Lots of people are publicly mocked on Twitter everyday. What makes "trans" people so special?

I mean, if you purposefully misgender a cis person on Twitter, the same rule applies. Not sure what your issue is

The obvious response is that that that shouldn't result in a ban either. There's a right not to be physically threatened, but there is and should not be no right to not be offended.

I agree. The marketplace of ideas and opinions should be protected to the greatest extent possible. Restrictions should be limited to things such as actual threats, doxxing of private information, and illegal content.

Otherwise, allow people to use the block, mute, and unfollow buttons as they see fit as a form of personal moderation.

"Cis" people dont care about being misgendered.

That has not been my experience, honey.

Oh thank God you're here to share your experience with us, sweety.

Sure I’d hate it if you called me a TexanLady instead of a TexanFeller. But I will defend your right to call me names. Speech that offends someone doesn’t imply speech that shouldn’t be allowed.

Even if that is true—and it isn’t—a platform is under no obligation allow it, and most don’t (including HN).

The prevalence of "Real men don't do $THING" would suggest you are incorrect.

I've been called a sissy on many an occasion. That is in fact, being misgendered, and I cared a lot when I was young. I no longer care about being mocked and I reject gender norms in general, but I'm just old enough to just realize a bully being an asshole is a tale as old as time.

I realize though that it isn't always on option for people. This can be much more challenging if it's in the workplace, or when people are younger and social acceptance is more important.

I think the trans movement would be helped massively if we just focused on that being anti-trans is just being bullying. The focus on edge-cases and ontology and essentialism of gender makes the debate much more muddy.

>I've been called a sissy on many an occasion.

That's just an insult.

Regardless of dictionary definitions, when judged by the tone and context of common use, "cis" is primarily a slur which is used to de-legitimize and insult the people it is directed at. Of the people who are ostensibly "cis", exceptionally few will choose to self-describe using that word. Kindly refrain from using it.

The only people who would have cis used to "delegitimize" them would be ones who are saying something innacurate about trans people and are being told that they do not have relevant frame of reference for that comment.

Describing cis as a slur is... Wow.

Slurs are made by context, tone, and perception by the target. I have never been called "cis" except by people with antagonistic tones trying to get a rise out of me. Furthermore the overwhelming majority of the roughly two billion English speakers around the world who aren't trans do not self-describe as "cis".

It's a slur.

> I have never been called "cis" except by people with antagonistic tones trying to get a rise out of me.

I can tell you from personal experience that this says more about you than the word.

The majority of people in my circle would self describe as cis, and most people I interact with would self identify as cis if the meaning was explained to them.

That's more about your social circle than everyone's elses tbh. On twitter I've almost exclusively used as mild derogative

I've only heard it been used as an insult.

> I can tell you from personal experience that this says more about you than the word.

Backhanded insults like this won't convince me that I'm wrong. On the contrary, it shows me that you do intend to insult and that the word is in fact a slur.

I did intend to insult you slightly with that phrase, I apologize. I was hotheaded and in the wrong for that.

However, it is not an insult at cis people, but people who behave in a way that would get cis used in a conversation against them - which usually takes place in a circumstance where someone who is not trans is telling someone who is trans that they know more about their life than the person in question.

The reason cisness is relevant here is because much like I as a white person will never be able to _fully_ understand a black persons lived in experience, a non-trans person will never be able to _fully_ understand a trans persons experience, and it is _incredibly_ frustrating being told something that is objectively false, and having people who misunderstand the situation being in charge of your situation.

It was created for a couple of purposes:

- Add an unnecessarily complex psuedo-intellectual layer to the discussion in order to catch normal people off guard and make them feel "uneducated" so that they can be "educated".

- Decouple the idea of normal from heterosexuality, which is, frankly, normal due to it being the most common state for of existence for people.

Overall it is a purposeful attack on the status quo. In summary, "cis" as a term is unnecessary.

> Decouple the idea of normal from heterosexuality

Um, no, other than arguably being wrong on the broad kind of motivation in either case, you seem to have also confused the word “cisgender” (or “cis” for short) with the word “heterosexual”.

