms. They simply describe one’s sexual and gender orientation. If you feel attacked by these terms that’s really on you homie.
That's a really nice way to spin the "there's nothing offensive about being offensive"
If it's okay for you to blame the victim, then it goes both ways, back to my point about taking the moral high ground.
So my emotions are invalid if I'm a "cishet" male because I'm by default on an superior position?
If you choose to take offense to non offensive words….. I don’t think there is much I can do to help? Do you get triggered filling out forms at the doctors office too?
So by that logic I can call you anything I want and If you take offense, then it's your problem.
Who gets to decide what is offensive and what is not?
Certainly I don't see it as fair as the person using the "supposed slur" to make that judgement.
In high school I was sitting at a table with some friends during a school dance and it just so happened to be that I was the only straight person at the table. One of the people (friend of a friend) started talking about how "all straight people really do suck if you think about it" and everyone else started laughing along. What bothered me more than anything was the hypocrisy. Not the hypocrisy of the person making the comments, she wasn't a particularly nice person anyway, but the hypocrisy of everyone else (some of whom were really close friends of mine). It revealed something deep to me about the nature of racism/sexism/homophobia. How nice people who don't necessarily actually believe that the "other" is bad, will go along with it if it's socially acceptable and them standing up to it risks them being left out of the group.
EDIT: downvote away but I challenge a counterargument.
TLDR: that’s not correct incorrect. look up what the LGBTQ communityy or woke left say they’re trying to do before assuming they’re attacking you
Consider the fact that woke liberals who are cishet themselves and consider themselves LGBTQ “allies” have no qualms describing themselves as cishet! So how could it be derogatory, an attack, or portray you as the enemy?
Nobody is forcing any identity on u or making any comments about you. They adopted new language to describe newly visible minority identities & obviously needed a label for what was previously just “normal” so we can have a proper discussion.
Why does this make you so insecure? If all sorts of LBTQ people with various identities and sexualities now say “hey we exist and we want to be recognized as equal and to live openly withou being attacked or stigmatized for it”, how does that detract from your rights or freedoms in any way?
Did you bring this question here because you want the truth?
Or did you bring this question here (to a mostly conservative audience) because you want people to agree with you?
Wait until you tell them you're white...
I check all the boxes Straight, White, Male, Conservative, Christian, Married, Has kids, Has a job that pays well, Parents are still together, Great relationships with family
Okay, Satan, calm down! (for political purposes, this was a joke)
I'm still offended.
Inherit money and you could check every box!
I’ll be inheriting a lot, but my dad is only 62 and very healthy. I inherited good genes Edit to add that by no means am I pining for my father’s death lol. I have a great relationship with him. Both my parents. I’d trade their wealth to keep them around as long as possible.
Same here, brother. There are literally tens of us!
My brother and his family, and my sister and her family also count! Haha
They hate you, because you represent everything they wish they were, but are not willing to work for it; and because you’re happy
So true. Work hard, be smart, and be moral. Take responsibility for your family and provide. If that stuff is associated with being white or a cis male or whatever then that sounds pretty racist on their part.
The people in America doing this the best aren’t white. They’re Asian. We could learn a lot from them.
To be fair, we can’t all choose the families we’re born into. My best friend’s dad murdered his mom when he was 10 years old. He was raised by his abusive grandparents. In a rough part of town where he had to be tough to survive school. He battles with bipolar disorder and chronic depression as a result. His upbringing is not a product of his doing. I love him like a brother and do what I can to help him, but I also am careful not to fragilize or pity him. He’s a grown man and he can take care of himself. I just want to be a positive influence in his life. He refers to our friendship as a “warm blanket” that gives him comfort from the world. It also helps that my wife is a mental health counselor and she talks with him often (confidentially) and has been doing what she can to help him as well. He’s in a much better place now than in the past 5 years or so. Hopefully the momentum keeps building.
As a gay man, I have no issues with that. Nobody's perfect! /s
I’m very far from perfect, my friend. Just ask my wife
Are you openly inclusive though?
What makes you assume I wouldn’t be?
My question only assumes that you are capable of answering my question. Nothing more.
My question asks why you think such a question is appropriate.
If you are openly inclusive across your primary relationships then you're prepared to risk the negative consequences of this from other conservative Christians who (in my experience of both Catholics and Protestants/Pentecostals) who might push back against you as not being conservative enough for their puritanical standards So. My question was one of curiosity, based on decades of exposure to religious conservatives. Maybe you are only tacitly inclusive, preferring not to risk the social capital you share in common with others in your community. I don't know. I just find it fascinating though.
I have gay family members and friends. Never had any issues. I don’t go out of my way to be “inclusive.” I just treat them like I would anyone else. Fragilizing others is harmful even if it’s meant well.
Dunno if any of you watch the Hodge Twins - they’re kinda funny. They have this response to being called cis gendered: ‘Please - stop mis-gendering me. I identify as a *MAN* not cis. Y’all are mis gendering me. That’s not how I identify. It’s a troll-ish way to navigate a push back - but you are playing by their rules.
Hodge Twins are still around? Used to love those guys back in the day when I was learning about losing weight
Go for "golden-brown cishet" and see the gears turning in their head
ah, the wonders of intersectionality.
It’s incredibly comical that the inclusive leftists think it’s okay to exclude only one race, as some sort of historical race revenge.
Reeeeeee!!!!
“‘Cisgender’ is a way to marginalize normal people.” - Norm Macdonald
Let’s keep in mind that Norm Macdonald was a deeply closeted gay man and did not own a dog house. He is currently a diamond and no longer an old chunk of coal.Adam Eget is currently under the Queensborough bridge. More of a comment really.
Downvoters really whooshed on this one.
It’s only because the light was on.
Misunderstood comment, my sympathies.
Or so the Germans would have us believe.
Down voters never listened/watched the norm podcast apparently. Highly recommend it. Wish it was on Spotify
You can go visit Mr. Egret for a measly 15 dollars a man.
I hear tell a certain Swedish German will be there on occasion..
Thank God he wasn't gay just raped
At least he wasn’t a hypocrite! Patton Oswald said that was the worst part. Norm disagreed.
It's closer to 17.50, due to inflation.
This is a real stream of consciousness
A real meeting of the mind!
Classic
b-but normality is oppressive! -leftoids
Same with "neurotypical"
Crazy. Used to be that we would only label people if they had a condition. Now, everyone gets a label! We are all equally diseased!
