How do you take off your shirt?

RialVestroRialVestro Posts: 6,346 ✭✭✭
I was thinking the other night about this. The stereotype is that guys always take off their shirts from the top, reaching over the head and grabbing from the back of the neck while girls take off their shirts from the bottom. However from personal experience with short and long hair hair I think this difference has more to do with hair length than gender. When I try to do it the way I use to with short hair it's hard to do it that way now without pulling on my hair.

So my question is do other people have similar experiences with hair length effecting how they remove their shirts. For this to be the most helpful I need responses from other people who's hair doesn't match the traditional style of their gender, girls with short hair, guys with long hair. If I'm right, the way you remove your shirts should be reversed as well, if I'm wrong... well then it's still a mystery why the different genders take off their shirts differently.

It would also be helpful if you've had personal experience with both short and long hair. You don't need to say what your gender is, since we're mostly dealing with if short or long hair has any effect on how you take your shirt off. You can say your gender if you want but it's not required for this conversation. All I really need to know is hair length and if you take your shirt off from the top or the bottom. If you're had it both ways did it change how you take your short off when you cut your hair or let your hair grow out?
Ni, peng, nee-wom! Ecky, ecky, ecky, pakang, zoom-ping! Baa weep grahna weep ninny bong!

Comments

  • TelMolagMoraTelMolagMora Alliance, OhioPosts: 516 ✭✭
    Neither. I take off my shirt like this: I grab my left sleeve and get my left arm inside the shirt, then use my left arm to hold the right sleeve while I get my other arm inside the shirt, then just push up from inside the shirt and shirt is off. No idea why I do it like that, it's just intuitive to me.
    무세이 알렉스, remember the name.
  • RialVestroRialVestro Posts: 6,346 ✭✭✭

    Neither. I take off my shirt like this: I grab my left sleeve and get my left arm inside the shirt, then use my left arm to hold the right sleeve while I get my other arm inside the shirt, then just push up from inside the shirt and shirt is off. No idea why I do it like that, it's just intuitive to me.

    That's what I did as a kid... not to take off but because my arms got cold I would do that to pull my arms into my shirt. I suppose you could take it off that way too but the other two methods are a lot easier and faster.

    Also take off the kids shirt that way just because it's actually easier and safer to take out one arm at a time than trying to just pull the whole thing over his head all at once. If he could sit up and hold his arms up then it could be lifted off all at once but if he could do that I wouldn't need to do it for him.

    Ni, peng, nee-wom! Ecky, ecky, ecky, pakang, zoom-ping! Baa weep grahna weep ninny bong!
  • VioletMVioletM A hobbit hole with mezzanine in the centre of the CosmosPosts: 6
    With great difficulty at times was my immediate mental response. Has got me thinking about how I get dressed/de-dressed. WIll report back when I have made a definitive conclusion
  • AnFaAnFa Hessen, GermanyPosts: 77
    I do it the same way as TelMolagMora, I have always done it that way and for me personally it works better than any of the others. I'm female, I used to have really long hair, now I have really short hair, that never changed anything in my case.
  • NotGreenJohnNotGreenJohn Posts: 10
    I do all three, however I do the male way the most. As a child, I had long hair, but now I have short hair. So maybe I do all three because I have had different lengths?
  • RialVestroRialVestro Posts: 6,346 ✭✭✭

    I do all three, however I do the male way the most. As a child, I had long hair, but now I have short hair. So maybe I do all three because I have had different lengths?

    So as a child when you had long hair you mostly lifted from the bottom and now with short hair you mostly pull from the top? I'm not really sure how the change in your hair changed how you did it cause you weren't really clear on that part. It almost sounded like you've always mostly done it the male way the way you worded it which would mean the hair style change had nothing to do with it. So I could use some clarification as to how you think the change in your hair has effected the change in how you take your shirt off.

    Ni, peng, nee-wom! Ecky, ecky, ecky, pakang, zoom-ping! Baa weep grahna weep ninny bong!
  • tuttitutti Posts: 46
    I have long hair and i pull it up over my head from the bottom. However, i used to have really short hair and I did the same thing. Good luck with your investigation.
    "the purpose of life is to discover your gift, and the meaning of life is to give your gift away."
  • RialVestroRialVestro Posts: 6,346 ✭✭✭
    tutti said:

    I have long hair and i pull it up over my head from the bottom. However, i used to have really short hair and I did the same thing. Good luck with your investigation.

