This thread is so gay

Drop by and talk about anything you want. This is where all cheese-related discussions should go
User avatar
MinniChi
Posts: 868
Joined: 15 Oct 2012, 18:46
First Video: Your Very Own Prom
Location: Toronto Canada
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby MinniChi » 16 Jun 2016, 05:59

I am kind of ashamed it took me so many years (and a Google search) to learn what cis means.
No trees were killed to send this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced
User avatar
Elomin Sha
Posts: 15773
Joined: 22 Feb 2008, 05:14
First Video: Max Effect
Location: Woodford Green, England
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Elomin Sha » 16 Jun 2016, 06:13

I never heard of the word until a year ago. Sounds like an insulting adjective.
The most unique, nicest, and confusing individual you will get to know. Don't be stupid around me, that's my job.
https://displate.com/elominsha/galleries
If you need art, I take commissions, PM me.
User avatar
Master Gunner
Defending us from The Dutch!
Posts: 19383
Joined: 29 Oct 2006, 12:19
First Video: How To Talk Like A Pirate
Location: In Limbo.

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Master Gunner » 16 Jun 2016, 06:42

Its simply the opposite of trans, and is a useful word to have around in gender/sex related discussions.

It can be used in an insulting or hurtful way, sure, but so can many words - for example, see pretty much any word relating to a minority group.
TheRocket wrote:Apparently the crotch area could not contain the badonkadonk area.
Twitter | Click here to join the Desert Bus Community Chat.
User avatar
Elomin Sha
Posts: 15773
Joined: 22 Feb 2008, 05:14
First Video: Max Effect
Location: Woodford Green, England
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Elomin Sha » 16 Jun 2016, 07:54

Or any skin colour.
The most unique, nicest, and confusing individual you will get to know. Don't be stupid around me, that's my job.
https://displate.com/elominsha/galleries
If you need art, I take commissions, PM me.
User avatar
Bebop Man
Posts: 4465
Joined: 22 May 2013, 22:55
First Video: The Pirate Video
Location: The Black Lodge

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Bebop Man » 16 Jun 2016, 08:24

Never seen or heard the word beyond the confines of internet forums. Have to agree with Elomin though.
Image
CamelKnackRambleHort
Posts: 127
Joined: 03 Apr 2015, 21:24
First Video: Cursing

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby CamelKnackRambleHort » 16 Jun 2016, 08:36

Yeah, cis is just a word. I'm not sure why people think it sounds like a slur or whatever, but I did first encounter the word in a scientific context (trans and cis are just prefixes denoting a type of opposite, I first used them in chemistry.)

It always seems strange when cis people get mad about it being used, but I guess if people don't like it that is fine. The only problem I have with people getting mad about it is that they almost always demand that cis not be used and refuse to provide an alternative. The only alternative I have ever been given is "normal" and fuck that.
She/her please
User avatar
Elomin Sha
Posts: 15773
Joined: 22 Feb 2008, 05:14
First Video: Max Effect
Location: Woodford Green, England
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Elomin Sha » 16 Jun 2016, 08:50

It is a mantra of don't be a dick if you don't want to be treated like one.
The most unique, nicest, and confusing individual you will get to know. Don't be stupid around me, that's my job.
https://displate.com/elominsha/galleries
If you need art, I take commissions, PM me.
User avatar
Arclight_Dynamo
Posts: 540
Joined: 18 Jul 2014, 12:44
First Video: Desert Bus 1

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Arclight_Dynamo » 16 Jun 2016, 09:03

...wait, we're finding "cis" insulting now? Why? It's just short for "cisgender" in the same way that "trans" is short for "transgender."

Both are Latin prefixes. "Trans" means "beyond" and "cis" means "this side of." I first encountered them when learning Roman history. There were two Roman provinces, one called "Transalpine Gaul" ("Gaul Beyond the Alps") and one called "Cisalpine Gaul" ("Gaul on this Side of the Alps"). You'll find these prefixes used in other geographical names, chemistry, and many other disciplines.

So, both "trans" and "cis" are common Latin prefixes with literally thousands of years of use in various contexts.

In the context of sexual identity, the term "transsexualism" was first used in 1949, as a translation of the Latin "transsexualismus," coined in 1923 by the German doctor who would go on to perform the first genital reassignment surgery. "Transsexual" would later be replaced by the more accurate "transgender" in English.

