I wasn't really referring to linguistics complaints, though I do think those are silly. Because, again, expecting absolute logic and consistency out of natural language is ridiculous. Even artificial languages like Esperanto which set out to do that fail. Even math can't manage it, thanks to Gödel.
Somewhere elsethread you reference "microscope" as being self-evident. I don't think it is. It could mean a device for viewing small things, sure. It could also mean a viewing device which is itself very small. Or a brief, superficial examination. Do you reject "microscopic" to mean minuscule? It certainly doesn't make any sense, if you insist only on using suffix roots. "Macroscopic" is even worse, since there isn't even anything called a macroscope. Unless you think that should be the term we use instead of telescope, I guess.
I think the reason hostility keeps creeping into this discussion is... why would anyone so energetically argue against the linguistic merits of a word like this? It's not an obviously flawed multi-language hybrid like "polyamory" or a crude Frankenstein1 like "staycation". It's a response to an existing word, using a valid (if obscure) prefix, indicating the appropriate oppositeness. You aren't even arguing that the term will be confusing to people because they're unfamiliar with cis-, which I could understand even though it doesn't worry me much. You seem to imagine that everyone will rush to the OED and dissect the word piece by piece, instead of just googling the damn thing like any sane person would. If nothing else, why not use all this energy to come up with an alternative, if it's that important to you? So, yeah, eventually people are going to wonder why you would choose to defend the imagined purity of the English language over attempts to oh so very slightly even the playing field when it comes to the terminology used to discuss trans issues.
1: Another term that makes no sense if you try to apply blind logic to the etymology, but "Frankensteinian creation" is pretty awkward to use.
It all comes down to one word, I guess: "valid". I maintain, strenuously, that this usage is simply not valid. You, of course, feel that it is, and the rest naturally follows.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Somewhere elsethread you reference "microscope" as being self-evident. I don't think it is. It could mean a device for viewing small things, sure. It could also mean a viewing device which is itself very small. Or a brief, superficial examination. Do you reject "microscopic" to mean minuscule? It certainly doesn't make any sense, if you insist only on using suffix roots. "Macroscopic" is even worse, since there isn't even anything called a macroscope. Unless you think that should be the term we use instead of telescope, I guess.
I think the reason hostility keeps creeping into this discussion is... why would anyone so energetically argue against the linguistic merits of a word like this? It's not an obviously flawed multi-language hybrid like "polyamory" or a crude Frankenstein1 like "staycation". It's a response to an existing word, using a valid (if obscure) prefix, indicating the appropriate oppositeness. You aren't even arguing that the term will be confusing to people because they're unfamiliar with cis-, which I could understand even though it doesn't worry me much. You seem to imagine that everyone will rush to the OED and dissect the word piece by piece, instead of just googling the damn thing like any sane person would. If nothing else, why not use all this energy to come up with an alternative, if it's that important to you? So, yeah, eventually people are going to wonder why you would choose to defend the imagined purity of the English language over attempts to oh so very slightly even the playing field when it comes to the terminology used to discuss trans issues.
1: Another term that makes no sense if you try to apply blind logic to the etymology, but "Frankensteinian creation" is pretty awkward to use.
no subject