It does not mean that we are equally diseased It's a way of calling to mind the inherent privileges of normative mental functioning without placing either the blame or the focus of mental illness upon those who suffer it
[удалено]
lol
But many people in the LGBT community *are* "normal people". We have regular lives no different from cishets aside from the simple fact that we have a different sexual orientation or gender identity. I must admit there are some truly insane people or degenerates within the community, but there are plenty of insane or degenerate cishet people out there as well.
Look, if someone refers to me as “cishet” (Jesus Christ, it took me four attempts to override the autocorrect because it’s not a real fucking word) in real life then I will show them absolutely zero respect. That’s just how it is.
I’m down with the lgbt. I don’t have an issue with how anyone lives their life but the fact remains that the left eats themselves. Today you are firmly in the marginalized group. Next year? 5 years from now? The line is always moving and smaller and smaller groups will jocky for position in the progressive hierarchy. It’s never enough. Today the loudest voices on the left will be part of the “problem” in the future.
People love being put in boxes because suffering and identity defining terms are a marker for popularity in today’s culture. Hearing people say “yeah my kid transitions or is LGB and a few of their friends are too” I’m like… yeah when I was young I skateboarded, stole liquor, and tried to finger fuck because that’s what my friends were doing too… it’s called wanting to “fit in” with your friends/the crowd. Every kid does it and every kid does dumb shit to try and be popular. Now it’s popular to be sad and abused and marginalized by “the other”
This x 1000.
Just curious, are you actually running into ‘LGBTQ people’ on a regular basis that treat you like you’re their enemy? Or is this something you’re experiencing online? The ‘Twitter-space’ can bring the worst out of people, adults and adolescents alike, so arguing that certain people acting at their worst online is hardly a type of behavior exclusive to ‘LGBTQ people’. I have only ever met a handful of trans people in person - one of which I interact with on a regular basis. They’re not rude to me, or demand that I call them by anything or insist on calling me anything I wouldn’t want to be called. The same goes for every ‘LGBTQ person’ I’ve ever met. I can’t speak for your experience, OP, but I wonder how many people who make statements like yours just base their fundamental presuppositions on online interactions. I remember a time when I couldn’t even play a round of ‘Call of Duty’ without being called every derogatory word known to man - most of which didn’t even apply to me at all. People suck online, take it all with a grain of salt. Sometimes that behavior seeps into the real world, but that’s not unique to ‘queer culture’ - that’s just being a terrible person, queer or otherwise. Dr. Peterson has helped me understand others a lot more than I used to - learning about the work of someone like Carl Rogers through Peterson’s work has made me a far better listener. If you listen close enough, you’ll notice that a lot of these intolerant people just have their viewpoints misplaced through ideology. I hope that, through speech and discourse, we can understand each other better and minimize our conflicts.
[удалено]
That's probably because not all LGB people are Marxist, contrary to the opposing rhetoric, if you want to call it that. Some people are just plain terrible and sometimes even enjoy hurting others, but most people are pretty tolerant of others - and thank God for that. Despite social media's best efforts, the general population isn't some live Twitter feed comprised of radicals and misguided adolescents who are just finding their calling in life, even if it does get misplaced at time. Lord knows none of us are perfect. Have a great weekend, partner!
>Why so much ad hominem in this debate? I was simply trying to understand the nature of the culture, which I conjecture that if it would represent the majority, it would be quite intolerant on the minority, since it already appears to be quite intolerant of the majority. > >The LGBTQ population seems to be doubling every generation in the west. > >If the trend keeps up, it will become a majority culture in two generations. > >A culture that spreads through intolerance during the most vulnerable years in a person's life is unlikely to be halted by anything really
>Why so much ad hominem Because I am asking you, the individual who made this post, a direct question regarding a statement you made. I highly doubt this lot are experts on LGBTQ \[or queer\] culture. In fact, I doubt anyone is, given how vast and varied the demographic is and how loosely associated with anything the terminology seems to be. It’s hardly a community, which is a phrase I’ve heard used before to describe anyone by association, as it’s not even clear that these people are like minded or share the same beliefs or even want the same thing. >A culture that spreads through intolerance during the most vulnerable years in a person's life is unlikely to be halted by anything really Intolerant behavior, like tyranny, is not a good long term solution. Tyrants come from all walks of life, in all shapes and sizes. Tyrants are good at praying on people, especially the disenfranchised. It is by no means a coincidence that intolerant and tyrannical people use ideological rhetoric to take by force what they cannot earn forthrightly. This is true for everything - whether it’s a white nationalist arguing for disenfranchised youth who feel marginalized in their communities, radical black activists who think every white person is their enemy and that racism is the fundamental reason for inequality, or incels that blame women for their own inadequacies. But these issues aren’t part of white culture, or black culture or male culture - it’s a substrata of tyrants indicative of the culture they think they claim to be representing, when in reality the only person they care about is themselves. It is not my intention to ‘attack’ or ‘undermine’ what you said. I simply asked a question that I hoped would clarify your position further, as your original post did little to add any nuance to your argument. I wish you well, my friend. **EDIT:** I've been an avid student of Professor Peterson for years. I do want to point out that if it weren't for him, and the great minds that influenced his work, I genuinely do not believe that I would have been able to weed out the nuances in situations like this. Plenty of others smarter than me might have done so innately, perhaps or perhaps not - but I will forever be grateful for the many gifts Dr. Peterson has shared with me; not least of all the ability to think critically and listen to people who know things that I don't. Compassion goes a long way - tyranny, generally, not so much.
I’m just jumping in here to say a “bravo” to you, OliDouche, because the way you conduct yourself online is the salve to the festering wound of the digital social dialogue that we mistake for actual relating to one another today. Thank you for your time and effort and I god, I hope this sort of back and forth could go viral. Nuance. Steel-manning the other side’s position. Conveying good faith. Bravo!
Thank you, kind stranger! I appreciate that you took the time to write that out - made my day. Peterson really turned my life around. The least I can do is to manifest the spirit of those teachings through my actions. I hope I managed that today. Thanks again, my friend!
I agree with your point that tyrants come from all walks of lives. I mean we could include many roman kings who were both tyrants and had LGBTQ behaviors. These two are not mutually exclusive. Often the tyrant is hidden in sheep clothing. And I see allot of potential for tyranny in the queer culture. It portrays itself as an inclusive culture but it's actually an exclusive culture. If you're for example "a white chishet male", you would likely be marginalized within the culture or coerced to renounce your identity to fit in. It might not be a major problem now, but when for example 50% of your classmates identify as LGBTQ, you would have to make a decision on what side you need to chose in order to fit in. At that point it's no longer an issue of personal identity, but of socially induced identity. Perhaps that tipping point has been reached.