There's your Latin root for the English word. Given the Latin roots, and given that "cis" is the Latin prefix opposite of "trans," the Latin word opposite "transsexualismus" ("transsexualism") would be "cissexualismus" ("cissexualism").

And, therefore, someone who is not "transgender" would accurately be described as "cisgender." Or, to keep things brief, someone who is not "trans" is "cis."

How's any of that insulting? It's accurate, neutral terminology. As a cis guy, I have no issue being called "cis." Because I am cis.

The only way I can imagine someone being insulted by being called "cis" is if they object to having something about themselves that they consider to be the norm labelled at all. That is, they're just regular people and so they don't need any qualifiers, but people who are different do need qualifiers. (Which, by the way, is absolutely an attitude I've encountered again and again on this issue. I'm not just pulling stuff out of my nethers, here.)

Because why would you need to label what's normal? Normal people are just people, not different.

Like, for example, white people in the US wanting to just be called "Americans" rather than "European-Americans" or "White-Americans." But African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans can all have their special terms, because they're not what's "normal."

Or, for example, able-bodied people wanting to just be called "people" rather than "able-bodied people." But disabled people can have their special term, because they're not what's "normal."

It's an indication of what people consider to be "normal" (that is, themselves) and "abnormal" (that is, people unlike themselves).

I'm sure you can see how that view is deeply troublesome.

Edit:

Elomin Sha wrote:It is a mantra of don't be a dick if you don't want to be treated like one.


A good philosophy. But I don't see anyone being a dick in this thread.
CamelKnackRambleHort
Posts: 127
Joined: 03 Apr 2015, 21:24
First Video: Cursing

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby CamelKnackRambleHort » 16 Jun 2016, 09:18

Arclight_Dynamo: In my experience people don't like cis for 4 reasons. Sometimes only one of them, sometimes all of them, but they generally fall into these categories:

They don't like the sound of it. Like the literal sound. Apparently it sounds like a slur to some people.

They object to being given a label by the trans community. Which is inaccurate because it was a cis person who came up with both "cis" and "trans" as a label. We were labeled as trans, and by extension that labels cis people as cis.

"Die cis scum" was said by a frustrated teenager 3 years ago in a youtube video rant.

And finally the general point you noted about wanting to be the normal vs the abnormal.

Also, I don't think Elomin Sha was saying anyone in this thread is being a dick. I read their comment as agreeing with mine, that if people don't like cis they should provide an alternative that isn't inherently insulting to trans people. I could be wrong though, but I tend to assume the best especially in the lrr community.
She/her please
User avatar
Arclight_Dynamo
Posts: 540
Joined: 18 Jul 2014, 12:44
First Video: Desert Bus 1

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Arclight_Dynamo » 16 Jun 2016, 09:29

Hm, interesting. I'd not heard of the first three before - and the first one never occurred to me at all. Thanks for letting me know!

I still don't read Elomin Sha's comment the way you do, but if they come in and say that's what they meant, I'd be more than happy to be corrected and more than happy to apologize for the misunderstanding.
CamelKnackRambleHort
Posts: 127
Joined: 03 Apr 2015, 21:24
First Video: Cursing

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby CamelKnackRambleHort » 16 Jun 2016, 09:42

Arclight_Dynamo wrote:Hm, interesting. I'd not heard of the first three before - and the first one never occurred to me at all. Thanks for letting me know!


Well I am openly trans in a lot of places, so I deal with this sort of thing a lot. The most annoying regular discussion I have to have is about gender neutral pronouns.
She/her please
User avatar
Elomin Sha
Posts: 15773
Joined: 22 Feb 2008, 05:14
First Video: Max Effect
Location: Woodford Green, England
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Elomin Sha » 16 Jun 2016, 10:36

It wasn't a teenager. 20 something with shaved head, bad dark lipstick. She should have known better. My dick comment is reference to reactions people have.
The most unique, nicest, and confusing individual you will get to know. Don't be stupid around me, that's my job.
https://displate.com/elominsha/galleries
If you need art, I take commissions, PM me.
User avatar
MinniChi
Posts: 868
Joined: 15 Oct 2012, 18:46
First Video: Your Very Own Prom
Location: Toronto Canada
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby MinniChi » 16 Jun 2016, 10:49

