The Morning After: Living Large, Penis Style Edition
* Andrea Plaid takes on Trojan's new hip-hop centered Magnum condom campaign, "Magnum Live Large," and how it reinforces the "ye olde black male penis myth" [via Feministing]:
The campaign is an great idea, considering the epidemic-level stats on HIV and Black cis and trans women and, as my friend sexologist Bianca Laureano said, “especially in the hip-hop community where ‘I like it raw’ is still prominent.”
I am wondering, though, about the racialized sexual stereotypes undergirding and getting perpetuating by this, namely that mainstay of black sex-negative imagery, the Big Black Penis.
* Fuck you, LOST! Ahem. This is pretty interesting, however: Bitch Magazine crunches the numbers on race and death throughout the series.
* Emily Nagoski talks trials and tribulations of dating as a sex educator:
it’s hard to date when you’re a “sexpert” (hideous word). I mean, at what point in a new relationship is it appropriate to tell a guy that you’ve written a guide about fellatio? How early can you talk about orgasms and lubrication and the miracle that is cervical mucus? How early in a relationship is too early to use the word mucus? . . . It appears you can’t talk to any guy you’ve just met about sex—even about sex research—without giving him the wrong impression.
* On I Blame the Patriarchy, lessons learned from true crime documentary television:
(a) If a man targets you on Craigslist and murders you, remember that the really shocking thing to television producers will be the "photos of dead women in porn outfits."
(b) Sex work is only safe if you are working at the direction of a pimp. "So ladies, remember; if you’re gonna work the classier hotels, you’d better get yourself a pimp to “protect” you. Otherwise you might come down with a terminal case of slain masseuse."
* Sociological Images on Shape magazine: Kim Kardashian is confident with her body. Readers: Don't learn how to get confident—learn how to get a body just like Kim's!:
It’s another example of articles that pretend to be presenting an alternative to beauty standards/Hollywood ideals (be confident! Even stars have cellulite! So what?!?) but ultimately reinforce them, both by presenting images in which the featured women’s bodies differ little from those seen in the rest of the magazine and by making sure you know how to diet and exercise in order to get your body to conform.
Photo via Thirteen of Clubs, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0
11:03 am
"And let’s call that “physical attribute” and “above-average prowess”—say it with me—“the mythical Mandingo Dick” that black cis men are supposed to have and know how to use magically since birth." IT’S NO MYTH IT IS REAL! WHY DO YOU THINK BRIAN BETTS WAS PRESSED FOR A YOUNG BROTHER? TRUST AND BELIEVE IT’S A GIFT AND A CURSE!
THE RUBBERS BACK IN THE DAY NEVER COVERED MY WHOLE SHAFT. BY THE CONDOM BEING FOR SHORTYS IT SOMETIMES ROLLED UP BY GETTING CAUGHT UP ON KEGELING LABIA’S. IT ALSO WAS CONSTRICTING. BIG UPS TO TROJAN TO RECOGNIZE A SIZE DIFFERENCE AND GETTING MAGNUMS ON THE MARKET.
SPEAKING ABOUT ONE THING AND TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER. LET ME SAY THE INADEQUACIES OF MY WHITE BRETHREN CAUSED THE OPPRESSION AND SUPPRESSION OF BLACK FOLK FOR YEARS. NOT BEING ABLE TO MEASURE UP AND SATISFY HAS CAUSED MANY TO PROMOTE HATRED, CONVERT TO BOY LOVIN AND SOME WHITE WOMEN TO REMAIN LOYAL TO THEIR RACE BY UNDERMINING SOMETHING THEY DON’T KNOW ANY THING ABOUT.
IT’S NO SECRET THAT WHITE WOMEN ARE SUBSCRIBING TO INCREASED ASS MASS TECNIQUES BECAUSE EVEN A WOMAN’S BODY IS DRAWN ALONG RACIAL LINES. MOST CAUCASIAN MEN PREFER BREASTS WHILE MOST BROTHERS PREFER PHAT ASSES. THE REASON FOR THE BOOTY POPS AND ASS LIFTS IS TO ATTRACT A BROTHER AND HIS MYTHICAL MANDINGO DICK.
FINALLY WHAT’S UP WITH THIS “CIS” SHIT? IT IS BAD ENOUGH THOSE THANGS WANT TO GET MARRIED NOW THEY WANT TO LABEL US REGULAR FOLK. CREEPING WORDS IN THE EVERYDAY VERNACULAR TO FURTHER DESCRIBE SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY BEING DESCRIBED IS A BIT MUCH. A BLACK MAN IS A BLACK MAN.
