[fogmourn]

> Because of this you cannot simply reverse the roles and say “see replace cis people with women/blacks and it sounds terrible”. Because what you have done is replace the dominant class with the oppressed class. You’ve changed the whole meaning of the thing.

I think the point they are making is that cis and trans don't work in this sort of class analysis, as the two groups are in themselves too diverse. They have to be further divided into subgroups for this to make any sense.

For example, take the most controversial subset of the transgendered: transwomen, i.e. males who identify as women. Then compare to actual female women ("cis women") - it is obvious that this maps onto the existing feminist analysis of sex class, with males being the dominant class and females the oppressed class.

Which is what makes it so problematic when these males try to impose themselves upon the spaces of actual female women, as they're engaging in male dominance behaviour that wouldn't be considered acceptable by any other man. But because we have this false cis-trans oppression hierarchy being presented to defend this, it pulls the wool over many people's eyes to what is really happening.

[kaymanb]

What does the diversity of the groups have to do with anything? Trans people are (in general) oppressed in today's society, and the be perpetrators of that oppression are (in general) cis people. It should follow that trans folk finding a community of their own is admirable, but a community of cis-only folk should have to justify they're existence as something other than a tool to maintain oppression.

[ominous]

It does not follow. Care to help us get there? How can you task a member of a category (that you a placed there yourself) with a responsibility?