Intel partners with Feminist Frequency and others

[Legion]

Intel collaborating with feminists= good

Intel collaborating with these feminazis= not good

 

Intel collaborating with feminists = they get my support and money

Intel collaborating with feminazis = they've now taken top spot on my boycott list well clear of Samsung and Ubisoft.

 

No more intel products for me.

[christianled59]

Affirmative action...

[MageTank]

The terminology of "cis" gender is just a way of distinguishing through language the difference between transgender and gender of biological origination. It is the opposite of the label "trans" just as straight is the opposite of gay. 

 

"You can take the latin root word, and apply it to any word you want, it doesnt make it a real term." What makes something a 'real' term? People use the word and it can be understood. Colloquial language is a pivotal part of society.

If we are speaking in the context of colloquial language, then by your logic, it would be fine to use racial slurs in our society as they too fall under the same category. Cis-gender is not a formal term for being non-trans. Cis is the contrasting word to Trans, but you cannot apply it to everything when a term already exists for it. If a male is identifying as a male, he is a male. He is not a Cis-Male, or Cis-gender. He is simply a male. If a Male decides he wants to be a female, and they choose to label themselves as trans-gender, then that is what they are according to themselves. You cannot refuse to call someone what they are, simply because you want to label it something else. Just like a transgendered person can be offended for being labeled the wrong sex, a non-trans (or cis, as you refer to it) could be offended for being labeled beyond what they feel they are.

 

The trans-gender arguement is a complicated one. If people can demand to be viewed as something they were not born as, can the same be done with other aspects of ourselves? Can i refuse to be called White, and demand people call me a Native American? Can i benefit from their reservations and reap the same benefits as that specific culture? Can i choose to be African American, and use the N word whenever i please? Do not tell me its not the same, because the root of it is. I see parents angry that their "transgendered children" have to share the same restroom with children born of the same gender, and they demand a change. A boy putting on a dress can gain him access to the girls restroom? Sorry, i still do not understand it. 

 

Label me ignorant, call me a bigot, it makes no difference to me. I respect all people and whatever choices they make in life, as long as it does not negatively effects others. This subject is just too sensitive to comprehend without knowing both sides, and i just find it impossible for me to grasp the other side due to my inherent nature to be the gender i was born with. 

 

That being said, if Intel wants to help all groups of people, then they should remove the labels and treat everyone as equal humans upon meeting them. Once they find people with the skills their company requires, then they should hire that person regardless of who they are, what they look like, and what their sexual orientation is.

 

-MageTank

[mab1]

 If 90% of your workplace is white male and you have a choice between hiring another white male or to hire a black male who both have equivalent skills, the choice should be the black male.

 

Normaly you would choose the guy, that fits the team better.

But lets assume that both have the same character. Why would you choose the black guy? Why is this strategy better compared to, let's say, flipping a coin? 

[Lewellyn]

-wow-

 

If we are speaking in the context of colloquial language, then by your logic, it would be fine to use racial slurs in our society as they too fall under the same category.

 

wow.

 

Can i refuse to be called White, and demand people call me a Native American? Can i benefit from their reservations and reap the same benefits as that specific culture? Can i choose to be African American, and use the N word whenever i please?

 

wow.

 

-ThatGuyWhoTwirlsHisPen

[Guest]

Ooooh now I get their new CPU name.

'Broad'well

[Lewellyn]

You know, I've learned a lot about LTT today. Mostly about how people like making outrageous analogies to conflate the issue. 

[christianled59]

You know, I've learned a lot about LTT today. Mostly about how people like making outrageous analogies to conflate the issue.

I wouldn't say they're outragous. They help express views from another perspective.

[MageTank]

You could offer some insight, rather than make quips about how uninformed people are. Also, generalizing an entire forum based on posts from a few people makes you no better than the people you despise for not accepting your opinion as fact. My analogy was not a bad one. I merely changed Sex, to Race. I left everything the same. We are all born with a gender, and a race. You cannot call it an outrageous analogy when its really changing one word.

 

-MageTank

[Lewellyn]

I wouldn't say they're outrages. They help express views from another perspective.

 

No, comparing saying the word "cis" to that of saying the N word is a huge leap in logic and it serves no purpose other than to conflate the issue of what is gender terminology without inherent undertones of bigotry with that of a word that has implicit undertones of bigotry.

[Kingofpants]

These things may be true, but to me it sounds like you're ever so lightly trying to explain how certain people shouldn't do a job, while others can, because of uncontrollable physical traits.

There is no reason to believe that women can't serve in the military because they're physically 'not built for it' (like either of us are anyway). For one woman who says she didn't belong there, there are a hundred to say they were proud to serve, as much so as the man fighting at their side.