12:47 pm
Shimmy, Shimmy, I have to agree with noodlez calling people "cis" is a bit bizarre.
1:25 pm
It's a descriptor. Black trans men don't have “the mythical Mandingo Dick”. Black cis men do.
2:40 pm
Why do you need to describe that you're not one of the .001% of people who aren't cis?
2:53 pm
Probably 'cos you want to distinguish yourself from the fucking assholes you call trans folk "thangs."
2:56 pm
Transgender Population
"There are no concrete statistics on the number of transgender people in the United States. Estimates on the number of transsexual people, which ignore the broader transgender population, range anywhere from 0.25 to 1 percent of the U.S. population. These estimates are dated and likely undercount the transsexual population because, for example, they do not account for people who have not yet undergone, cannot (for medical, financial, safety or other reasons) or choose not to undergo sex reassignment surgeries."
"Men" includes both cis and trans men (similar for "women") and when people use cis or trans, they are referring specifically to the type of man (woman) their statement applies to.
So why do I (and others) feel the need to describe the majority population? Accuracy and trying not to be an asshole to already marginalized folks.
3:12 pm
How is it being an asshole to not say cis? Am I being an asshole to the (WARNING: MADE UP STATISTIC!) 1% of people who don't have cancer if I don't call myself a non-cancer having male? Am I offending the wealthiest 5% of people in the world if I dont mention I'm not a billionaire when I talk about myself? Doesn't really make sense.
3:14 pm
"Probably ‘cos you want to distinguish yourself from the fucking assholes you call trans folk “thangs.”"
Huh?
3:25 pm
The "thangs" comment wasn't about you, it was noodlez who said that. And this is different from characteristics like whether or not one has cancer or whether or not one is rich; both of those examples refer to something a person may or may not acquire (cancer, or money). People are not marginalized (at least not widely) for having cancer. And while poor people definitely are marginalized, they are also, depending on who you ask, quite possibly the majority. Anyway, beside the point.
You don't HAVE to identify yourself as a cis man, but neither should it be bothersome to you that other people might identify you as such (so long as that is actually true). It's a descriptor, like groggette said. If you only ever identify people by what they are NOT (i.e. white, male, straight, cisgender, able-bodied, etc), that otherizes everybody else who doesn't fall into those categories. Why should everybody be presumed heterosexual, cisgender, and white until proven otherwise? Adding in "majority" descriptors like "cis" is just one very very small way of saying, I think: being trans or gay or black or able-bodied is just something that a person is.
3:39 pm
I don't think it's good that people have to note what they are be it white black gay straight trans etc. Label don't help anyone. If anything I think they push people apart.
4:11 pm
Well, yeah, I don't think people should have to put labels on things either. In an ideal world, nothing will be presumed of anybody and we'll all hold hands a lot. But so long as those particular categories ARE used to tear people down and marginalize them/us, I think it's helpful to add the same sorts of descriptive terms to the privileged categories as well, to note that it doesn't mean anything more or less for one person than it does for another.
4:14 pm
Black trans men don’t have “the mythical Mandingo Dick”. Black cis men do.
You know what, I'm probably wrong about this line and apologize for it. I'm sure plenty of black trans men get hit with the myth of the big black penis as well.
That said, "cis" is still a descriptor and a useful one at that.
5:31 pm
It's as useful as tits on a mule.
5:50 pm
kza, you wrote that you agreed with noodlez' opinions about transfolk and the practice of labeling (and self-describing) nontransfolk as "cis." He wrote, in #1:
"FINALLY WHAT’S UP WITH THIS “CIS” SHIT? IT IS BAD ENOUGH THOSE THANGS WANT TO GET MARRIED NOW THEY WANT TO LABEL US REGULAR FOLK. "
(emphasis mine)
GETITNOW?
6:22 pm
Do those of you who object to people being described as 'cis' also object to people being described as 'hetero'?
It's the same principle. The majority is or should not be the same as the default.
6:31 pm
Why, because you don't understand the purpose behind it?
All the following from here.
So why do some peeps have a problem with it?
.... they get upset because in their minds, they are the 'normal' people and as such, are the only people who get to define 'others', not the other way around.
...
Cisgender is a neutral term that doesn't have the negative accumulated baggage of being used to 'other' or used as a rallying cry by the Forces of Intolerance to oppress someone's human rights rights like trans has.