    Well this could disprove my theory since you did it the female way regardless of hair length. I didn't think I would ever need to ask this but are you a girl or just a non-stereotypical guy? If it's the first one then maybe there's some other reason girls tend to do it that way that I'll just never understand. If the second one then at the very lest it proves not only girls do it that way. Kinda hoping for the second one because I prefer breaking gender stereotypes over not understanding why girls do that.
    Ni, peng, nee-wom! Ecky, ecky, ecky, pakang, zoom-ping! Baa weep grahna weep ninny bong!
  • tuttitutti Posts: 46
    @RialVestro I'm a girl, so maybe there is some connection between gender and the way people take off their shirts. I hope you find a guy that does it too soon, in the name of breaking gender stereotypes.
    "the purpose of life is to discover your gift, and the meaning of life is to give your gift away."
  • NotGreenJohnNotGreenJohn Posts: 10
    As a kid with long hair I would d it from the bottom but now with short hair I do it more from the top
  • RialVestroRialVestro Posts: 6,346 ✭✭✭
    So it appears some people have changed from the female way to the male way depending on hair length. But it seems like most of the replies in here have been uneffected by it... I am... still confused.
    Ni, peng, nee-wom! Ecky, ecky, ecky, pakang, zoom-ping! Baa weep grahna weep ninny bong!
  • AnFaAnFa Hessen, GermanyPosts: 77
    Another factor that might have influence on it is, that really tight shirts tend to be easier to take of the "female" way. And fashion-wise women tend to wear more tight shirts. So maybe that influences the habit?
  • RialVestroRialVestro Posts: 6,346 ✭✭✭
    I've seen men wear tight shirts too. Mostly guys who are actually in shape and want to show off their muscles. Overweight guys like myself generally like loose fitting shirts cause at least in my case where I'm not that fat loose fitting shirts tend to make me look slimmer than I actually am.
    Ni, peng, nee-wom! Ecky, ecky, ecky, pakang, zoom-ping! Baa weep grahna weep ninny bong!
  • AdamTheAlienAdamTheAlien Canby, Oregon/Tacoma, WashingtonPosts: 36 ✭✭
    edited October 4
    I spent most of my life grabbing the sleeve and tugging from there. Probably why holes develop in the armpits of my t-shirts. Since coming out as genderfluid and expanding my wardrobe, I find I'm more likely to pull up from the bottom.

    The difference, for me, is unrelated to hair length. I've had long hair and short hair at various times throughout my life, both while passing as cis and since coming out. For me, it has more to do with the clothes themselves, as well as societal conditions.

    When I was observing basic fashion codes socially considered male, I wore loose T-shirts made of sturdy fabric. Even when I started wearing tighter shirts, the fabric was pretty sturdy. I also never got stuck.

    When I started wearing clothing socially considered to go with a feminine approach, I discovered a few things that changed and are still changing the way I typically go to remove a shirt.

    First, the cuts are entirely different. I found it actively easier to remove shirts acquired from the men's section. Shirts from the women's section have proven more difficult to remove, even if the shirts are of equal tightness. The actual body cut is generally different. Shoulder size difference is assumed, for instance, which often leaves me a bit too shouldery for women's clothes, but not shouldery enough for men's.

    Second, the fabric is often different. This is a standard problem with almost any type of gendered clothing. Clothing made for women is typically more delicate than clothing made for men. I can get tangled up in a hirt intended for cis men, and the likelihood I'll damage it is pretty slim. But if I get tangled in any kind of top intended for cis women? Hoo boy, I have to move slowly and carefully or I get to cringe as I hear a seam rip here, or a full tear there.

    Third, my motivations when removing clothing have changed. Before, I would favor having to do the least amount of work associated with clothing as I could, including and especially having to turn it back the right way once an article of clothing was inside-out. Clothes were more easily replaceable, and hole in the armpit or a loose thread didn't bother me as much. Cis men are, generally speaking, allowed to be casually sloppy. I was allowed to be lazy.

    Since coming out and expressing my fashion differently, though, I've found I care more about the condition of my clothes. Part of that is because it's harder to replace certain items. Sizes for women's clothes seem to be more particular, and vary more when they say they're the same thing (though this has always been an issue for me, even with men's clothes). They can also cost more, and there's greater variety between individual tops, whereas men's tops are...largely the same, limited to a few standard varieties. Further, I now feel a greater pressure to look put-together. Women tend to be judged more harshly by society when they're dressed more lazily. As a nonbinary person, I get judgement of a different kind already, and what seems to be a magnified version of that same judgement upon women. In some people's minds, even subconsciously in the minds of well-meaning progressive people, I'm already "ugly" because I'm nonbinary. If I'm out and about in femme attire, I tend nto experience more abuse and insults related to my gender identity and sexuality if I don't put myself together more. Plus, it makes me more able to withstand whatever abuse still is hurled my way, because I feel confident in my appearance. It's kind of the same reason, in that regard, that i wore button-up shirts and ties when I was homeless: it served to preserve my dignity and self-worth.

