All this bitching about saying "biological male" instead of "cis" is stupid bc the former is practically the definition of the latter, hence why I used it in context of the main points of the post. 
How is saying "biologically male" in a critique of someone's dislike of men any different at a glance than saying "same gender as sex", which is the definition of "cis" afaik.
This reminds me of the stupidity of "colored people" vs. "people of color" phrases. We are told the latter is more progressive than the former? Lol, wut? They're the same thing.
All these above examples of the policing & dictating of words is just ingrained in us to muddy conversation's main points & start needless hostility between groups.
How is saying "biologically male" in a critique of someone's dislike of men any different at a glance than saying "same gender as sex", which is the definition of "cis" afaik.
This reminds me of the stupidity of "colored people" vs. "people of color" phrases. We are told the latter is more progressive than the former? Lol, wut? They're the same thing.
All these above examples of the policing & dictating of words is just ingrained in us to muddy conversation's main points & start needless hostility between groups.
Follow
@fediverse They can't decide what we should be using either, so one day a particular phrase is the 'in' thing the next week it is deemed offensive, in favour of something else.
Result no one is really sure what terminology they are meant to use
From a 'chemist' viewpoint there are a;lso cis / trans molecules which I think refers to where a particluar atom of say a halogen is on the carbon chain, either on the same side or opposite sides.