...
If we're going to make the point that being transgender is an everyday biological/medical/social condition, we had to have some word in the vocabulary that describes most of the people walking Planet Earth who are not trans.
It's the same concept that underpins why gay people call non-gays 'straight'.
So why are y'all tripping, cisgender people? Cisgender isn't an insult.
6:50 pm
Adding in “majority” descriptors like “cis” is just one very very small way of saying, I think: being trans or gay or black or able-bodied is just something that a person is.
No, it does not. The term "cis" serves to describe the majority by what they are not and shame them for being part of the majority. More so, the term serves to posit a very specific political position rather than acting as an actual descriptor. That differentiates it from terms like gay or black, which are slang for other descriptors, since the terms most members of those groups use to describe themselves. No one outside of very far left progressives use the term "cis" and very few of those the term is applied to believe that they consciously chose to conform with what society decided to be their sex and gender.
A term is only useful as a descriptor if those it is applied to use the term. Anything outside of that is nothing more than a slur and insult, which would not necessarily change even if the group decided to adopt the term.
7:17 pm
Groggette, citing someone who agrees with the term "cis" is akin to citing Rush Limbaugh for proof that his slang for feminists is a benign and reasonable term. Of course someone who agrees with the term will find it benign and reasonable. However, that is beside the point. If people feel insulted when you call them a particular name, you should not call them that name. Arguing that you are not trying to insult them does not change that they feel insulted. One would think those concerned about respecting people's feelings would understand something that basic.
7:24 pm
"If we’re going to make the point that being transgender is an everyday biological/medical/social condition, we had to have some word in the vocabulary that describes most of the people walking Planet Earth who are not trans.
It’s the same concept that underpins why gay people call non-gays ’straight’."
Wouldn't it be better to live in a world with no straight or gay and trans or cis? We're all the same.
7:43 pm
Whether "cis" constitutes a (pejorative) label, classification or otherwise (people who use it don't generally consider it as such), it's some kind of hilarious watching cis dudes, especially, squirm over the heady prospect that they might, horror of horrors, get labeled -- you know, like those other non-regular, abnormal folks, who need to be labeled so we can understand them and separate them from ourselves (transsexual people, people of color, disabled people, women, working class people). How extraordinarily lucky to have blithely strolled through life, simply acquiring accommodation after accommodation, that one's worldview is so deeply shaken at the notion that, surprise surprise, other people might describe you not as what you are, but as what you are not, a fate that should apparently only be reserved for the most marginalized outcasts in our society. Only someone who has lived a rather sheltered existence, or, in the absence of actual security, has been socialized to believe that by virtue of a few traits or privileges they are uniquely distinguished from the rest of humanity, has anything to fear by the use of "cis."
Toysoldier is correct when he writes that "cis" is infrequently used except by a small community of radical feminists, womanists, and transfolk. And that's partially why it remains useful, for me, anyway. I know when it crops up in a conversation with a relative stranger that I can breathe a little easier, believing that, with any luck, they're fairly educated on the subject and are not going to spout a lot of transhatred bullshit that's going to put my back up and make everyone else feel uncomfortable. After a while, it gets depressing how casually even the most vehement anti-misogynist views transgender issues, or ignores them altogether. For me, acknowledging the reality of gender and the construction of gender is incomplete without acknowledging the gulf between biological sex (and there are many of them) and identity. "Cis" is a useful reminder of this, an expression of solidarity, understanding, and respect. That it's interpreted by defensive people ignorant of its larger meaning as an insult is: too fucking bad, oh so sad, and telling; perhaps it'll make them think twice in the future about using much more obvious pejoratives against people they don't understand or respect.
7:46 pm
Also, the neutral use of "cisgender" as a counterpoint to "transgender" is inherently frightening to bigots because it implies equality amongst folk the terms describe. And that can't feel too good for dickheads like noodlez, who would much rather live without a label at all, a privilege too few of us possess.
7:50 pm
@kza: I'm sorry, but that's something that only a privileged person could possibly say. We are NOT all the same so long as some of our (I'm using the queer umbrella here, I'm not trans myself) fundamental human rights are denied us and so long as being who we are earns us discrimination, hate, and violence BECAUSE of who we are. You cannot say that we're all the same when we are not all treated the same. Saying everyone SHOULD be the same is a fine and I agree with that, but it isn't the world we live in.
