Awesome Protest Signs

[Ultimate Paragon]

ITT: Ultimate Paragon whinges about his feelings being hurt over a minority within a minority venting their frustration.

I wouldn't normally be so upset, except for the fact that they're venting it so poorly.

Perhaps you could offer some suggestions for new, creative venting terms for these folks? It seems kind of pointless to worry about the use of a ranty derogatory term by possible trolls and emotionally disturbed individuals. I don't like DIAF, either, because it gets used too often by overly high-strung people. And not many people, at all or ever, deserve to die a horribly painful and terrifying death, for that matter. But it's a waste of time to complain about the use of the term by it's users.

The problem is that trans people are a tiny and frequently misunderstood minority.  All this will do is feed transphobia, much like how the Black Power movement fed racism.

[QueenofHearts]

The problem is that trans people are a tiny and frequently misunderstood minority.  All this will do is feed transphobia, much like how the Black Power movement fed racism.

So, we're putting the onus on the minority to win the majority over, instead of on the majority to stop being dicks... Nothing wrong there. Fact is, social movements generally have both "peaceful hippy" types and "in your face" types. The former is good for changing minds of the majority, while the latter is good for unifying the group to change their lot in life.

Second, the only harm from "Die cis scum" is hurt cis feelings. Really, that's it. So, I'm not gonna go around telling people not to say it. As it stands, the total body count, in the history of ever, from cisphobia is 0. So, I think it's silly, if not bigoted, that people (read: cis-people) decide to get more worked up over "die cis scum" than Char's experiences which lead Char to start saying it. Getting worked up over such a silly phrase literally says "our cis-feelings are more important than your self-esteem."

And this is coming from the girl who doesn't say it because it's just not my style.

[kefkaownsall]

Basically trans safety and happiness>cis feelings

[Ultimate Paragon]

Okay, that's your opinion.  I'm not saying it's wrong, or that you're a lesser person for having.  However, I strongly disagree with it.  I value diversity of opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with every opinion somebody says.  I don't hate any of you, but I just need to get one of my opinions off my chest.  It's not a personal attack against any of you, it's just something that I think I need to say.

Given the hyper-defensive nature of some of those who stand by the phrase “die cis scum”, I’m going to have to attempt to explain why I think it’s one of the most disastrous slogans in LGBT history.

Even if every cis person understood what “cis” meant in the first place (I didn’t until very recently), they’re probably going to be offended by it. Some say “Oh but this is directed at the scum so if you’re offended you’re cis scum DIE.” However, there’s a reason for this.

Let’s take the phrase “Die cis scum”.  Those who use it frequently say that the word “scum” indicates cissexists (that is, cis people who discriminate, sometimes violently, against transsexuals).  In their minds, the phrase ought to be interpreted as “Death to cissexist oppressors!”

However, most people reading it won’t read it that way.  They will simply see the word ‘scum’ as an intensifier – a word that increases the meaning of something – and will be offended, regardless of their stance or actions towards transsexual people. I’m all for LGBT rights, and the phrase still bugs the crap outta me.  In their minds, it will be rendered as “Death to cis people!”

To put it briefly, users of “Die Cis Scum” attempt to target cissexists, but they inadvertently offend the entire cissexual population.  The vast majority of cissexuals are perfectly decent people, just like with any other group.
 
And another thing: many gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are cis, too…doesn’t this phrase also, by extension, put its users at odds with people who ought to be their strongest allies?  Why would they want to alienate homosexual and bisexual people who would otherwise fully support their cause?

If I offended anybody with this, I sincerely apologize.  This wasn't meant as an attack on you.
 
Are there any questions?

[Auri-El]

I have a question.

I notice you say "cis person" and "cis people," but then you say "transsexuals" and "gays, lesbians and bisexuals." That offends me. Why can't you say "transsexual people," and "gay/lesbian and bisexual people?" It bugs me and you should stop. Because we totally have the right to be offended by what other people say, even if they didn't mean anything by it.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I have a question.

I notice you say "cis person" and "cis people," but then you say "transsexuals" and "gays, lesbians and bisexuals." That offends me. Why can't you say "transsexual people," and "gay/lesbian and bisexual people?" It bugs me and you should stop. Because we totally have the right to be offended by what other people say, even if they didn't mean anything by it.

Okay then, I'll fix it.

[Auri-El]

Don't.

I was using sarcasm to make a point, and clearly failed.
My point was, while words do have meaning, people do not have the right not to be offended. If cisgender people are aware of the hatred and discrimination transgender people face, then they will understand why transgender people are angry. If they are not aware, they should be educated, not attacked. For that reason, there are instances when "die cis scum" is a horrible thing to say. But I want to clarify that it's not always the case. And finally, if cisgender people are the source of the hatred transgender people face, then "die cis scum" is not a bad thing to say, as long as it's not meant literally, which it rarely is, I'm sure.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Don't.

I was using sarcasm to make a point, and clearly failed.
My point was, while words do have meaning, people do not have the right not to be offended. If cisgender people are aware of the hatred and discrimination transgender people face, then they will understand why transgender people are angry. If they are not aware, they should be educated, not attacked. For that reason, there are instances when "die cis scum" is a horrible thing to say. But I want to clarify that it's not always the case. And finally, if cisgender people are the source of the hatred transgender people face, then "die cis scum" is not a bad thing to say, as long as it's not meant literally, which it rarely is, I'm sure.

Let me refute your points.

1. It's difficult to tell whether somebody's being sarcastic through writing.

2. The "you don't have the right to not be offended" seems like a terrible slippery slope to me.  Imagine if some jackass set up a burning cross in a black person's yard, and repeated that line when confronted on it.

3. Transgender people have every right to be angry at their oppression.  However, they do not have the right to incite people to violence, which I think this might qualify as.

4. I'm sure there's a better phrase they could use.  "Die, cissexist opressors", maybe.

5. White people have been the source of racism against black people, but the Selma movement didn't go around saying "kill whitey".  Straight people have been the source of homophobia, but the Stonewall rioters didn't shout about killing heterosexuals.

[Witchyjoshy]

Because we totally have the right to be offended by what other people say, even if they didn't mean anything by it.

TBH, this is a fairly good indication of sarcasm being tangible online, as that's not a statement people would normally say straight.

[Auri-El]

1. Sorry, I thought this: "Because we totally have the right to be offended by what other people say, even if they didn't mean anything by it" made it rather obvious.
2. True, I guess I should have said, people don't have the right not to be offended by what other people say, especially when it's a complete stranger. Granted, words do have power, but- well, for example, having my parents tell me I'm going to hell for being queer is a helluva lot more hurtful than when a stranger says it, but I have no right to ask either my parents or the stranger to not say it just because it's offensive and hurtful. At the end of the day, they're just words.
3. No, it's not inciting violence, any more saying "fuck you" is an actual invitation.
4. Maybe. You can use that phrase, if you'd prefer.
5. I don't know enough about those scenarios to say anything, and I'm not interested enough to go look them up right now. Maybe later, if I get bored.

[Ultimate Paragon]

1. Sorry, I thought this: "Because we totally have the right to be offended by what other people say, even if they didn't mean anything by it" made it rather obvious.
2. True, I guess I should have said, people don't have the right not to be offended by what other people say, especially when it's a complete stranger. Granted, words do have power, but- well, for example, having my parents tell me I'm going to hell for being queer is a helluva lot more hurtful than when a stranger says it, but I have no right to ask either my parents or the stranger to not say it just because it's offensive and hurtful. At the end of the day, they're just words.
3. No, it's not inciting violence, any more saying "fuck you" is an actual invitation.
4. Maybe. You can use that phrase, if you'd prefer.
5. I don't know enough about those scenarios to say anything, and I'm not interested enough to go look them up right now. Maybe later, if I get bored.

Okay.  Apology accepted, and I see your point.  I don't agree with it, but I understand why you have it.

[QueenofHearts]

5. White people have been the source of racism against black people, but the Selma movement didn't go around saying "kill whitey".  Straight people have been the source of homophobia, but the Stonewall rioters didn't shout about killing heterosexuals.

Your views of history are rather glossy. First, I've said before, movements need both peaceful and in your face types. The Civil Rights movement also had it's fair amount of "in your face types": Malcolm X, The Nation of Islam, The Black Panthers. Just because they aren't glorified by history to the extent Dr. King is doesn't mean they weren't influential to the ultimate end, civil rights.

Second, trannies were literally the people who started the stonewall riots. The only way in those days New York allowed homosexuality to be proven (a criminal offense at the time) was to be caught in the act or caught "cross-dressing." And they were fucking riots. It wasn't sitting peacefully singing kumbaya, patrons literally fought with the police and threw rocks, beer bottles, and bricks at police. It got so bad, police hid behind bystanders and hid where they could. Garbage was lit on fire. Police tried to use a fire hose against the cried, but being inept as the NYPD so often is, they failed. Someone very easily could have died that night.

[Ultimate Paragon]

5. White people have been the source of racism against black people, but the Selma movement didn't go around saying "kill whitey".  Straight people have been the source of homophobia, but the Stonewall rioters didn't shout about killing heterosexuals.

Your views of history are rather glossy. First, I've said before, movements need both peaceful and in your face types. The Civil Rights movement also had it's fair amount of "in your face types": Malcolm X, The Nation of Islam, The Black Panthers. Just because they aren't glorified by history to the extent Dr. King is doesn't mean they weren't influential to the ultimate end, civil rights.

Second, trannies were literally the people who started the stonewall riots. The only way in those days New York allowed homosexuality to be proven (a criminal offense at the time) was to be caught in the act or caught "cross-dressing." And they were fucking riots. It wasn't sitting peacefully singing kumbaya, patrons literally fought with the police and threw rocks, beer bottles, and bricks at police. It got so bad, police hid behind bystanders and hid where they could. Garbage was lit on fire. Police tried to use a fire hose against the cried, but being inept as the NYPD so often is, they failed. Someone very easily could have died that night.

1. That's why I said the Selma Movement, specifically.  The "in your face types" did have an impact on civil rights: namely, in setting it back.  Granted, Malcolm X got better after his Hajj, but he ended up getting shot for it.

2. Okay, maybe the Stonewall riots were a bad example.  However, the fact remains that they didn't go around shouting "die, straight scum".

[Shane for Wax]

Okay, that's your opinion.  I'm not saying it's wrong, or that you're a lesser person for having.  However, I strongly disagree with it.  I value diversity of opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with every opinion somebody says.  I don't hate any of you, but I just need to get one of my opinions off my chest.  It's not a personal attack against any of you, it's just something that I think I need to say.

Given the hyper-defensive nature of some of those who stand by the phrase “die cis scum”, I’m going to have to attempt to explain why I think it’s one of the most disastrous slogans in LGBT history.

Even if every cis person understood what “cis” meant in the first place (I didn’t until very recently), they’re probably going to be offended by it. Some say “Oh but this is directed at the scum so if you’re offended you’re cis scum DIE.” However, there’s a reason for this.

Let’s take the phrase “Die cis scum”.  Those who use it frequently say that the word “scum” indicates cissexists (that is, cis people who discriminate, sometimes violently, against transsexuals).  In their minds, the phrase ought to be interpreted as “Death to cissexist oppressors!”

However, most people reading it won’t read it that way.  They will simply see the word ‘scum’ as an intensifier – a word that increases the meaning of something – and will be offended, regardless of their stance or actions towards transsexual people. I’m all for LGBT rights, and the phrase still bugs the crap outta me.  In their minds, it will be rendered as “Death to cis people!”

To put it briefly, users of “Die Cis Scum” attempt to target cissexists, but they inadvertently offend the entire cissexual population.  The vast majority of cissexuals are perfectly decent people, just like with any other group.
 
And another thing: many gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are cis, too…doesn’t this phrase also, by extension, put its users at odds with people who ought to be their strongest allies?  Why would they want to alienate homosexual and bisexual people who would otherwise fully support their cause?

If I offended anybody with this, I sincerely apologize.  This wasn't meant as an attack on you.
 
Are there any questions?

Since 1) it was decided to have this kind of conversation in two threads and 2) I don't want to sit here and retype everything my entire argument for this can be found here

In short, your argument falls flat. The people being alienated are the people who aren't helping to begin with.

[RavynousHunter]

Honestly, I see little difference between "die cis scum" and "hang blacks."  Venting is all well and good, but the line stops where you start calling for the death of an entire people.  Just because a black man stole your television, or a cissexual shopkeep refused you business doesn't mean you get to go around spewing hate speech without repercussion.  There's a vast difference between being an "in your face" activist and being a hatemonger.  If you go around regularly saying "die cis scum" unironically, then you're as much a hatemonger as the Grand Wizard of the KKK.  I'll defend to the death your right to say it, but I reserve the right to think of you as little better than your oppressors and call you an asshole as a result.