    So now, as a result of all that, I'd rather deal with an inside-out top than a torn one, plus I pay more attention (though not FULL attention) to what the wash instructions say, which allows my really cool tops to last longer. And I've applied this, now, even to my shirts from the men's section: all those cool T-shirts with pictures or logos are less likely to lose those designs if I wash them inside-out. So now I turn many of my tops inside-out by default when I go to wash, even if they weren't inside-out as a result of my removing them.
    by AdamTheAlien
    - Adam J. Manley
  • AdamTheAlienAdamTheAlien Canby, Oregon/Tacoma, WashingtonPosts: 36 ✭✭
    You know what, I just thought of another reason I didn't even realize was influencing how I remove my shirts: dresses. The more I wear dresses, the more likely I am to pull up from the bottom. I can do the sleeve-tug thing with dresses, but all of the above reasons apply even MORE to dresses than they do tops. Especially the likelihood of damaging them if I remove them the wrong way. Most of my dresses are tight enough that if I tug the sleeve, I'm damaging the dress. And that's assuming there even IS a sleeve (which is also an issue with tops; women's tops are not guaramteed sleeves OR even upper portions or backs to grab from). As I shift to more and more instinctively removing by grabbing the bottom, it seems to just carry over, even to the shirts that would be considered socially masculine.
    - Adam J. Manley
  • RialVestroRialVestro Posts: 6,346 ✭✭✭
    Would just like to point out that I hate the term Cis Gender. Even though it's spelled differently spoken it sounds the same as sis which can be short for sister or sissy. It sounds like an insult and we didn't come up with it, the LGBT community did. I've never known any straight person who identifies with their biological gender to identify as cis, quite the opposite actually. Most people outside of the LGBT group don't even know what it means so it's only natural to assume it's some kind of insult.

    Calling someone cis to me is kinda of counter productive and hypocritical because it's basically the same thing as if I called you a faggot. You're all about people accepting you as whatever it is you identify with. And I'm using you as in the general population not as the individual. But yet at the same time you refer to us by this identity that we don't identify ourselves as. I would prefer to be called a straight man not a cis man.

    Though there is an issue with transgender people who may also identify as straight but I personally think that straight refers to a biological male who is attracted to biological females or vice versa. There is some what a communication barrier between straight people and LGBT because some words mean different things to us than they do to you. Like for instance sex and gender to you are two different things but to me they're synonyms. Well sort of, cause sex can be a verb and gender can't.

    We should really work out a change in the language that we can both agree on. I think that might help more straight people accept the LGBT community. If we're actually on the same page we can better communicate and understand each other instead of constantly stepping on each other's toes.

    This is especially confusing for me being that I share a body with an alternate personality who identifies as a lesbian woman. Our views on this are almost totally different so I'm basically in conflict with myself... even that statement is a bit confusing because the English language doesn't really have a proper way for people like me to identify. In one way we're all fractions of one person but in another we each identify as separate individuals despite sharing a body. It really makes communicating with single personality people difficult because they can't understand why I keep switching from individual to group pronouns. I kinda just go with whatever sounds right to me in the context but what makes sense to me doesn't always make sense to others.
    Ni, peng, nee-wom! Ecky, ecky, ecky, pakang, zoom-ping! Baa weep grahna weep ninny bong!
  • AdamTheAlienAdamTheAlien Canby, Oregon/Tacoma, WashingtonPosts: 36 ✭✭
    @RialVestro: Okay, I feel like this is a major tangent, but your comment deserves a response. So here it is, point by point.

    Would just like to point out that I hate the term Cis Gender. Even though it's spelled differently spoken it sounds the same as sis which can be short for sister or sissy.

    Interesting perspective. I think we pronounce it slightly differently, as I never would have made that connection. When I say "cis" or "cisgender", the "s" comes out as a slurred "z" sound. Kind of like "sisz" or sometimes fully "siz", though without putting an overabundance of effort on the "z" sound and even half-swallowing it. I would have to make an extra effort to overpronounce the "s" to make it sound like "sis".

    I completely understand not liking "sissy". That's a slur I've had hurled at me all my life, even moreso since coming out. That being said, we also have a large societal problem in that considering words like "sister" and "sissy" to be insults at all results from a cultural fixation on seeing what we've defined as femininity as a negative, or as somehow not as good as what we consider masculinity.

    It sounds like an insult and we didn't come up with it, the LGBT community did. I've never known any straight person who identifies with their biological gender to identify as cis, quite the opposite actually. Most people outside of the LGBT group don't even know what it means so it's only natural to assume it's some kind of insult.

    It's not an insult, and the prefix "cis" wasn't created by the LGBTQ community. "Cis" is a Latin prefix which serves as the opposite of "trans", and both were used in a number of terms. In the modern era, both are scientific prefixes that are used in a wide variety of circumstances, most of which fall outside of gender discussion.

    Calling someone cis to me is kinda of counter productive and hypocritical because it's basically the same thing as if I called you a faggot.

    It really isn't. "Faggot" has been an insult for centuries, and was a demeaning term even before it became a slur applied to LGBTQ people. "Cis" can be used as an insult, given an insulting tone and context, but so can literally any word that can be used to describe a person. Our names can be insults if the person saying them intends it to sound insulting. That someone uses a word insultingly does not make it an inherent insult. Centuries of use as an insult and almost exclusive use as an insult in our current culture makes "faggot" a word that carries little ambiguity and a whole lot of painful history. Some try to reclaim it to diminish its power as an insult, but it's a much harder one to reclaim than words like "queer", due to its long history and the massive prevalence of its current use as a very targeted slur.

    In other words, "cis" is an emerging term for which you and I and everyone else are permitted to define the mood. We (meaning all of us as a people) get to decide if it's an insult or not for future generations. On the other hand, "Faggot" is a loaded word with immense baggage older than any person alive. That decision is mostly out of our hands, and if it can be turned into anything other than an insult in our culture, it will take a very long time.