The differences in people based on certain aspects of them are true, but we can't then say they aren't ready for certain tasks because of it. If a woman has to work a little harder than a man to bulk up enough for the army, we can't then say 'she's been evolutionarily trained to stay at home, so we shouldn't choose her over this man here.'

I guess Im having trouble figuring out what your point is. Why cite all these facts if you weren't getting at the fact that maybe men should stay the dominant role? I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm genuinely wondering.

You've got to be kidding me. These 'educational videos' are so flailingly far-right that they don't belong in a discussion where we're trying to cite fact. Please do not confuse simple-enough-sounding facts with the documented truth. Fox News does enough of that on their own.

Cisgender doesn't define race or ethnicity or religion; it identifies someone who is heterosexual and identifies as their biological gender. That can be anyone, male, female, black, white, blue, purple, green, whatever.

Cis is not herto.

Cis just mean biological gender.

(People use the term cishet to talk about a Hetro sexual cis person.

[Lewellyn]

You could offer some insight, rather than make quips about how uninformed people are. Also, generalizing an entire forum based on posts from a few people makes you no better than the people you despise for not accepting your opinion as fact. My analogy was not a bad one. I merely changed Sex, to Race. I left everything the same. We are all born with a gender, and a race. You cannot call it an outrageous analogy when its really changing one word.

 

-MageTank

 

No, the next time you want to make a stupid analogy comparing two completely different subjects and rationalize that by saying "they are both words that describe people so they can be interchanged" don't use the "oh you're just going to call me a bigot" bull crap.

[christianled59]

No, comparing saying the word "cis" to that of saying the N word is a huge leap in logic and it serves no purpose other than to conflate the issue of what is gender terminology without inherent undertones of bigotry with that of a word that has implicit undertones of bigotry.

Oh yes, I agree. I misread your post as "every analogy was outrageous." Regarding some analogies I wholeheartedly agree. Some are a bit far fetched. To mark my stance without any analogy use whatsoever, I am strongly against affirmative action of any form.

[MageTank]

No, the next time you want to make a stupid analogy comparing two completely different subjects and rationalize that by saying "they are both words that describe people so they can be interchanged" don't use the "oh you're just going to call me a bigot" bull crap.

 

Now you are taking this too seriously. Secondly, i did not compare Cis to being the N word. I compared choosing ones own gender, and demanding to gain access to the same treatments and facilities as their gender of choice, to being able to change ones race and also demanding the same access to treatment and facilities of said race. Never once did i compare the word Cis to the N word. Reread what i said before dismissing it as outrageous. The subjects are not that different either, so i do not see how you can call my argument null in any way.They are not just words that describe people, they are specific traits we are born with. Just as we are all born with a gender that society defines, we are also born with a race that society defines. Demanding society to call us something we are physically not, can not, and will not, make it OK in my eyes. That is my point.

 

Again, i do not intend to insult anyone that is transgender, they can be whatever they want to be. My point is, they cannot demand equality when they further distance themselves by demanding special treatments that others cannot obtain.

 

I hate to use South Park as any source of information, but they did bring up a very compelling point on one of their episodes regarding trans-gender, and the issue regarding a public bathroom.

 

-MageTank

[christianled59]

To conclude the trans argument, allow me to state my opinion. I understand the desire for change in which one identifies themselves sexually. The difference is when they deny their natural biological "gender". You can identify yourself as female but to deny the sexual origin of which you are, or in their sence, "were" is an outrageous claim. To deny fact is idiotic.

Look at this cat: (to deny its a dog is stupid but we should respect its desire to be called what it wants)

[Lewellyn]

OoooooK. That's enough LTT for me today. I keep forgetting why I come back to this horrid place.

[christianled59]

OoooooK. That's enough LTT for me today. I keep forgetting why I come back to this horrid place.

Why state you are leaving? Why not just leave without causing commotion. That's like me announcing I'm getting off the bus; pointless. (Because I know how much you like analogies).

[DigitalHermit]

*chews on nachos while reading arguments before this post*

 

my earlier post still stands...

 

F*CK (I find no other way to react to this for I am at a loss for proper words worthy of expressing my reaction to the topic of this thread)

 

that is all... please proceed to scroll past this one...

[Guest]

I am sorry,but people like you are the reason i cannot comprehend the rational mind of a transgender person. Not saying you are one yourself, as i do not know you, but the way you label people is starting to annoy me. First of all, Cisgender is not a thing. You can take the latin root word, and apply it to any word you want, it doesnt make it a real term. The term you are looking for is Gender. If i was born with a "member" between my legs, i am a male. That is my gender. Because i choose to believe what i can see, doesnt make it anything short of what it was originally described as. You cannot tell me or anyone else that "choosing to identify as what science has already labeled you" deserves a prefix added to a word.