Transgender people can be heterosexual or homosexual or asexual or any other sexuality, and the same is true of cisgender people; having a term to refer to people who do not deviate from the until-recently-in-our-society culturally obligatory stereotypical relation of gender identity and sex characteristics at birth does nothing to reduce heteronormativity of language compared to just referring to them as “normal” (and then, depending on context, elaborating further on the axis of normality and possibly whose norms are being referenced), to the extent that having a word does that, its the word for people who don’t deviate from the until-recently-in-our-society culturally obligatory stereotype of sexual preference for partner gender based on their own gender.

But, independent of undermining the norms involved, its sometimes useful to be have a convenient concise term, which both “cisgender” and “heterosexual”, in their respective domains, provide.

Nope. You can be a man or a woman. Or you, in a very minority case, might be trans. The point is that there is absolutely no need for the "cis" identifier.

> You can be a man or a woman. Or you, in a very minority case, might be trans.

“Trans” is not a label for a third gender that one might have instead of and to the exclusion of man or woman, “trans” is (like, and in opposition to, “cis”) relationship between gender identity and “sex”—actually, ascribed gender—assigned at birth; it can coexists with any of man, woman, nonbinary, or other (or, in the agender case, no) gender identity.

Though your not knowing what “trans” means very clearly explains your not understanding the need for “cis”.

> actually, ascribed gender—assigned at birth

No, it is actually an observation of sex - often observed prenatally, then confirmed at birth.

Correct it is not a third gender. It is a mentally ill state where you feel like you should be in the body of the opposite sex.

>cis The term you're looking for is "normal"

The difference is a highly engaged set of authoritarian activists who will assassinate your character and get you fired. Other groups don't have the equivalent of a Red Guard to enforce their ideology or religion.

I’m pretty sure trans people are a protected minority in most jurisdictions. So you are wrong. The judicial system has evaluated that—for some valid reason; according to our laws—mocking trans people is worse then mocking cis people.

> "I’m pretty sure trans people are a protected minority in most jurisdictions. So you are wrong. The judicial system has evaluated that—for some valid reason; according to our laws—mocking trans people is worse then mocking cis people."

lol I don't know what "jurisdiction" you're living in, but "mocking trans people" is in no way a legal matter in the U.S. I can mock "trans" people as much as I want and there's not a damn thing you or the government can do about it as long as I am doing it on my own dime and on my own time.

I don’t think you can—or at least there are limits, I’m pretty sure targeted harassment is a crime, and I think targeted harassment against a protected minority approaches a hate crime. So mocking trans people is definitely a more serious issue then mocking cis people.

None of this is true in America

DARVOism, illustrated.

a simple example: people who get mocked for being bald don't typically get killed for their baldness. People who get mocked for being trans ARE FREQUENTLY killed for their transness. We don't need to protect bald people from mocking, because the consequences are minimal. We need to protect trans people from mocking because the consequences are _maximal_.

trans people are an endangered (in the most literal sense) minority that is not doing anything to hurt others and yet is frequently targeted for many heinous things. Thus, they are special and need our protection.

>FREQUENTLY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_killed_for_bein...

I see single digits per year. Worldwide. What is your definition of frequently?

If you know of more cases with reliable sources then perhaps the article should be expanded.

While Wikipedia is of course not the most exhaustive source, it ranks quite high in Search Engines.

For many people it is frequently their sole source of information for such issues, which is why I see merit for people who know more than I do about the issue to make the necessary edits to expand the article.

I don't see why you think that everyone should be blamed for what a handful of others do. Their crimes are not my crimes. That's not the way a free society works.

Also, mocking "trans" people is not a gateway to murder. I mock "trans" people all the time and I've never murdered one or even thought about doing so.

>They publicly mocked a trans person, in clear violation of the TOS

Unless the ToS specifically calls out misgendering, then the slight of hand here is the presumption that all misgendering is hate speech. Looks like Twitter may have decided that this isn't the case.

Well, Elon changed the TOS. He can now make shit you like against the TOS. You can't rely on unelected rich people to determine speech even if they make decisions you like

I don't think the parent argued that it was compliant with the TOS, he's more likely saying that the TOS was inappropriate and is glad that's been corrected.