    You're all about people accepting you as whatever it is you identify with. And I'm using you as in the general population not as the individual. But yet at the same time you refer to us by this identity that we don't identify ourselves as. I would prefer to be called a straight man not a cis man.

    First, I feel I must point out that you are mistaken in what you seem to think "cis' means. "Cis" does not mean "straight" or "heterosexual". "Cis" simply means "not trans". It has nothing to do with sexuality, and everything to do with gender identity. "Cis" means you identify with the gender you were assigned at birth.

    The problem faced, here, is that a word needs to exist to describe "not trans" without implying that "not trans" is the default, assumed status of a supposedly "normal" person. It can be anything. I don't care. I don't think most do, as long as a word exists. "Cis" is an easy route to go, as it is the Latin, scientific opposite of "trans". I also find that "cis" and "trans" generally only come up when specifically discussing gender and related issues, which is why it came up in my initial response at all.

    Prior to "cis" becoming more common, such discussions fell short, having nothing with which to differentiate other than demeaning terms like, for example, "a real man" or "a biological man" to contrast with "a trans man". The use of "real" where we would now say "cis" encouraged (and still does, when used) trans people to be dehumanized, or at least delegitimized as real people with valid lives and concerns. "Biological" tends to fall into the same problem, as it leads people (even those saying it without intending it this way) to subsconsciously percieve trans people as "not real" or "less real" than the social default of "biological".

    It's also worth noting that, unless I'm mistaken, the "trans" prefix was applied to trans people by people in the medical community, not by the LGBTQ community. You didn't pick "cis", but we didn't pick "trans". I don't think that's necessarily a problem when using scientific terminology, but if we're going to do away with one Latin prefix in conversations about gender, we need to address the other as well. "Trans" is an imperfect term that's often only tolerated, often unenthusiastically accepted as the term because no one has thought of another term that's caught on. Just as many cis people don't like the term "cis", many trans people don't like the term "trans". Others may accept it fully (and I do know many cis people who use that term themselves; it's becoming very common in my region), not everyone is happy with all of the terminology. Until we have something better, though, we need a way to refer to people when having serious conversations about gender-related topics.

    Though there is an issue with transgender people who may also identify as straight but I personally think that straight refers to a biological male who is attracted to biological females or vice versa.

    Again, "biological" tends to lead people, not necessarily intentionally or consciously, to perceive trans people as lesser, as "other", which is why we avoid using that term. That's where "cis" comes in, or any term you would replace it with: to even out the language so that no one is perceived as more normal, or more freakish, than the other group of people being discussed.

    As to discussions of "straight" when it comes to gender, a trans male (someone who was assigned female at birth but identifies as a male) would be straight if they were attracted to women. People fixated on the "biological" concept tend to misidentify such a person as a lesbian, which would inherently identify the trans man as a woman rather than a man. This is why we can't confuse gender identity with sexuality. While there is often significant overlap, they are not the same things.

    I'll admit it can be confusing at first, and more confusing when you get into folks like me, who are nonbinary in gender. I've been hit on by supposedly heterosexual cis men and women, and by supposedly homosexual cis men and women. When it comes to the binary sexualities, I can never really predict whether or not someone swings my way or not. I fully acknowledge that all this is confusing. All these labels and many people's need for rigid adherence to their boundaries is confusing for us, too. Which is why we have to talk about it more, and openly, but we need the terminology available to do so effectively.


    The website is now warning me that my overall comment is too long, so I'll continue my point-by-point response in a new comment.
    - Adam J. Manley
  • AdamTheAlienAdamTheAlien Canby, Oregon/Tacoma, WashingtonPosts: 36 ✭✭
    edited October 5
    @RialVestro: Here is the second half of my point-by-point response.

    There is some what a communication barrier between straight people and LGBT because some words mean different things to us than they do to you.

    The communication barrier goes far beyond just being a matter between cisgender heterosexual people (cishet for less technical, shortened slang, but people often misconstrue that as an insult or misleadingly use it as an insult; see also the above "any word can be used as an insult even if it's not an insult" point). Communication barriers exist across a spectrum of divisions in our society. Those communication barriers divide us by geographic region, by age, by subculture, by identity, by socioeconomic class, etc.

    One such major division is that we're all fairly prone to assuming a word is an insult when we hear a word we're unfamiliar with, or don't fully understand, applied to us or a group we identify with. Instead of trying to understand the word, and how it was used, we bristle at being called something we didn't ask to be called. You pointed this out yourself earlier, when you said it was 'only natural" to assume an unfamiliar term was an insult. That may be common to all of us, but I find the idea that it's natural or insurmountable worrisome. I think it's something we can overcome. We should figure out what words used in discussions mean before we take offense to their use. To do otherwise leaves us in an unfortunate place where we will never learn to communicate with one another because of those communication barriers. Once we've decided someone has insulted us, we are far less prone to listening to them, even while they try to explain that they weren't insulting us. Thus we perpetuate the communication barriers rather than bridge them by asking, directly to the speaker or by doing personal research, "What does that mean?"

    We rarely ask to be called the technical terms that describe us. I would never have chosen to be called asthmatic, but I am asthmatic. It's a fact. If another word takes the place of asthmatic, I'll be that, but it changes nothing other than the word used to describe a thing that I undeniably am.