@Toysolider: oh, the term cisgender is shaming now? Give me a fucking break. I'm playing you the tiniest non-gayest violin as we speak.
7:53 pm
'“Cis” is a useful reminder of this, an expression of solidarity, understanding, and respect.' : exactly.
8:03 pm
@ Katie, I think terms like cis, gay, straight, and even identifying with a certain "race" is bad. Instead of pointing out differences, embrace similarities. Maybe I'm just a crazed "privilaged" person...lol at that.
@Saurs
"kza, you wrote that you agreed with noodlez’ opinions about transfolk"
No I didn't. Just the cis thing. Read better.
8:07 pm
@kza just to clarify...I don't think being privileged is crazy or a bad thing, so long as one recognizes it. I definitely know I am "privileged" in several ways. But I think it's important to accept that, and, where appropriate, recognize labels like "cis" and white and whatever, so long as we stay the type of human race that places values on those kinds of things.
8:28 pm
We can move away from being that sort of society by using different language.
9:06 pm
No, we can do that by eradicating the underlying bigotry, hatred, oppression, and inequality against which such language is a reaction, kza, not by meekly, selflessly abiding the requests of privileged dudes to stop using words that make them feel uncomfortable.
"identifying with a certain “race” is bad"
Try telling that to people who've been called beaners, wetbacks, gooks, or niggers all their lives. It's very easy, in this country, like some folk in Arizona have done, to urge non-white people to renounce their ethnic identities after having to endure a lifetime of being classified by one's race and appearance. It's easy to claim, that as a white person, you feel no solidarity with other white people -- but why should you have to? What disadvantages do you suffer on account of your white skin, your white privilege? How can you possibly think it just or even sensible to demand that other people, strangers, give up identities imposed upon them, often on a whim, and always based on some kind of bigotry? It's taken decades, centuries, for most people of color to be comfortable in their own skin in this country, willing to acknowledge and own their color, even when, in reality, it's an entirely superficial marker. And whenever some dude cries foul and claims that racial solidarity is wicked or "holding us back," as if they'd be in on the game if only people of color wouldn't be so stubborn, wouldn't hold to such supposedly antiquated views, would be quiet, wouldn't embrace the white middle-class conception of racial utopia that begins and ends with people of color being friendly to white people while knowing their place, being quiet about the fact that they've been erased from American history, their accomplishments minimized, their current status only as good as affirmative action and reverse racism can give 'em a leg up, you can bet it's a white dude scared he's missing out on something cool, somebody's forgotten to invite him to the party.
9:39 pm
Hmm well I was thinking more we could eliminate racism by not calling people black and white since they are opposites and how can opposites ever get along! But if you want to make me out to be someone trying to get people to conform to something. It's only the second time you've tried to put words in my mouth in the comment section of this article. You're kind of a douche I must say.
11:05 pm
@ Katie: You do realize your statement implies that violins are "gay," right? Anyway, that avoids the actual point: the people "cis" is applied to do not want to be called that. It makes no sense to call people by a term they dislike or find offense just because it works for you. The reactionary language that drives politically correct labels only exacerbates the us versus them dynamic.
12:34 am
"It makes no sense to call people by a term they dislike or find offense just because it works for you. The reactionary language that drives politically correct labels only exacerbates the us versus them dynamic."
While I don't find cis offensive, I think it does fall into the gay vs. straight black vs. white type of thinking. People are easily influenced by language, if we stopped pointing out that people who are trans are different than people who are cis there would be less bias. This a sort of OrwellIan concept. In his book 1984, the government controled the language and eliminated any word that had to do with revolution, therefor the people weren't able to revolt since they had no concept of a revolution. If we eliminated descriptive language that people use to describe their differences racism, homophobia etc wouldn't be possible.
12:48 am
kza, I may very well be a douche. You, on the other hand, are seriously suggesting that racism is a simple misunderstanding based on language, and that only by feigning color-blindness and ignoring white chauvinism, rather than actually addressing the myriad origins of racism, will we achieve perfect racial harmony. In the meantime and on this very board, you're also trying to police the common language by politely suggesting that the little ladies and the people of color, naive nitwits in search of your special guidance that they are, stop calling themselves whatever they feel like it, and instead follow to a tee your personal feelings about equality. Pardon my fucking Scandinavian, but fuck you.
12:51 am
"ntroled the language and eliminated any word that had to do with revolution, therefor the people weren’t able to revolt since they had no concept of a revolution. If we eliminated descriptive language that people use to describe their differences racism, homophobia etc wouldn’t be possible."