I see so many people of different races, sexual orientations, and even "genders" demanding to be treated as equal, but in the same baited breath, continue to demand special treatments, and have terminology that only their specific groups of people can use. When you set these barriers, you will never be on equal ground with the rest of the general population, no matter what you believe. "Cisgender doesn't define race or ethnicity or religion; it identifies someone who is heterosexual and identifies as their biological gender. That can be anyone, male, female, black, white, blue, purple, green, whatever." Every single webpage dedicated to the subject do not list the sexual orientation involved with whichever gender one chooses to believe, so where exactly is it written that to be "cisgendered" one has to also be heterosexual? I am sorry, i just do not accept your words as truth or fact at this point.

If someone refuses their natural born gender, that is one thing in and of itself, and people have the ability to choose whatever they want in life. However, you cannot in turn, make a label for people that do not feel the same way you do, and pretend its okay. Sadly, this is a touchy subject, and i know it will most likely cause a firestorm of opposing opinions, but hopefully you are able to atleast agree that the labels are not required in our society as long as people treat each others as human beings.

-MageTank

I don't think you're wrong, and in fact agree with you. But since (I won't say cis) straight, biologically-gendered people are 'normal,' we don't refer to them as anything. It's only the exceptions to the rule that get referred to by identifiers. I'm not interested in arguing at all; that's just how it works. No one tells their parents 'I'm straight,' because it's assumed. But when you have to explain your difference to people, you do need a word to define it.

Why do we have the word 'heterosexual?' They're all just terms; just because someone aligns in society's view of rightness, doesn't mean they are the foundation of society and therefore don't need anything to describe them. For the record, I'm not trans, but from their perspective I could see how they would use words like that. I don't really, other than in conversations like this then they're meaningful.

For your other point, cisgender is just a term that means non-differential orients. It's not about classifying people, but it does strictly mean those one of those two characteristics (gender identity), otherwise, you'd use a different word. It was coined in the 90's to counter transgender, it's not a negative term.

[Guest]

Cis is not herto.

Cis just mean biological gender.

(People use the term cishet to talk about a Hetro sexual cis person.

I'll admit that, that was my mistake

I'm so used to people using it that way that I've begun to associate it with both aspects of sexuality.

[techswede]

--snip

intel should instead spend the amount on research 

Not going to throw myself into the argument. 

But i did stumble across your post while i was reading through the thread.

 

[Legion]

*chews on nachos while reading arguments before this post*

 

my earlier post still stands...

 

F*CK (I find no other way to react to this for I am at a loss for proper words worthy of expressing my reaction to the topic of this thread)

 

that is all... please proceed to scroll past this one...

 

Gimme some Nachos. I can see this thread being locked soon.

[MageTank]

I don't think you're wrong, and in fact agree with you. But since (I won't say cis) straight, biologically-gendered people are 'normal,' we don't refer to them as anything. It's only the exceptions to the rule that get referred to by identifiers. I'm not interested in arguing at all; that's just how it works. No one tells their parents 'I'm straight,' because it's assumed. But when you have to explain your difference to people, you do need a word to define it.

Why do we have the word 'heterosexual?' They're all just terms; just because someone aligns in society's view of rightness, doesn't mean they are the foundation of society and therefore don't need anything to describe them. For the record, I'm not trans, but from their perspective I could see how they would use words like that. I don't really, other than in conversations like this then they're meaningful.

For your other point, cisgender is just a term that means non-differential orients. It's not about classifying people, but it does strictly mean those two characteristics; otherwise, you'd use a different word.

 

I suppose that is a fair point. In my own opinion, i believe sexual orientation needed a description because one cannot physically see the sexual orientation of someone else, unless you were to witness their affection with their preferred partner of choice. Gender on the other hand, shows a very physical sign as to what gender someone is. Surgical changes, along with masking ones outer appearance with clothing and make-up can change this too i suppose. Personally, i would much rather do away with a lot of the unneeded labels people place on themselves and others. Rather than refer to someone as "African American" you could just refer to them as an American, or any human in general. Though, that would cause complications when trying to properly describe someone while also remaining "politically correct". 

 

Thank you for clarifying the Cis-gender term for me. Though knowing what it means, i would still much rather keep it as short as Male, Female, or Trans. If i am a male that chooses to be a male, i am still just a male in my eyes.

 

-MageTank

[Guest]

I don't know about anyone else, but when I hear "cisgendered" I take it as an insult, as if you are actively talking down to me as a person.

 

I'm a straight white male, that is what I identify as. Nothing else.

And there's nothing wrong with that! (Forgive my mistake earlier; cis is just gender, not orientation)

But think about people who are exclusively defined by that term; for now and the rest of my life, I'm a homosexual man, not just a man. Society loves to put labels on everything, and some we use less often because they aren't for special cases. Trust me, I'd like to throw all these terms out the window, but it's hard to avoid them.

[SIGSEGV]

This is why I boycott Intel, they make good products, but they pull too much crap