    Like for instance sex and gender to you are two different things but to me they're synonyms. Well sort of, cause sex can be a verb and gender can't.

    They have been used as synonyms for a long time, but we're discovering and attempting to change what is seen as a flaw in language. Language changes. Cultural use, slang, and the need to more effectively communicate regularly cause changes to our language, both over long periods of time and in remarkably short timeframes. "Gender" is coming to now refer to mental identificatoin, while "sex" refers to physical organs. And even that definition of "sex" falls short. You yourself brought up intersex people in the thread about The Orville. We're still working on effectively fashioning language to represent but not malign intersex people (a part of this effort is retiring the term "hermaphrodite", which has become too much of a perjorative to continue as a clinical term applied to humans). More and more, we as a people are realizing that referring to things in a binary fashion, by "man" or "woman", just doesn't work. Life doesn't fit into those boxes. So we use terms and labels to make more boxes, so everything fits. To me, the ultimate goal (generations from now) will be to eventually retire many of these labels, or at least not think much about them...because we won't care so gall-blasted much about our differences. But first we have to accept those differences as socially valid, rather than as aberrations to be removed from society.

    We should really work out a change in the language that we can both agree on. I think that might help more straight people accept the LGBT community. If we're actually on the same page we can better communicate and understand each other instead of constantly stepping on each other's toes.

    I agree. But the bulk of that work should not be on one group or another. We all need to work on that. One such way is to offer subsitutes when we don't like a word. I'm very used to people who don't know what "cis" means bristling at the term. Some even bristle after finding out what it means. But what no one has ever done is say, "I prefer to be called this." You did, but your alternative was based on a misunderstanding of what the terms in question even were. "Straight", as we use it in modern society, refers to sexuality. "Trans" does not refer to sexuality. Even the term "transsexual' refers to physical sex, but not sexuality, and that's only a smaller subset of "trans" as an umbrella term that includes transgender people, transsexual people, nonbinary people, and a host of others...many of which (including those just listed) are also umbrella terms covering a variety of smaller identities/groups.

    I'm down with sorting out new terms. I'm down with agreeing on the language. That's what those of us using the terminology I've used are seeking, and why I've spent this time responding point-by-point, addressing each bit as thoroughly as I'm able. It's because I want to get us to agree on the language, so we can move forward and discuss the real issues that communication barriers prevent us from discussing. But if we're to come up with terms to agree on, we all have to do it. None of us can just say, "I don't like that, think of another." And none of us can take an existing term and say, "Well, this is what it is to ME and only me, therefore that's what it should be to everyone." We have to find the common language, find the language that's problematic, and work out from there. But we all have to do it, or else we have to accept common terms until such time as we can offer an alternative or assist in offering an alternative.

    This is especially confusing for me being that I share a body with an alternate personality who identifies as a lesbian woman. Our views on this are almost totally different so I'm basically in conflict with myself... even that statement is a bit confusing because the English language doesn't really have a proper way for people like me to identify. In one way we're all fractions of one person but in another we each identify as separate individuals despite sharing a body. It really makes communicating with single personality people difficult because they can't understand why I keep switching from individual to group pronouns. I kinda just go with whatever sounds right to me in the context but what makes sense to me doesn't always make sense to others.

    And this is at the heart of most miscommunication: different life experiences. Every aspect of our lives, even the things nobody else sees, affect how we communicate. It's hard, but I try to see outside my perspective as much as I'm able to do so. I think that's something most of us attempt, and if we could get everyone (myself included) to work harder at it, we might be able to achieve some downright magical stuff.

    Unless I've sorely misinterpreted, I don't think anything you've said hasn't made sense, including the statement that you said seemed confusing. I do acknowledge that your experience is outside of my own, and so I'll inherently have some difficulty understanding it, especially understanding it on the same level as I understand more familiar experiences. And I cannot know what it's like to experience it for myself. But I don't think that devalues your experience or perspective, and now I'm in a place wherein I will try to understand and bear your experience in mind while communicating.

    On that note, if I may ask (you may, of course, decline to answer publicly, or at all), do your personalities utilize different usernames on this forum, or do I need to make sure I'm not mistaking one for another when we interact here? For instance, I earlier referenced something posted under your username in a different thread, about The Orville, without knowing if I was interacting with the same personality. Also please feel free to tell me I'm misreading the whole situation and got it totally wrong. That's entirely possible.
    by AdamTheAlien
    - Adam J. Manley
  • RialVestroRialVestro Posts: 6,346 ✭✭✭
    edited October 6
    I might not be able to respond to all of this right now so don't be surprised if this comes to a sudden stop. I'll do as much as I can and come back to the rest later.