You have a strange sense of humor, kza.
1:22 am
You ignore any valid point I make and twist what I say. Saurs join the EO and noodlez and get banned like the rest of the trolls.
1:29 am
If you to lazy to read a book Saurs just google sapir-whorf hypothesis.
9:43 am
If we eliminated descriptive language that people use to describe their differences racism, homophobia etc wouldn’t be possible.
Yes it would because we would use other words, like "privileged," to note differences. The use of "cis" is already Orwellian in nature (in that it has a vague, sliding definition), so I do not think mimicking 1984 is the best way to go given that one would have to eliminate all references to race and sexuality in order for the elimination of descriptors to work. I do not think many people would give up their racial and ethnic identities on a whim, nor do I think most people would believe the unsubstantiated, unscientific, pseudo-religious belief that a person's sex and gender are social constructs on a whim.
12:04 pm
This comment flagging/moderation shit is fucking dumb. It allows the majority opinion (and on a site like this, there certainly is an established majority opinion) to stifle the minority opinion at will. I'm not going to make any sort of first amendment free speech argument, because I know it's a private blog and you can control the platform for speech in any way you choose, but just because you can doesn't mean you should. It adds a layer of intellectual dishonesty to the important conversations that take place here.
I mean, this is entire thread is based on a comment that you can't immediately see without clicking a tiny "Show Flagged Comments" button at the bottom of the screen. Why? Because the original commenter hurt someone's feelings? Give me a break. I say this as someone who almost always agrees with the opinions expressed by the writer of this blog.
12:11 pm
@TT: but look how much discussion/argument there still was between commenters! Most of the thread is based on that rather than noodlez's original comment. And I guess I would agree that sometimes comments get unnecessarily flagged, but in this case, what noodlez said WAS pretty offensive. I think it's hard to moderate when you don't want to exclude all dissension and heated discussion, but you also really don't want Eo on the loose, posting 65 comments about feminists lynching black men on every post.
1:50 pm
Katie - why don't we want Eo posting, and so what if Noodlez's comment was offensive? We can either ignore them or pick their arguments apart. I can understand having a moderation policy if there was a major problem with comment board ad spamming on this site, are if commenters were actively harassing or threatening individuals, but it doesn't seem like there either of those are the case. Essentially striking opposing viewpoints from the record, whether people might find them offensive or not, seems to me like a fascist (in spirit) approach to disucssion.
1:51 pm
*"or" if commenters... not "are"
4:03 pm
Part of the problem with Eo was that he never actually took place in "discussion." There's a difference between trolls and dissenters, and because it's Amanda's blog she gets to decide what that is. She's not going to please everybody, but I for one am relieved to no longer have to wade through 10-page long be-linked comments from Eo.
5:50 pm
kza, saying that racism can be eradicated if we call each other different things is not a "valid point." Sorry.
7:00 pm
Okay. Language isn't important. I bet if men started using cunt more liberally there would be the same amount of sexism. That's science!
12:52 am
Language is important. Part of the discussion above concerns specialized language used by and among people who want to identify themselves as allies to transgender people.
You're not going to find many people, rational people, anyway, who believe that by silencing, say, noodlez from calling transgendered people "thangs" or by encouraging him to use a less disrespectful word, you're going to be curing him of his disgusting transphobia. Using politically correct language does not erase bigotry and hatred; it often disguises it. Feigning colorblindness in a world that is emphatically not colorblind and in a culture that is not colorblind is does not eliminate racism. You and I, kza, are probably anti-racists of the highest water and probably fucking hate the fuck out of racist bigots. But we are not in a vacuum; we were brought up in a culture in which black and white and gay and straight signify something, bad or good or otherwise. Some black folk don't want to pretend that they aren't black, don't feel ashamed. You must understand this, I'm sure you do. The same impetus informs queer folk to call themselves queer proudly. If you've never been shamed for being queer or black or trans, well, then maybe you can't understand what it feels like to wear the label proudly, to invert it, to change it's meaning to a positive -- not something that separates you from other people, but a neutral thing, or maybe a badge of honor.
12:54 am
Also, when was there (ever) a moratorium on "cunt," anyway? I use it all the time, myself. I'm a terrible fucking feminist.
2:09 am
I'm talking about a complete cultural change where we eliminate language that points out differences. I know it's not likely to happen but I think there would be less prejudice if we lived in a world without lables thats all.