I like knowing what it means finally. Though my favorite "label" for myself and anyone I know is Human. No one can screw up by referring to me as that, and I have yet to find someone offended by being called Human.
No trees were killed to send this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced
CamelKnackRambleHort
Posts: 127
Joined: 03 Apr 2015, 21:24
First Video: Cursing

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby CamelKnackRambleHort » 16 Jun 2016, 11:12

Not sure what having a shaved head and wearing black lipstick has to do with it, but I was under the impression they were 18 when they made the video. And yes, they should have known better either way. But really, I find that a pretty weak reason to hate the term cis.
She/her please
User avatar
Arclight_Dynamo
Posts: 540
Joined: 18 Jul 2014, 12:44
First Video: Desert Bus 1

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Arclight_Dynamo » 16 Jun 2016, 11:19

I have to agree with CamelKnack. If this person had said "Die Canadian scum!" it wouldn't make the term "Canadian" an insult.
User avatar
Avistew
Posts: 2593
Joined: 12 Sep 2011, 18:34
First Video: Can't remember
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Avistew » 16 Jun 2016, 14:12

My husband learned the term "cis" recently, and that it was used in online profiles (in this case, OKCupid). He pointed out that he felt it was stupid, and that instead of "cis woman" the person should just say "woman". I commented that it would imply that a trans woman is not a woman. He promptly clarified that he means a trans woman should also just put "woman" because it doesn't matter if they're cis or trans.

Then we had a discussion about how it was for trans women's safety, as people knowing it early on reduced the likelihood of them getting assaulted by someone who learns it later and feels lied to or whatever. He was pretty disgusted that that was a thing and re-stated that this shouldn't be necessary, and that it sucks that it apparently is.

Anyway, going back to cis straight people. I am one, and the only thing I thought when I read psyclone's comment was "oh, I hope I'm not making this a less safe place by contributing to the discussion".

Because saying you want to be around people who can understand you isn't rude. Especially when you're saying it on a forum thread meant for those people. Let's be clear here: we're allowed on this thread as allies. But it's not our thread. We're guests. We don't get to decide what's okay or not. We already have that privilege in the rest of the world.

I didn't feel personally insulted by Psyclone and if you did, I think bringing it up in a thread that is meant as a support thread for LGBT people, especially right now when everyone needs support so much, is out of line. Neither you nor I were specifically targeted. And it's fine wanting to be among people who really get you. And it should be fine saying it within that group.

Anyway, long story short, I want to give my support to everyone. I can't imagine what it feels like for the worst mass-shooting to be targeting a group you belong to. I find it horrifying, but I'm not a direct target. I hope not to make this space less safe or less personal by participating, but I want to share support and hugs to everyone who will have them.
Check out my webcomic, The Meddlers! (Currently not updating)
User avatar
Psyclone
Posts: 1862
Joined: 13 Sep 2009, 02:23
First Video: Christmas Carolling on Halloween
Location: Walla^2

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Psyclone » 16 Jun 2016, 22:58

Geez, I thought I'd made an innocuous comment and I came back to this. Sorry y'all. This thread has been so peaceful these days I forgot that sometimes it still flares up over little things.

Yeah, the reason I said it was basically what CamelKnack said. It was a tragedy that felt very personal to me and I felt like the people I was talking to about it in real life either didn't get it or were minimalizing the LGBT aspect of it, and I was tired of either defending myself or trying to explain my feelings to people who didn't seem to care that much. I honestly didn't mean it as an 'every non-queer person in this thread needs to stop talking here' and I didn't even consider that it could be perceived that way, so if that's how it came across I'm sorry. It was very much just venting.

That said, yes, Elomin's comment did kind of illustrate why I didn't want to talk to cis straight people. Still, sorry for starting this and derailing everyone. I didn't mean to insinuate that anyone wasn't welcome here.
They/them/their pronouns

twitch: armadillorampant
User avatar
Deedles
Posts: 4043
Joined: 29 Nov 2010, 13:19
First Video: Man Cooking
Location: A shoebox on Kashyyyk.
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Deedles » 17 Jun 2016, 07:20

I don't think it was rude at all. I feel very similar a lot of the time, only in my case it becomes "I don't want to talk to non-depressed/non-socially anxious people right now". Why? Because when I'm upset and it's related to depression or anxiety it's straining to talk to people who don't understand, who'll question everything or need a mile long explanation past, say, "I'm feeling detached from everything today...", which I won't have the energy, or want, to provide.