    1. I've been called a sissy by my own family ever since I started letting my hair grow out. Also to your point about finding feminine words insulting... inherently they're not. If you're actually female then it's totally appriote but when someone calls a man by a feminine name it's insulting to both genders. It's demeaning for the male because the intention is to make him feel inferrior to other males. And it's demeaning to females because it implies they are some how inferrior. It can also be insulting to call females by male terms but that happens less often. Mostly it only happens in a group when you refer to people by the greeting "hey guys" regardless of their gender. I've known some girls who take offense to that though most use it themselves referring to groups entirely of girls by "hey guys". Not sure what happens when a girl who's OK with it says it with a girl offended by it in a group. I've heard girls can be that way even to other women which is weird to me that a woman can somehow be sexist against herself. For the most part I think women respond better to other women than to me saying the same thing. Though not Hawk cause most would never admit that she is a woman because she looks like me. And I think guys has over time changed from being just male to be able to identify any group of people. Especially in a mixed group because what else would you say? "Hey guys and gals" then the girls get offended because you addressed the guys first. "Hey people" I actually tend to use that but then the people give me weird looks cause no one else does that. "Hey guys" seems to be the most socially accepted.

    2. Never knew of it's Latin routs.

    3. Faggot actually has only been used fairly recently as an insult for gay people, and only in the US. Before that and still to this day in the UK the word faggot means a bundle of sticks or cigarettes.

    4. I can understand the issue with normal, actually another word I hate, normal is so over rated. Though for me that comes from being insane. I also understand the issue with real, though that's kind of an odd point for me being that I don't even consider myself as a real person. But biological just means the gender you were born with, that your DNA says you are. And I much prefer that over cis.

    5. And you just basically described the issue with the language that I mentioned but I think you worded it a lot better than I did. Which might be because I'm not entirely sure how to express myself in a non-offensive way due to how I was raised and I'm still working on expanding my vocabulary as I no longer agree with those views. Again bridging that gap in the language barrier would be really helpful in discussions like this. It's weid because we're both speaking English but I've always been taught gender roles in a binary way and anything different to that is like a totally new language to me. It should also be noted that I was a special ed student from 3rd grade till I graduated high school so my education was pretty piss poor to begin with. It's like my views have changed but the vocabulary with which I express it hasn't caught up yet. So if ever I say anything wrong I'm not meaning to, I just don't know any other way to say it.

    And now I'm going to have to stop and respond to part 2 when I get back.
    by RialVestro
    Ni, peng, nee-wom! Ecky, ecky, ecky, pakang, zoom-ping! Baa weep grahna weep ninny bong!
  • RialVestroRialVestro Posts: 6,346 ✭✭✭
    OK part 2

    1. You make a good point there. I can't really say much else cause you're totally right.
    2. I've been told that the term hermaphrodite is also an insult and they prefer to be called intersex. I can't really blame them as the term hermaphrodite just sounds horrible and is difficult to spell. As to the rest of this point, it's my view that catigorizing people into different groups is just a way to identify them in spoken language. Yes it can be misused to make one group supperior over others which is unquestionably wrong. We should all be equal regardless of what groups we belong to. The important thing to remember is that regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever other boxes we catigorize ourselves into we are all still people. These catigorigies are like little boxes inside of a much larger box we all fit into and we shouldn't place so much importance on the smaller boxes. They only exist to help us communicate with eachother and nothing more.
    3. What about just calling us binary gender? Or bilogical as I said in part one. Either one would be preferrable in place of cis. Part of this problem is trying to come up with a new word to describe something when for years we haven't even had a need to define physical and mental as separate things. There was only the biological gender, we just assumed that everyone who identified as male was born with a penis and that everyone who identified as female was born with a vagina. That is till people started comming out as transgender and then suddenly we have to invent a whole new language.
    4. I only have this one account and most of the time I'm the only one who uses it. Though occasionally my alters might take over. The female one I mentioned before has posted in the LGBT thread. I try to stay out of that topic for fear of unintentinaly using the wrong terminology and offending someone there. Unless someone addresses me directly cause I think it would be rude not to answer when a question is specifically directed at me. Anyway the Orville might actually be two of us but the other one never gave himself a name. He feels they're not important cause he's only a fraction of someone else anyway but the rest of us have taken on individual identies. Though even then we don't always identify who's speaking. If you read enough of my posts you might notice a sudden change in tone or how I word things. I think when you're aware of it and actually accept it it's easier to tell when I'm not being myself but for most people I find they don't even notice. It should also become obvious when some times I can't even remember my own posts cause I wasn't the one who wrote them. Like for example I remember talking about the Orville but I don't recall ever bringing up intersex people so that likely was a personality switch. Most likely with the nameless one cause he gets triggered when the conversation turns to such topics as surgically altering infants. I tried to stay in control of that thread and I agree with him but I wouldn't have been so forceful about it because it is only a fictional character and not a real person. It's hard to keep him in check when such topics are being discussed even as a hypothetical and he takes things a bit too far and too literally. Even right now I'm having a hard staying in control just mentioning it so yeah I haven't read my own post so not sure how much of that thread was actually me or when he took over.
    Ni, peng, nee-wom! Ecky, ecky, ecky, pakang, zoom-ping! Baa weep grahna weep ninny bong!
  • RialVestroRialVestro Posts: 6,346 ✭✭✭
    edited October 6
    Oh another point I didn't think of last night cause I was rushing my responses. You mentioned learning what words mean before taking offense to them. I think it's also important to learn peoples preferences and adjust accordingly cause anything you don't personally identify with can be insulting. Like to add to a point I made earlier, if you're a transgender woman and people insist on referring to as a man that can be an insult but it's not if you actually identify as male.