3:24 am
"If you to lazy to read a book Saurs just google sapir-whorf hypothesis."
You know, kza, the form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis you're using has been thoroughly debunked by modern linguistic anthropology. We use a softer version where if we don't have a word for something, we may still be able to conceptualize it. It's like how we as English speakers can understand what "schadenfraude" is even though we don't have an English equivalent. Sure, language does still affect our thinking, but not to the point that you have been arguing.
And no, we're not all the same. We should be equal, but we're not the same. We're different, and there is a way of recognizing outside of the kyriarchical structures in place now.
And Toysoldier, you might not want to speak for all people who aren't trans. I'm fine with the label "cis" because it's what I am. I'm sick and tired of the bullshit that comes up when "cis" is used as a descriptor. "Cis" is in no way insulting or offensive or whatever. It is a fitting label for people like you and me, and your arguments, like others have pointed out, only serve to express your cis privilege. No one has been attacked because of their "cisness" that I know of, so what's the big deal? And please don't compare being called out on privilege to an attack. It's nothing even close.
5:42 am
I fucking love people who whine about being "labeled" with something like "cis". Instead of wondering how it might feel for people to have their identity modified with "trans" or "black" or "gay" every single day because you're not part of the majority, they go "nooooo you can't do that to meeeee, I'm NORMAL! Can't you see I'm NORMALLLLLL!!!"
Empathy, you lack it.
9:38 am
Um k not K I'm arguing for no labels.
11:37 am
@Brad V: And you might not want to speak for all people who are not trans, either. Just because you and a handful of very select people think the label is fine does not mean the majority of people the label is applied to agree. Rather than resorting to red herrings you could actually address my argument, which is fairly basic: using labels others find offensive or inapplicable is a bad move. It does not matter if you mean nothing by it. If people prefer not to be called that label you should not use it. And you should not throw a hissy fit when asked not to use it.
@k not K: I love people who assume that those who disagree with their positions are not black or gay or belong to any other marginalized group. Of course people from marginalized groups are completely incapable of forming any opinions outside far left, teabagger-esque worldviews.
11:44 am
That's fine, kza. But we don't live in a culture in which these questions hinge simply and only on language. Pseudo-scientific racialists are still arguing that certain ethnicities are genetically / biologically inferior. Evo psych dudes are still arguing that women just evolved into wimpy, masochistic, irrational, emotional doormats (who love pink!) There are people deeply invested in proving difference and inequality in more fundamental ways than the linguistic issue you're discussing.
I get it. My rule of thumb is to allow people to speak of themselves any way they choose, and to respect how they describe themselves. No one is justified labeling someone else; we've a moral obligation, in a world in which too often labels have been imposed onto whole communities, to recognize the individual's choice to "create" their own identities, as valid and authentic. At least until we can solve the larger problems inherent in dividing and classifying humanity.
Also? "Cunt" and "black," for example, are hardly equivocal in 21st century USA, are they kza?
12:00 pm
My heroes in this thread: Saurs and Katie
4:08 pm
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Maybe I'm to optimistic. Probably.
2:45 am
@Toysoldier What do you find offensive about the label? I don't find your reasoning at #17 logical because it ignores that "trans" is a marked category and that "cis" is not. Would you like to suggest an alternative label to "cis"? "Not trans" reinforces the default position of cisness and the marked position of transness; this is why the label of "cis" has been chosen. Nice ad hominem with the "hissy fit" comment. There is no such thing going on.
10:51 am
It is not an ad hominem as I actually addressed your argument. My objection to "cis" is that it is a politically loaded term created by an in-group in order to other the majority population so as to feel better about themselves. The default condition of the vast majority of humans is "not trans," so it is not a matter of reinforcing a political position so much as it is demonstrating a fact.
And as I explained above, if people prefer not to be called that label you should not use it. For example, you might find "red skins" the perfect label for Native American tribes. They, however, might object. Would you argue against not calling them "red skins"? How about not calling Asian people "oriental" or "yellow"? Or not transpeople "he-she"?
12:28 pm
It shouldn't really come as a surprise that murdered prostitutes aren't seen as people; in fact, here in the UK, our local feminist organizations have firmly taken the lead in making sure prostituted women stay that way. (Complete with lots of effort put into preventing the surviving ones having a voice: take a look at what happened to those that were initially invited to speak of their experiences of living in fear of one of our local prostitute-murderers at, IIRC, a London Feminist Network event. That lasted right up until the higher-ups heard about it and firmly squashed the idea.)