Same concept. It's simply the want of talking to people who understand. Who won't question that you're upset, or why.
Hurp-De-Durp!
User avatar
Arclight_Dynamo
Posts: 540
Joined: 18 Jul 2014, 12:44
First Video: Desert Bus 1

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Arclight_Dynamo » 20 Jun 2016, 10:07

Blood donation waiting period for men who have sex with men reduced to one year

Monday, June 20, 2016

(OTTAWA) – Health Canada has approved Canadian Blood Services’ request to reduce the blood donation waiting period for men who have sex with men from five years to one year.

The change will take effect across the country on Aug. 15. Canadian Blood Services and Héma-Québec, Québec’s blood operator, will make the change at the same time.


Yay! Canada's blood donation policy has finally caught up with the inadequate and discriminatory policy that the US has!

*Sighs*

I suppose I shouldn't be too hard on them, since this is better, and they do say this:

Canadian Blood Services is exploring the possibility of moving toward behaviour-based screening. We are working with researchers, the LGBTQ community, patient groups and other stakeholders to determine how best to gather the scientific evidence required to determine future changes to the eligibility criteria.


People just need to keep pushing them in that direction.
CamelKnackRambleHort
Posts: 127
Joined: 03 Apr 2015, 21:24
First Video: Cursing

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby CamelKnackRambleHort » 20 Jun 2016, 10:47

Woo. Lets hear it for tiny, incremental, inadequate steps toward equality...

I mean, yeah, I don't want to exactly complain, because this is objectively a good thing. It's just... such a tiny step.
She/her please
User avatar
Psyclone
Posts: 1862
Joined: 13 Sep 2009, 02:23
First Video: Christmas Carolling on Halloween
Location: Walla^2

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Psyclone » 21 Jun 2016, 12:30

Behavior-based meaning risky behavior for everyone and not just gay men, yes? Right?

Nah, probably not.
They/them/their pronouns

twitch: armadillorampant
User avatar
AlexanderDitto
Better Than the First Alexander
Posts: 4376
Joined: 28 Nov 2007, 07:41
First Video: Desert Bus 1: The Original!
Location: Cambridge, Massachu~
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby AlexanderDitto » 22 Jun 2016, 06:09

In light of Orlando, I've seen a lot of up-in-arms posts from progressive people calling for an end to the FDA's one year ban on men who have sex with men giving blood, and I've been trying to puzzle out what the actual right answer here is. I'm not sure I can figure it out, but my current inclination is the ban makes sense from an epidemiological, risk analysis perspective. But I'm not sure.

From the reading I've done, the assay hey use to test whether blood contains HIV, Hep B, Hep C, etc has a a reporting window of about a week following exposure. When infection is suspected, a Western blot test can detect HIV in blood as early as three weeks following exposure. The problem is that both of these tests have a (very small, but not insignificant) false negative rate aka they will fail to detect cases of HIV+ blood in a very small number of cases. Test enough HIV+ blood and eventually you'll miss a few batches. I read a paper (though I can't find it now, darn, I'll keep looking) that did a reasonable risk assessment and determined that if the ban were lifted, and people didn't self-defer if they had been engaging in risky behavior (aka everyone just donated normally), with current testing procedures and given what we know about how the deferral works now, the odds would be that around 50 more units of HIV+ blood would enter the system. If 75% of people self-deferred, that number drops to 12 units.

According to the CDC, gay men still make up the vast majority of HIV cases, and the majority of new HIV cases. (see http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/library/repo ... ort-us.pdf). Especially among gay black and latino youth, new HIV cases have leveled off; that is, the rate of infection is not going down. Worse, something like half of people newly infected with HIV don't know they're infected, especially because it sometimes takes months for people to seroconvert.