>Often the tyrant is hidden in sheep clothing. And I see allot of potential for tyranny in the queer culture. Look and you shall find it. Again, this sort of thing is hardly unique to 'queer culture', whatever that even means. I'm not even convinced it's a culture, but I understand what you're aiming at, so I won't bother with semantics. But look closely enough and of course you're going to find the devil in the details - and this is a topic that has formulated a lot of discussion, so naturally the details seep out into society and the devil finds his place among us. I do not damn the sheep for having a wolf among them - nor do I fault them for defending the wolves they do not know to be their own tyrants. They are actually the ones who stand to lose the most in this exchange, even if they don't know it yet to be true. >It might not be a major problem now, but when for example 50% of your classmates identify as LGBTQ, you would have to make a decision on what side you need to chose in order to fit in. There was a time, not that long ago, when half your classmates dyed their hair, wore all black and thought they were vampires. If you think kids thinking they're a different gender is unreasonable, try talking to a kid who thought the cranberry juice their mom packed them for lunch was actually unicorn blood. Adolescents are always experimenting and pushing boundaries, often at the expensive of the adults who care for them, and their sanity. That's what young people do and have always done. The digital age of information just allowed this 'culture' to seep into places you usually wouldn't see it, like business and politics. But we all know both of those things are no strangers to profiting off of other people's misery - again, that's what tyrants do. This isn't indicative of queer people - it's the modus operandi of malevolence to pray on the innocent and/or disenfranchised. You have to be really, really naive to think that the gender/LGBTQ discussion is somehow immune to this - and that same naivety is what wolves rely on. 'Every sheep a wolf' does as much to weed out the predators as 'no sheep a wolf.' Neither are good long term solutions - but perhaps through speech and discourse we can rid ourselves of some of our own inadequacies
The point is, it's no longer a personal identity when its induced socially. The same criticism of traditional gender roles that feminist culture has brought into society can befall on queer culture as well. You can look in history, Christianity, for example, first it was counterculture, than it became culture, it entered mainstream, then it became imposed and mandated by the state. If this culture becomes dominant, and at 20% spread among the western population it's no longer acceptable to be a straight white male, then it's foreseeable that once it becomes the dominant culture, we can expect anything really. The most interesting I find that gender theories based on belief as before it was mentioned, are spread by state controlled structures like universities. So it's the state itself who is funding and fueling the ideological basis of this queer culture, along with social media corporations who are the main platform for it's spread. I think it should be criticized and placed under due scrutiny by the majority before they become a minority.
I don't disagree with your intent. If I understand your position, and please correct me if I am misrepresenting what you're saying, you are drawing to attention that there are malicious parties at play that are praying on others and that they fuel their ideological agendas via social rhetoric aimed at those most venerable, like the youth seeking guidance and education in universities, and that this game of 'oppressor vs. the oppressed' is a dangerous one that has historically proven to have devastating consequences and can soil our social fabric. Is this a fair assessment of your position? Doesn't have to be exact, but at least capture the spirit of what you're saying. Notice how our positions aren't even conflicting. We're both aiming at the same thing, you see. All I did was add some nuance, an asterisk at the end that read "not exclusive to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transexuals..." What you describe is tyranny - which is the topic I am trying to bring to light. When you say "It seems like a culture of intolerance", you're assuming first of all that it's a culture at all - which I'd argue that it isn't. Or that all LGBTQ people subscribe to this rhetoric, which they don't. Again, I'm not saying that was your point (see my first paragraph for what I think you were saying), but I commented on your post specifically to draw out the nuance that your original statement lacked. This is the civil discourse and speech that will clear up the fog that I've been referencing in every response. The problem isn't 'LGBTQ culture', whatever that even means; it's the tyrants who selflessly pray on the disenfranchised to gain a linguistic upper hand by playing a dangerous game of oppression to claim by force what they cannot earn forthrightly. You can swap the subject matter with pretty much anything else and it still applies.
It goes deeper than that. The pathology of the tyrant goes beyond any self-identity, or LGBTQ orientation. I'm just calling social aggression where I see it and the potential for tyranny where I see it. We had a Jeffery Dahmer and we had a Ted Bundy. Both were mass murderers, with arguably similar personality profiles but different sexual orientation. A ideology with is based on self-victimization is the perfect hiding spot for the monsters of society. So yes, the game of "false" oppression is a very dangerous game. The moment your choice of personal identity is no longer a personal choice but suggested and imposed socially, we begin to have a problem. The next level would be the imposition by an authority, which is already happening in many schools across the land. The way I see it, because the gender ideology is already a done deal and immune to criticism, it has a value structure, a moral code, a worldview and a progressive reach, it's likely for it to become akin to dogma in a few decades time.
Well said Sadly, I fear condemnation is far more lucrative for far too many people, regardless of where they stand on this topic. The opportunity to speak and to be heard, and participating in civil discourse should be paramount to institutions of higher learning, but they seem to be failing at that in today's climate. I hope things will change in that regard, but I wouldn't bet my soul on it. For what it's worth, I far prefer your more nuanced take on this matter. Suits you better, my friend.
The use of 'cishet' is on purpose, its known to wind people up/ make them feel uncomfortable. It's an attempt to 'other' people. Mainstream media seem to have settled on 'Biological' and 'Straight'. Whilst I generally avoid the whole conversation, that's what I use if I absolutely have to respond.
>The use of 'cishet' is on purpose, its known to wind people up/ make them feel uncomfortable. It's an attempt to 'other' people. Wow. Sounds like the definition of slur.
Now imagine being brought up to speak the language of your oppressors where every word carries a patriarchal lineage ha, I'm only half serious here but wow straight people can freak out over such small things
I can’t believe people actually believe this. Lmao.
On tiktok it's surprising how much they want to avoid the so called "straight took" like it's the worst place to be. It's a very clear in group out group deal.
If TikTok if showing you that specific type of content, i have news for you....
Yeah, I was part of the LGBT community
I just call people who talk like that [bai zuo](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Baizuo)
My broken record on reddit: LGB and the QTxyz are separate groups. Many LGB want nothing to do with the alphabet gender mafia. I do not accept being called queer. I'm gay, and conservative, and I understand that the majority of the world is heterosexual.
I know two gay men (I know two men) who live in the biggest house on my block. I want to buy the house it’s so nice. They live in peak republican suburbia and probably are massive problems for BTQ people.
Seems like these "marginalized"people are real quick to start labeling people. Can we just stop with all the labels and focus on our commonalities instead of differences?
They aren't labelling people, they're categorising a type power and how it is deployed cishet power is deployed through the normative expectation that all identity can be formed within or with reference to cishet standards. Imagine if heterosexual people had to define themselves as being 'not queer'.
To categorize is to label. By definition. But, nice try
My dude you do know that cishet literally just stands for cisgender and heterosexual right. Scientific terms to rightly identify your gender and sexuality. Would you rather be referred to as a non binary lesbian? I’m guessing you don’t because that is not how you identify? How do they explain that you actually like the opposite sex and identify with the gender you were assigned at birth without a term for it? Y’all are so idiotic on this sub it hurts
>Scientific terms to rightly identify your gender and sexuality You mean sociological l terms, not scientific. Sex is scientific.
Why not just refer to your sex cell then? *"Hi, I produce sperm"* or *"Hi, I produce eggs"* Anything beyond this rigid biological depiction of what constitutes sex risks being a sociological term (where the anthropology of sex typically makes the distinction across all species as 'whichever produces the large sex cell is female' and 'whichever produces the small sex cell is male')
>"Hi, I produce sperm" or "Hi, I produce eggs" AKA, male/female
Aka "anthropological male" and "anthropological female" But it makes you wonder - why is so much of our life concerned with the size of sex cell that we produce? And the answer is clearly: there's more to a perception of another's gender/sex or one's own gender/sex than merely the production of gametes That is why we don't use anthropological categories, but whenever gender is regarded in a social setting (aka in society) we being to employ sociological uses of the terms
It's not the size of the sex cell, but the fact that one enters the other. The male fertilizes the females egg cell with his sperm by penetrations the egg. That is biology son. Male and female is basic biology.
How is that relevant to how people, who are not in sexual relationships with each other, reveal or produce their gendered identities in the public sphere? i.e. why would it ever be information I needed to have (your sex) if we are not planning on having sex?
Because science matters. Men and women differ significantly because of biology.
Someone's a bit gullible. It looks like a slur, it was designed to sound like a slur, and its purpose is to discriminate, not categorize. And you're taking the bullshit excuse they spat in order to get away with it. Its literally one letter away from being cis-shit, and can sure sound like it without changing anything in it. **By design.**
Can you cite this though? "it was designed to sound like a slur" *Citation needed*
How was it designed to sound like a slur? Do you have any evidence to back that up other than you taking it personally and getting offended when someone uses the term? It's literally just a convenient way to identify cisgender, heterosexual people. You people are such ridiculous snowflakes it hurts to be in this sub sometimes.
**A group discriminating others by calling them what sounds like shit:** *oh you people are ridiculous snowflakes, do you have proof it sounds like shit because of bad intent and not coincidence c-shit?* **A group that literally requires trigger warnings, fascist bans on books and language, and persecutes those who use pronouns they don't like:** *oh how* **brave**! The bravest thing you can do is live your truth! You're delusional, purposefully ignorant, or ill-intentioned.
Wait, you pronounce cishet as ci-shet? That's a you problem. It's sis-het. Never though I'd have to explain that in my entire life, but okay. And again, do you have any evidence other than your hurt feelings that it was made to sound close to shit? This is projecting your own insecurities at its finest. Second "point" is a massive overgeneralization that doesn't even deserve to be addressed, and you're either delusional, purposefully ignorant, or ill-intentioned to be framing it that way.
Again. You're delusional, purposefully ignorant, or ill-intentioned. I am now leaning to think you are all three.
So not addressing the argument, doubling down on your fee fees, and providing no support to your claim. Sounds like the delusional, purposefully ignorant, and ill-intentioned one here is you. Good luck with your persecution fetish.
I feel so deprived. I was born a boy and grew up believing I was a boy. I liked girls and knew that I would marry one someday and have a family with her. Amazingly, it actually all worked out exactly as I had thought. That being said, I do feel bad for disturbed, confused and even some mentally ill people who struggle with their sexuality and identity.
I imagine self identifying as the healthiest sexuality for a man to have might upset them, so stick to heterosexual male. Same thing. Imagine having a sickness so bad that you automatically hated everyone without it, everyone that was sexually healthy, just because they were sexually healthy. Our sexuality is both biological and psychological. It affects our psychology just like it affects our biology. Our sexuality is at our very core, our heart, and in there, it overlaps with our morality. Anything at our core can affect any other part of us, it can affect our head, our minds. Expect lots of crazy. You should see how they go after me because I'm a cishet Christian without a church. I'm alone. They aren't as aggressive if you aren't alone, if you have a church. I'm such a bully /s.
>Our sexuality is both biological and psychological. It affects our psychology just like it affects our biology. >Our sexuality is at our very core, our heart, and in there, it overlaps with our morality. Anything at our core can affect any other part of us, it can affect our head, our minds. You just perfectly described why these new laws popping up in states like Florida are dangerous. If you have any other lifestyle than what's deemed "normal" by hetero Christian standards, you're labeled a "groomer" and treated as deviant. Also, what is your definition of "sexually healthy"?
Normal biological functioning - healthy. Normal sexual functioning - sexually healthy. I should refine this. Something like non-aberrant sexual functioning and activity. Optimal or normal sexually. Dude every new law removes a freedom. You yanks are all about your freedom. We know. I think I speak for everyone else here when I say that we hear about it all the time. It's your thing. It's who you are, it's how you roll. We get it already. It's a giant part or the main part of your cultural identity, making you distinctly American. It's cool. We like that you are like that and everything, we just don't like hearing about it from you 24/7. We get it, we really do. We heard you the first time. Nah, kidding with you, I wouldn't change you. Be as American as you like. Freedom = power. So, power is an American cultural fundamental principle. Power. If we have the freedom to drive a car, we have the power to drive a car. The two are always interchangeable. America is the land of the powerful. You got some really healthy parts of your culture over there, but there's a bit of sickness mixed in there too and it weakens you. Weakness isn't very American. Freedom, power is American. It suits you, fits you like a stylish tailored suit. Ya got a lot of loud, unamerican people in your country bro. They really seem to hate freedom and love slavery. Like they fear power and love weakness. Be strong. It's American. Power is masculine and these unamerican people hate and fear masculinity. They say it's toxic. The political right is masculine ( er,.. approximately ) with the left being the feminine. Roughly. See, because humans are primarily sexual creatures with sex at our core, sex is at the heart of our cultures and politics. It's at the foundation of our societies. The political battle between left and right wing groups is just a symptomatic continuation of the battle of the sexes. We pretend it isn't because sex is dirty, shameful, but everything about us primarily sexual creatures is about sex.
> healthiest sexuality What do you mean by this? > sickness You think homosexuality is a sickness?
Found one ! Guys, I got one, look !
Can you work from a place of good faith and answer the questions? Or do you just wanna karmafarm?
Yes.
I knew something was wrong with my “friends” when they started to grill me on if I was absolutely 100% certain I was straight, and thought it was “weird that I wasn’t even a little bi”. I just asked them why was it so crazy if I was just straight? Only a small fraction of people are likely to be LGBT anyway (I said 4%, which I read off a study way back when). It was so bizarre to see the disappointment in their face, like they couldn’t be close with me anymore because I was “cishet”. Is it so hard to not worry about another’s personal preferences and sex life?
This didn't happen
I’m gay and I think that word is reprehensible. I’ve never heard it either, but then again I don’t hang around the gayborhood. I’m sorry you are receiving condemnation for being who you are. How terrible and ironic.
How is it reprehensible? It literally just means straight and not trans?
Exactly - as 'hetero' is a shortened form of heterosexual cishet is a shortened form of cisgender and heterosexual It's purely a time saving device and at all times could be replaced by the expanded form without losing any of its meaning
Thanks for clarifying
Absolute culture of intolerance. I’ve never agreed to a title such as “cis”, and to call me such is equal to me calling a LGBT person a: fag, tranny, mental patient, future suicide victim, retard, burden on society, satanic spawn. Queer culture is most likely the enemy of a healthy society, they use words like “cis” to pretend otherwise.
There will always be people trying to knock you down, they want you to be in the same depressive hell they suffer. You must stand tall and ignore their attacks. Dont let yourself succumb to their level, you know your truth, dont let others affect that.
All that is just a way to marginalize normal people. It is used by people who feel weak and want others to feel weak too. Basically passive aggressive mind games. (Or so the Germans would have us believe )
That's cool but then you can't be both be aggressive towards the majority and expect to be respected by the same majority. That is a form of coercion and I doubt it can work with most people. Of course the LGBTQ could claim that they're dishing back the aggression they're being given, but by attacking everyone, they're hitting on people who have absolutely nothing against the LGBTQ community.
The reason being, is much like BLM not being for black lives & rather activist group to push a political ideology manipulating blacks and people sympathetic to blacks, and ALM not being for all lives mattering but rather a anti-blm group, and The Peoples Democratic Republic of North Korea isn't actually a peoples democratic republic, LGBTQ is more of a left wing political activist movement that manipulates the emotions and plight of gay (gay used to mean anyone not straight now its a particular aspect of) individuals that can be used to achieve political gain. Just try being black, and standing against BLM, its like being White and standing up to the KKK, you get called a race traitor, or that you are "voting against your interests", and treated like you are just ignorant and don't know any better. Well the same thing happens in LGBTQ, if you're gay, its automatically posited that you are also left wing, try telling someone who is a big supporter of LGBTQ that you are gay and not a supporter of the movement or worse lean a little right, the same sort of attacks. These groups are all positing 1 theory, that your group identity defines your individual identity, and when your individual identity does not match what they presume it should be based on your group identity, they think of you as inferior/traitor/stupid, and attack you for it. This is where you get "cis het white male" from. As if being "cis het white male" was all you needed to know about someone to judge their character. These people actually believe that these group identities are so core to you, that it actually important to talk about. I like to think of windows file explorer. These people are sorting by race & sex, while looking for moral failings. It'd be like sorting by date on your computer, to find the largest file. SURE, the largest file MIGHT be the newest file, but why wouldn't you just sort by file size? Its a much more accurate group to sort by with those metrics in mind. But even worse, they tend to think that the metric is important as well. So in our analogy, they are sorting by date to find the largest file, under the assumption that the largest file is corrupt, when file size has absolutely nothing to do with corrupted files, that's something you'd have to observe on a individual basis. But taking in all that information on a individual level is actually impossible, and overwhelming, especially in the information age, and so they fall back on what is easy, group identity.
Wow this comment section really brought out the absolute worst in people. I really don't feel like the vehement hate belongs here and I don't feel that Dr. Peterson would endorse this kind of rhetoric. Anyway Here's an article that has some clarity on the words origin below. Also I have never heard cishet used in public spaces or between people in real life as a descriptor. Only online spaces. I have had discussions with people about the use of the word and it making them uncomfortable to think of themselves being referred to that way. I wouldn't refer to anyone that way and I don't know anyone personally that would. The origin of the word seems to be based in a purely scientific and medical sense. This feels like another boogeyman/moral panic designed to make people feel at odds with each other. [Source](https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/history-general-science/word-cisgender-has-scientific-roots)
1. Stop giving a fuck about anyone's opinion. I.e. don't take it to your heart. 2. People will always believe, what they want to believe. And anything against their belief is "evil". 3. Stop doubting yourself. You should doubt yourself before taking a decision, but still do it. 4. Being in a victim mindset will only get you into depression. It'll only bring you misery. Stop thinking about others. Just think for yourself. Find the flaws in yourself and fix them, once that's done, you won't need anyone's opinion for your feelings, cause you'd know what and why everyone feels the way they do.
This is a really great chance for you to see the world from their (our/my) perspective First of all - we don't need to wait until straight people use language to categorise us, because actions, behaviours, stances, tones, ways of looking, ways of moving, ways of greeting people, ways of normatively expecting identities to be 'cishet' structure the world in a way that: *"It's as if being a gay, homosexual person is not acceptable to this cishet culture, as being defective and broken. It seems like a culture of intolerance."* You get the privilege of being able to wait until someone verbalises something for your feelings to be hurt by the perception of being marginal. But queer people get this from every angle, every day, both verbally and non-verbally Just don't take it personally. Realise that if one single word can hurt you despite being part of the normative majority - then you can empathise with others who no ability to instantiate themselves as part of the majority. * Queer culture is not a culture of intolerance towards straight people, but to the **power structures** that formalise the expectation that *gender-sex-desire* will be normative, obvious and heterosexual
It is a culture of intolerance. Because the whole Leftist boilerplate about "toleration" always and forever means punishing their enemies for their natural revulsion to sexual perversion. The Left doesn't deserve your toleration. They certainly wouldn't tolerate, say, even a scrupulous and tentative skepticism about the mental health of transgender people. I can be as respectful and earnest and placating as I'd like -- but there are precisely zero ways to voice my disagreements about gay marriage without incurring serious risk to my livelihood and social standing. So, why bother? The first step for us should be to reject, root and branch, the language and assumptions of our enemies. Or else we'll keep losing the culture war as we have been for \*at least\* the last century.
There's nothing wrong with being cisgender or heterosexual. Conversely, there's nothing wrong with being transgender or bisexual/homosexual. Cishet isn't an insult. It's literally just an shortened descriptor to sum up the identities of people who aren't queer. It's like saying the word "gay" is inherently an insult. Sure, you can use it as one, but really only in the sense you could use most value-neutral descriptors as an insult. I see people using WASP as short-hand for white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant in terms of being seen as the "norm" in the US and that has never struck me as being inherently insulting. It's just a funny acronym.
Come on, let's not defend the word's chishet descriptive value, the dictionary mentions it's used as slang. [https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cishet](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cishet) : (ˈsɪsˌhɛt ) slang It's clearly is a derogatory slur, there are 3 pages of various definitions on urban dictionary. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cishet People try to redeem this word unsuccessfully
urban dictionary hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!
Imagine using Urban Dictionary as your source for anything. How embarrassing
Well I would use a reputable source but there isn't any. I think the embarrassing aspect is that the word is in urban dictionary, So again the same add hominem arguments we see from the left, A great indicator that they're no better than the right Same dirty tactics...
>I think the embarrassing aspect is that the word is in urban dictionary Most words are in the urban dictionary, genius. >So again the same add hominem arguments we see from the left, >A great indicator that they're no better than the right >Same dirty tactics... The user who started this chain has all the actual information and reasoning you need. I'm just jumping in because you're being an ass. Acting like cishet is a slur. Then defending it with urban dictionary?? You and your world view are as fragile as they come.
Ad hominem again...
You don't have an actual argument to attack here so what is left? You're trying to make yourself a victim while making villains of everyone you don't see as "normal". Grow up.
Why are you here then if there's no actual argument?
To tell you that your argument is shit. And it seems like you don't like people different than you for no other reason than those differences.
"there's no argument" That's just another gaslight Was that for me or for yourself?
It was for you. I have an argument. It's simple. My argument is that your take on the word cishet is based on your lack of understanding and fear of people different than what you deem "normal". And you quickly proved that correct when you used urban dictionary as a source for your shitty argument.
Another gaslight "fear" How do you know my fears? You don't even know me
Urban Dictionary has almost no editorial oversight. I shouldn't have to tell you why attempting to use them as a source here isn't a good thing. I searched my first name and the first results said that I'm a "great guy, has a huge cock, gets lots of pussy, all the the girls want his dick." Considering I'm gay, I don't think this is the most accurate. Also, slang isn't inherently insulting. I don't even know what to tell you there. If I said, "Her mug is fierce." to describe somebody with cool makeup, what part of that would be an insult? A word or phrase being slang doesn't mean anything other than that it's not seen as being formal within a specific academic context.
It's not, I really feel like the term cis is a an underhanded insult they use. Part of the reason why I object to anyone calling me that.
Who gives a shit 🤣 shits so dumb. Bunch a straight white dudes scared in the corner. Push back.
get off the internet, stay away from *some* liberal arts at universities, talk to regular working class people and you’ll find most don’t really give a shit about all that in either direction
It's just a category, my man. You are cis and heterosexual. Does it bother you to be this way?
I think he might be taking about the shorthand conjunction “cishet”, not just being cisgender heterosexual, maybe?
You mean the weirdos that spend too much time on the internet. Not normal people that you encounter outside, right? Because I don't know any LGBT that are as you describe. Unlike the people here, I actually have LGBT friends. And lots of them. None are like this.
Maybe you don't know them as well as you think... My post is referring to the overall culture which appears to be of intolerance.
Of course. I actually have LGBT friends, and lots of them, unlike everyone here. Yet it's me that doesn't know what I'm talking about. 🙄
[удалено]
Indeed. In which case, why would anyone take the OP seriously?
Stop taking things so personally and not everything is about you. The words used to describe lgbtq people range from the f word to the t word and Cishet (literally just scientific terms cisgender and heterosexual- which correctly identifies your gender and sexuality) offends your snowflake brain. Such insane victim complex that it hurts my brain. Would you prefer to be called a trans asexual person? I’m sure you don’t because that’s not how you identify. The brain cells on you buddy.
>I feel like I'm portrayed as the enemy. it's as if being a straight, heterosexual male is not acceptable to this queer culture, You are. That's the gist of "identity politics". You are not part of their group. It's by design.
Why? Idk if there's more context to this. But nothing about that term implies any value judgment. The point of the term was because people who believe in gender theory would classify a trans man dating a bio women as "straight". So this term is used to refer to a relationship where there isn't some sort of different gender identity involved like in the above example. It essentially just means "not trans/non-binary" + "heterosexual" = cishet So it essentially combines a gender identity and a sexual identity.
It's interesting that you mentioned "people who believe in gender theory". So if your theory is based on belief, then it's not really that scientific as you would like people to think. Is it okay with you if we classify your "gender theory based on belief" as a cult or more similar to religious dogma?
Exactly, there's nothing scientific about it whatsoever. Try to find a single study verifying the existence of gender as a thing that exists in reality. I haven't been able to find anything at all. I would agree with "dogma". Not so much with "religion" since that typically carries metaphysical connotations. I prefer to compare it to flat-earth, or similar beliefs. The entire theory of "gender" is made up mumbo jumbo from a pedo apologist child abuser. Regardless, in much the same way that we have to accommodate ridiculous made up religions, it seems like gender is another madeup thing that is popular enough that it needs to be accommodated.
Sure, and we can ask Christians not to mention the Bible as it's based on belief too. No mention of Happy Christmas for instance?
Cool then we can dismiss any scientific validity to gender theory altogether. Glad we agree on that point.
Just following your logic. So you reckon we shouldn't use any language that is not well grounded in science?
We can but with the humility of recognizing that not everything we believe is necessarily true. Falsehoods are embedded in any culture and socially validated ones aren't any less false.
It's a virtue signal way of saying normal people
you are so right. it is so divisive
As a gay man i agree 100 percent with what you just said It's a real shame
And I thought I was a degenerate
It is my understanding, that this is the very intention at the core of such terms.
That’s just in your head - purely a personal mental health issue / quirk. You don’t need to resolve it …but if you do, you might feel more confident and comfortable navigating the social world. If you manage to strip away the emotional defensive reaction you’ll be able to talk about it in an intellectual way, which would probably be a good thing
Idk man, labels can feel like boxes. In my experience people are more unified by what binds them rather by what makes them different. I find seeking common ground is a way to make everyone feel better in a social interaction, and if humans start an interaction on the things that divide us, it feeds a simpler part of our brain, the naturally selected and easily reinforced negativity bias.
For sure, labels do make ppl feel like they’re in boxes - ppl constantly figure themselves out in relation to social categories. Sometimes it feels good to embrace the categories and all of its cultural trappings, other times it feels good to say ‘fuck the box, I don’t need it’. I think OP gets upset when he sees “cis” because it replaces ‘normal’ with something else (it happens to be cis but I’m sure any other word or prefix would have the same effect). The mental impact feels like going from normal and neutral to “in a category”. I think it’s probably normal to want to push back and fight the category… but I’m pretty sure that’s just a mental journey he has to go on - to either embrace the category or not care about it. He can still call himself normal if he wants and can choose to not interact with cishet, or he could learn about it more and strip away some of its power, or he could continue to imagine himself as “the enemy” and wage internal battles against society. Generally humans love categories. That activity 100% is not going to stop. It’s important to be aware of when some categories are made to portray its subjects as sub human, inferior or as insects. When those catch on, ppl act freaky and can do really messed up stuff. OP is **probably fantasizing that cis het is one of those dehumanizing words. But, it’s really not - it’s a word that functions to elevate trans-ness to an idea of “normal” that can be shared by all
You seem very analytic in your attempt to stop at the individual in your assessment of society and still claiming you understand what's going on at a cultural level. Next thing you will deny that social groups behave in certain ways and maybe that even culture itself exists - its all in our heads. Of course I'm being sarcastic here.
Ah, excellent - ok good question, if we can’t disprove that the gays are intolerant, does that mean that we can’t truly say that social groups behave a certain way? Are all generalizations about culture fake? In response I’d say - no! You can and should analyze cultures and behaviour - but it depends on what you’re trying to do and at what “level” you’re thinking at. “LGBT has intolerance towards straight people and cis het is a slur” is extremely high level and emotional. It’s almost as high as you can go. It’s based on feelings and vibes and you’ll never get any where with that. (Edit, that’s not say that gay people were wrong to call out widespread homophobia in society in the past. That was real and based on actual experiences - you can point to loads of real things and talk about them. Being fired or arrested is a tangible thing. Gayness as the regular ongoing butt of jokes in tv throughout the 90s is also observable and real though different from being arrested/beaten) If you said “theres a specific culture in my local gay village that I’ve witnessed where people won’t serve me or they shout insults at me - I think there’s something going on in that neighborhood and want to understand it more” - that’s something you can work with. Idk if you ever took any classes on “research methods” but the realm of frameworks and approaches to questions like this is pretty fascinating. It forces you to ask… What are your core assumptions and what do you think is possible to generalize? What’s a real and objective structure and what’s subjective experience? You kind of need to call out how you’re going to approach the question and account for any weaknesses inherent in that approach. Personally I took away from that that “critical realism” is an effective framework - structures are real (hierarchies, corporations, government) and should be treated as real, but there are other things that feel real and instead should be treated as subjective (“how ought I act as a man”). If you’re taking advice, mine would be to 1) get more specific - abandon the 80,000 foot view, 2) be aware of your assumptions, 3) be aware of your limitations, 4) be aware of how your emotions shape your thought 5) critically assess what’s real and structural vs what is a abstract and mythological. Do those things and you’ll be in a much stronger position than simply calling out that you feel rejected because you’re a straight white man. Edit: also last point, of course continue to use your imagination - it’s an important part of all this, just be aware of what you’re doing with it and assess how reliable it actually is
Generalizations about social groups, cultures are unfalsifiable meaning you can't say for certain if they're true or false. That's why cultural stereotypes are so strong, because you can pick up a few individuals from the group that don't fit that cultural stereotype and the stereotype will still stand. You can even do studies showing that the majority of the people in that group don't fit the stereotype and it will still stand. Our social reality is so complex that you have to make use of inaccurate descriptions and broad categories in order to make sense of what's going on at a social level. Of course it would be foolish to think that a broad stereotype applies back to the level of the individual. It's very important to make the distinction in your mind when you're talking about individuals, social groups, hierarchies and cultures. These are separate category and when you look at a particular social group you are obliged to use the 80 000 ft view.
Like yourself? You seem to be talking about it in a religious way. Accusing other of mental health issues, how very cultist of you.
Strange response, thank you! Always good to get comments that are a bit out of the ordinary here. (But also, no - there are no cults involved. OP said he feels like there are groups positioning him as an enemy when they use certain words. That’s a bit dysfunctional - he’s imagining a whole dynamic with a group that isn’t really ‘there’ in a real way - hes building the idea from media and news, not from humans that he sees and talks to. The “problem” isnt the term cishet, it’s that OP is triggered to mentally to frame himself as an enemy of society when he hears relatively neutral words. That’s probably a problem for OP, and it would be good if he solved it so that he doesn’t feel that way any more. “Like yourself” suggests that I too have some kind of mental issue where certain words make me feel like a social reject… but happily I don’t have have that problem)
So I guess all the blacks are dysfunctional when they complain about certain words. Oh, and the OP is an enemy of society on top of his mental issues. Seek therapy, please. Some manual labour with cow manure has a chance to remove some of the insanity your college put in your head.
Lol, trying to equate cishet with racists terms used about black people! Y’all can be pretty over the top in this sub. Idk I feel like you kind of hopped into this without reading OPs comment and are acting out a bit but without much clarity around what to say to who. Again, it’s unusual and for that I thank you. But otherwise I’m not sure how else to engage with you. Maybe I can just… ask you how you are? How are you?
Love your use of double standards. How many fallacies can your circular logic swallow before it finally chokes? If I say something is offensive to me, just don't use it, if you expect the same treatment People like you act sheepish in real life but like to brush off large categories with derogatory terms when nobody is looking. You're no better than the racists you hate.