    Another experience I had when I was younger was people calling me Atheist. I didn't really identify as that until I learned what it meant. Some people who might seem like they're Atheists may prefer Agnostic. Agnostics are similar in a lot of ways and the differences are kinda blurry. You shouldn't just assume one or the other. For a long time I didn't even know there were words for non-religious so until the sixth grade I never identified myself that way. I just had a view that I don't believe in God or gods. Which as it turns out is the definition of Atheist. But it was around that time that someone asked if I was an Atheist and explained what it meant that I actually for the first time self identified as Atheist.

    I think that act of asking, rather that calling me something I was unfamiliar with was a better way to go about it. I might not have as much of a problem with the term cisgender if I had been asked rather than told that's what I am. When you push it on someone then they're going to assume the worst. No one has ever asked me if I'm cisgender, they just tell me I am and that makes it more pushy and doesn't really help the communication issues. If you asked then I'm more likely to respond with an answer or a question if I don't know what it means but if you tell me I'm this and I don't know what it is then I'm more likely to get defensive and assume things.

    I think that's how most people are. We don't like being called names but if you say it as a question rather than a statement of fact then it sparks an actual conversation both sides can learn from rather than one side assuming the worst and immediately getting defensive.

    You said that the LGBT community didn't come up with Cisgender but they did without asking decide that's what we should be called. There was no conversation, just suddenly people start calling me names that I'm not familiar with, don't identify with, and in a conversation I would like to be asked how I would like to be idetified not told how I should identify myself. It's a much different experience hearing Cisgender for the first time than when I heard Atheist for the first time.

    To put all of this into a perspective you might more easily understand. Based on your profile picture I could assume you're male based on the facial hair or female based on the way you're dressed. I could also assume that your trans but you might take offense to any of these assumptions as you said in a previous post being gender fluid. The more appropriot thing for me to do rather than assuming things about you that might not be true is to ask you what exactly are you? Rather than telling you, this is what you are now deal with it. I'm speaking hypothetically here, of course.

    On a more literal note since I brought it up... what exactly are you? I know you said something about being gender fluid but I'm not entirely clear on what that means. I think based on some other things you've said that you identify with both genders? Is that right or have I misunderstood? Not really sure what pronouns I should use to refer to you. I actually recently learned some gender neutral pronouns thanks to another member here so I've already over the past year or so started to work hu, hum, or hus into my vocabulary as much as possible where ever it's appropriate to do so. I like it because it's derived from the word human and doesn't dehumanize people with both or unknown genders like "it" does. I admit I use to say "it" but that was for lack of a better alternative, I've always hated referring to people as if they're things. So yeah ever since I've learned about the gender neutral pronouns I've stopped using "it" to refer to people... unless that person is an evil clown in a Stephen King story. ;-)

    Anyway could you please explain what gender fluid means and what pronouns should be use to refer to you?
    by RialVestro
    Ni, peng, nee-wom! Ecky, ecky, ecky, pakang, zoom-ping! Baa weep grahna weep ninny bong!
  • RialVestroRialVestro Posts: 6,346 ✭✭✭
    I've been thinking about the way you said you pronounced cis. I've only ever heard it as an S.

    If you did pronounce it with a Z it would sound like siz like sizzle or scissors neither of which sound much better to me.

    I'm not even really sure what a slurred Z would sound like, it's not commonly used so I don't hear it too often at all let alone hearing it slurred. C on the other hand can be pronounced as an S or a K but I doubt it would be a K sound here because then it would sound the same as kiss.

    The next option would be to go both ways and pronounce it kiz which I can't really Ind fault with.

    There's also that I sound which we could make say it's own name but there's no E at the end to indicate it's suppose to do that.

    Anyway the point I'm trying to get at since part of my problem was the pronunciation being easily confused with with sister or sissy, if cis were pronounced instead as kiz rather than sis that would be more acceptable... and as mentioned earlier asking what we would like to be called rather than telling this is what you are. The spelling already sets it apart, don't think we need to change that, just the pronunciation bothers me as it sounds at least mildly offensive. Kiz, while mildly confusing to spell correctly if pronounced that way a lot of words are like that so not a big deal. The plus side I can't think of anything it could be confused with so in my opinion at least that makes it sound better.

    It seems kinda weird to talk about pronunciation on a text based forum since I'm only seeing it spelled out here but I first heard it spoken as sis before I even knew the spelling of it so that's the way I hear it as I'm reading. I think that even if I saw it written out first I'd probably still assume sis first thing just cause C as K and S as Z are less common. Though my first guess of new words pronunciations are often wrong as I said earlier a lot of words are not spelled the way they're pronounced yet all my teachers for thirteen years of school told me to sound out words I don't know. How does that help when they're not even spelled the same as how they sound?

    Anyway... spelling and pronunciation difficulties aside. That's a whole other problem that would literally take inventing a whole new language to fix... or possibly learning one that already exists. Someone told me French words are actually pronounced exactly as they're spelled but another person told me that was wrong so now I'm not sure who to believe.

    Anyway I will agree to being called cisgender on the condition that the correct pronouciation should be kizgender not sisgender. That change in pronouciation is probably a lot more manageable and realistic than some of the other suggestions I've made. Of course you can make this change in your own speech but you can't make others follow you. Just like I've tried to incorperate gender neutral pronouns into my speech but I can't stop others from using "it". But if others do choose to follow, the more people start doing the same the easier it'll be to keep the trend going. Like wise I can't speak for others, they might have totally different reasons than I do for not liking that term but that's why it's important to ask not tell. Don't assume that every person who identifies with their biological gender is OK with the cis classification and if not then ask what they would prefer and why they don't like it. If you do that they will more likely be open to communicate rather than getting defensive.

    And fell free to use me as a reference in other conversations if anyone asks why you're saying kiz. If you have a YouTube channel though don't use my name. My family doesn't know about Hawk (the female personality) yet. My dad doesn't really know about these forums so I'm not worried about him stumbling onto my posts here but he follows me on YouTube so that's not a good place to be talking about my personal life before I've even come out about it. It is still possible that if he were to Google search my user name that these forums could come up but not likely.
    Ni, peng, nee-wom! Ecky, ecky, ecky, pakang, zoom-ping! Baa weep grahna weep ninny bong!
  • AnFaAnFa Hessen, GermanyPosts: 77
    @AdamTheAlien Hi. I've heard the term genderfluid on several occasions (or read it) and I have never really understood what people mean with it exactly. Could you explain that? The way understand the whole sex/ gender topic is, that there are people, that are born with the body parts and DNA and everything of a male person, there are people born with the body parts and DNA and everything of a female person and there are various kinds of intersex people. If someone who was born with the body parts and DNA of a male or female person does not feel comfortable with their body being that way and feels like their body is wrong, like there was a mistake and like they should actually have been born (fe)male, then they are trans. If they don't feel that way and are fine with the genitalia they have, they could be called cis (as long as that word is okay for them). By the way, I'm german and the german pronunciation of the latin prefix cis sounds different, it is pronounced with a sharp z sound for the c, but the english language doesn't really have that sound. I do think it would be the logical choice as a word for "not trans". The first time I ever heard these words was in chemistry class when learning about configurations of molecules. On the other hand, there have been some very hateful trans people on the internet that do use cis as an insult, but I don't think that that should be a reason for others to not use it. On the contrary, if it becomes a normal non-judgemental word that is used by a lot of people, then then a small minority of people that use it as an insult doesn't make it an insult anymore. I hope that makes sense. Anyway, that is how I understand it. Feel free to correct me.

    Now let's get to the part that I understand less/ am confused about. First off, I don't mean to insult anyone or tell them what they are or are not. If it does sound like that somewhere, I'm sorry.
    I would consider the whole body parts and DNA thing to be the sex of a person, which can (at birth) be male, female or intersex. I mean, intersex is an umbrella term for a lot of different things and a lot if not all of them have their own names, but lets just call it intersex, everything else is probably far too detailed for this discussion. If someone has their genitalia surgically changed, (from being not intersex to begin with,) I'd probably consider their sex to be what they changed it to. So, I'm not sure about this, but is someone who had a sex change transsexual and someone who is by the above mentioned definition trans, but did not have a sex change, transgender? Is that the difference between transsexual and transgender?
    Does genderfluid mean you only sometimes feel as if you should have been born with different body parts and the rest if the time, you're fine?

    Also, a lot of people see the whole gender thing more on a society basis, I think. If you define gender not as the sex you think you should have been born with, the sex you would feel comfortable with, but as a social construct, that tells you how to dress and behave, then that is a completely different thing. Some people seem to see it like that. That could also leave enough figurative space for the spectrum some people like to talk about. I normally see that aspect as individual personality and preferences. I don't really understand that some people want labels for that. If you were born with a penis and a y-chromosome and all that, so your sex is male, and you feel fine with that, so you are cis, and you also happen to like wearing pink dresses and make-up and high heels and have long hair that you like to wear in a very "feminine"-looking hairstyle, then that is what you like to wear and why would that make you anything different from a cis man? (I am using a hypothetical "you" by the way, just to make that clear. I'm not assuming that stuff about you personally.) And if that person also likes to knit and likes romance movies or has in any way hobbies and/ or preferences that are traditionally viewed as rather "feminine", why would that change anything about their gender? I don't really understand the social-construct-definition. Which definition of "gender" would you use? What exactly do you mean when you call yourself "genderfluid"? Was I completely wrong about something? If you don't use the society-definition of gender, can you understand it?
    Actually, there is a society-definition of gender that I have heard that I understand better. It's what society tells you to be like, depending on which sex you have. But that is a definition where I only really see room for "gender" being binary. Also, any society-based definition has the problem that there are different societies in the world. For example koreans don't seem to think that guys with make-up are weird, kpop-stars wear it all the time. Reminds me of that one vlogbrothers video where Hank talked about different beauty standards for women around the world. Anyway, I'm very interested in your opinion, I hope you can explain something about this and I hope I didn't offend anyone in any way. :blush:
Sign In or Register to comment.