My understanding is that the US currently does not have anything close to a major blood shortage. It seems like there is not huge pressing _need_ to allow gay men to donate blood. Like, yes, it is a Nice Thing To Do, and obviously it is frustrating to feel like you're being singled out as part of a cohort that you feel you should not belong to. But... we do this in epidemiology all the time? We know people of African descent are more likely to get sickle cell anemia, so if someone comes into a hospital and is anemic, and they're African, doctors are more likely to suspect they may have sickle cell (note this risk is lower for Black Americans, because they are more likely to be genetically mixed in terms of ancestry, which reduces the genetic prevalence of the disease). It's not discrimination, it's risk analysis. Which yes, leads to a kind of discrimination?

I guess the question is, if the risk analysis is correct, what is the trade-off for a possible 12 more units of HIV+ blood entering the system? If it's just "more people donate which means there's more blood available," but there was no blood shortage to begin with, is that enough of a benefit to justify 12 new HIV infections? I'm not convinced it is.

I _do_ think, however, that in light of the very large number of heterosexual people who give blood, coupled with the non-zero risk of heterosexual people contracting HIV, there should be some risky behavior screening for them too. It has to be done judiciously (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsB ... 446580.pdf mentions that people are predisposed to answer questionaire questions more with "is my blood safe" than answering the actual questions asked) and I think people will be scared to ask because they don't want to scare off straight donors uncomfortable with asking sexual history questions, but I think it is only fair that risk is assessed as well.

I'm not 100% on this stance. I need more information and there's a lot of it swirling around and I haven't been able to put together a full, coherent picture. It's just interesting that I've seen a lot of progressives calling for a lift on the ban, but I haven't seen much discussion about the science behind the ban, or pointing out flaws in the risk analysis. People just say it's discriminatory and we should get rid of it, which... when it comes to public health, doesn't feel like a good enough answer to me. Society can and does often discriminate if it's not too severe and it means fewer people get sick and die.
User avatar
AdmiralMemo
Posts: 7342
Joined: 27 Nov 2011, 18:29
First Video: Unskippable: Eternal Sonata
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Contact:

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby AdmiralMemo » 22 Jun 2016, 12:58

Just a heads-up: your links broke. Might want to edit the post and put [ url ] tags around them.

Also, after reading your post, I'm with you. You mention that there's absolutely no shortage of blood? Therefore, what better time to change the policy, based upon sexual history, regardless of orientation? If you drive away some straight folks, OK? How much are you going to lose if you do so?
Graham wrote:The point is: Nyeh nyeh nyeh. I'm an old man.
LRRcast wrote:Paul: That does not answer that question at all.
James: Who cares about that question? That's a good answer.

Image
User avatar
Avistew
Posts: 2593
Joined: 12 Sep 2011, 18:34
First Video: Can't remember
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Avistew » 22 Jun 2016, 14:56

In France, you can't donate if you've had more than one partner in the past year. This is behavior based, kind of. It doesn't distinguish between the type of partners, or even the number beyond "more than one". So someone who has one-night stands without protection every day is considered the same risk as someone who has been in a long-term relationship with two people, with everyone being tested negative and not having sex outside the group.

But I think some people always end up excluded when they're safe, because those guidelines are about protecting people, and it's better to turn done some blood that would have been fine (especially since, as you say, there is no shortage) than accepting blood that could contaminate someone.

I still think that showing a recent negative test should be taken into account, especially if there have been no new partners since that test was taken and within several months before the test.
Check out my webcomic, The Meddlers! (Currently not updating)
User avatar
Psyclone
Posts: 1862
Joined: 13 Sep 2009, 02:23
First Video: Christmas Carolling on Halloween
Location: Walla^2

Re: This thread is so gay

Postby Psyclone » 22 Jun 2016, 23:23

I do know that there are times when blood banks need more donors even outside of things like mass shootings (fewer people tend to donate during the summer in the US, for example, since people might be going out of town for vacations), but you're right, I don't think there's any mass shortage.

I'm not sure what the correct answer is either, honestly. I think that in some ways having the ban might make heterosexual people less likely to self-screen because they assume that since they have no restrictions they're not dangerous, but if you're right about infection rates maybe that's a tradeoff we have to take? I don't know.

EDIT: saw my post count and now I have The War of 1812 stuck in my head...
They/them/their pronouns

twitch: armadillorampant

Return to “General Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests