• [email protected]@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    So long as it isn’t attempting to refurbish words that are still in common use and already have common meanings, I usually have no issue with new-speak. Unnecessary abbreviations are taxing, though cis and het have become ubiquitous enough that I can almost forgive it.

    • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Agreed. Much better to introduce new jargon than to insidiously repurpose existing language. This is the point Orwell made.

      But it’s jargon nonetheless. It’s exclusionary by definition.

      • [email protected]@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        I dunno. Online, it feels less like jargon and more like an attempt at avoiding any snark. Irl, I occasionally hear “cis” but most people say “straight” or rather than “het.” Just another synonym to memorize for me

        • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          You seem like a likeable person who’s trying to the do the right thing.

          Personally, I would prefer a world where people did not feel obliged by social pressure to announce such details about the minutiae of their private lives. I would prefer that individuals saw themselves first and foremost as individuals and not as representatives of this or that group of (supposed) oppressor or (supposed) victim. This whole situation looks to me transparently like the result of overreach by an advocacy class that needed to find a problem that it could solve. IMO most people are not, and never have been, bigots. They’re usually nice folks trying to do the right thing, like you. And it feels to me like they are being manipulated.

          • [email protected]@sh.itjust.worksOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            Most people want to, for lack of a better word, fuck other people. In offering details, they create a greater chance of maintaining the ability to do so. This is particularly relevant for trans folks, who have a smaller pool of partners to pull from. For comparison, see the practices of gay folks, particularly in the 50s when gay clubs were basically outlawed. It was incredibly difficult to find other gay people in a society that ostracized them and prevented their congregation, so gay relationships were rare. It’s perfectly natural to want to find companionship, or solitude if that’s your thing, so people spread the word about themselves to broaden their chances.

            Phrased another way, there’s a reason it’s the third tier of maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Finding your place of belonging isn’t an identical process. Sometimes it’s taxing for not only yourself, but others as well. Personally, I wish I had the level of confidence of my trans friends are forced to maintain.

            • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              That’s an interesting take. Declaring one’s pronouns as a way to announce one’s presence (or not) in a dating pool. Okay, but personally I doubt that’s the main driver. After all, in the internet era, finding one’s tribe is as easy as two taps on a screen. Gay guys can now have as much sex as they want without any third party even knowing, as you must be aware. I certainly am, indeed I speak from experience. So this phenomenon of needing to wear jargon and pronouns on one’s sleeve, I think it has other causes, mainly.