Are we really supposed to believe that an 18th century lumberjack never felt the stirring of an attraction to another man until he donned the bush? Surely, he would have had the language for that, and that’s OK.

@1: No. That was homophobic.

Cis is a slur. We don't develop terms for people who don't have pathologies, like gender dysphoria.

@2: The only people who think cis is a slur are the same folx who use trans as a slur.
Having gender dysphoria is not a pathology, thank you very much. I don't have a disease, I'm a healthy and happy human being who's living on the path that aligns with my gender identity.

@3: My apologies, the dysphoria is a distress - not a pathology

@4 We develop terms for people with which to describe themselves to easily communicate something about them that they feel important, like Seattleite, or Midwesterner, or male and female, none of which are pathologies or distresses.

Don't bother to reply. I know it will just be more poorly thought out ways for you to justify disrespecting and othering people you don't agree with.

@5: I most certainly will reply. I'm sorry that you don't have the maturity to respect someone who corrected their error and apologized.

@2 By that logic, "neurotypical" is also a slur. Just saying.

@7: Such a great line .... "she's sooooo neurotypical"

@8 That makes absolutely zero sense. So does calling "cisgender" a slur.

trolls
gotta Eat
too, CKathes

and
they
Never
run outta
Pixels. sadly