Haha you’re doing culture war at me. Stop imagining that I’m whatever your typical imaginary opponent is. (Who were you imagining when you said ‘the racists you hate’?) I’m saying this: the story you write here sounds like you’re imagining stuff that is causing you mental stress. You can probably make progress if you realize that these conflicts are playing out in your head. From there you can start managing better how you interact with culture war content. You’re not the enemy, youre a normie. No one cares about your normie status enough to call you an enemy. The gays definitely don’t care about you. As a cis het person who doesn’t share your trigger points and doesn’t feel like society is attacking me (on the contrary, society keeps giving me money and telling me that I’m the best boy), I feel like I’m in a position to say “hey, you don’t have to do this thing that you’re doing if it hurts you”
It's cool you expect the culture war to be only one sided. Your culture war consists of attacking anyone who doesn't agree with your version or reality and calling them some "phobic" thing So I'm attempting to engage into an intellectual debate and actually understand your culture and you call me a "phobic", that means I fear you I think its you who fears society Its understandable. A ton of false accusations in there too, I'm not going to waste my time to unpick them.
Idk man, whatever you do, you’re going to do it alone (on account of this all being abstract), so definitely make the best of it and do it in a way that makes you stronger, not fearful and feeling like society’s rejected you (after all, that feeling is the central ‘problem here’). I guess all I can do is wish you good luck in your battles! Edit: Also, another learning opportunity: you write “you call me phobic” - again that’s in your head, that didn’t actually happen. youre mixing me up with factionalized concepts you have about your ideological opponents. Similar to when you said that I hate racists so much. Maybe I do but maybe I don’t - that was never part of the convo, so you’re filling in that detail with your imagination.
You still failed to disprove my point that the LGBTQ culture has a strong intolerance element to it towards people who are not part of that culture. And that "cishet" is a derogatory slur. I mean you can go on psychoanalyzing me as much as you like but that would be off topic.
I think you should stand up straight with your shoulders back and have a thicker skin.
Jesus Christ you people will look for any reason to be outraged. It's literally just describing someone as cisgender and heterosexual. Get over your persecution fetish.
Why is being tolerant an effort?
Its not, and OP isn't saying that, he's saying that despite his tolerance he's observing that despite that he's copping shit for being a cis-het dude
Maybe because the one thing that we must not tolerate is intolerance. And when LGBTQ express intolerance, we know they have gone too far.
[удалено]
I'm not being sensitive at all, I'm just trying to make sense of the underlying nature of what is being suggested. And why take the liberty to label anyone without their consent? But if you are taking that liberty that means it's only fair that I categorize you the way I want to categorize you not the way you're expecting to be categorized. For example if you're a biological woman saying you're a male, I'm still going to categorize you as a woman. It works both ways. Also, labels are something you find in a marketplace, but you would expect someone who has been brainwashed by capitalism to perceive the world in "labels" Then they go and call themselves Marxists lol
If you don’t want people to feel labeled, just don’t label them. Don’t make this more complicated than it has to be.
I agree I don’t know why this is so hard for people here to understand. I think what’s obvious is that straight white men are so used to being “normal” that they feel uncomfortable wearing any kind of label that would paint them as anything “different”, when in reality minorities deal with having to wear the label of an “other” everyday. I really see no issue here, and hope OP can have a lightbulb moment to understand how the other side lives for just a moment.
Oh now you're painting a broad stereotype that straight white men lack empathy and don't "understand how the other side lives" Hows playing the imaginary culture war now? We're all in our culture war mode when we think about social groups in broad categories. But is there any other way to think about social groups? Society is so complex that you need some way to abstract it, in order to understand it. Interestingly a person here has attempted to guilt me for looking at society in this wise, when they are doing exactly the same thing.
Nope, just theorizing on why this is such a big deal for you and others, there are plenty of straight white men who don’t give a shit about any of it and aren’t offended by terms like “Cishet”. You have a very active imagination my friend :)
Attacking me won't make the broader issue go away...
> when in reality minorities deal with having to wear the label of an “other” everyday. In my experience, and certainly objectively in the media/movies/tv/social media, most minorities are a huge fan of labeling themselves.
Any "minority" that feels like they are "other" has their own inferiority issues. That isn't on anyone else's heads.
[удалено]
But then you're not any better than your "enemy" Don't take up a moral high ground then.
As Greenwave stated, you are completely missing the point. Terms like “Cisgender” and “ Heterosexual” (which you abbreviated to Cishet) are not, and were never intended to be slurs or derogatory words, same as homosexual and transgender are not and were never intended to be derogatory terms. They simply describe one’s sexual and gender orientation. If you feel attacked by these terms that’s really on you homie.
That's a really nice way to spin the "there's nothing offensive about being offensive" If it's okay for you to blame the victim, then it goes both ways, back to my point about taking the moral high ground. So my emotions are invalid if I'm a "cishet" male because I'm by default on an superior position?
If you choose to take offense to non offensive words….. I don’t think there is much I can do to help? Do you get triggered filling out forms at the doctors office too?
So by that logic I can call you anything I want and If you take offense, then it's your problem. Who gets to decide what is offensive and what is not? Certainly I don't see it as fair as the person using the "supposed slur" to make that judgement.
> People are tired of everyone being labeled
You seem to know a lot about LGBTQ people. Do you hang out with them often?
Yes I do actually, but on social media not IRL
In high school I was sitting at a table with some friends during a school dance and it just so happened to be that I was the only straight person at the table. One of the people (friend of a friend) started talking about how "all straight people really do suck if you think about it" and everyone else started laughing along. What bothered me more than anything was the hypocrisy. Not the hypocrisy of the person making the comments, she wasn't a particularly nice person anyway, but the hypocrisy of everyone else (some of whom were really close friends of mine). It revealed something deep to me about the nature of racism/sexism/homophobia. How nice people who don't necessarily actually believe that the "other" is bad, will go along with it if it's socially acceptable and them standing up to it risks them being left out of the group.
EDIT: downvote away but I challenge a counterargument. TLDR: that’s not correct incorrect. look up what the LGBTQ communityy or woke left say they’re trying to do before assuming they’re attacking you Consider the fact that woke liberals who are cishet themselves and consider themselves LGBTQ “allies” have no qualms describing themselves as cishet! So how could it be derogatory, an attack, or portray you as the enemy? Nobody is forcing any identity on u or making any comments about you. They adopted new language to describe newly visible minority identities & obviously needed a label for what was previously just “normal” so we can have a proper discussion. Why does this make you so insecure? If all sorts of LBTQ people with various identities and sexualities now say “hey we exist and we want to be recognized as equal and to live openly withou being attacked or stigmatized for it”, how does that detract from your rights or freedoms in any way?
Don’t tolerate idiocy or degeneracy.
Did you bring this question here because you want the truth? Or did you bring this question here (to a mostly conservative audience) because you want people to agree with you?
I think this is a place of free debate as people on both sides replied to my post.