The cis folk did it
Profound and empathetic insights on the election of President Pussygrabber from Dana Hunter at The Orbit.
Friends I love are going to die.
The things that were keeping them alive will be gutted.
Bigots who despise them have been emboldened enough to murder them without a twinge of conscience.
And you did that to them.
White folk. You did this. Cis folk. You did this. Bernie-or-busters, third party voters, people who didn’t vote because you couldn’t be arsed, people who thought all candidates were the same, people who voted for Trump because you’re either too white or too sexist or too racist or too selfish or too all-of-the-above to think it through, you did this. It’s all on you.
As a cis folk, I’m appalled at myself.
Isn’t she “cis” herself?
I hope she turns herself in at the nearest police station.
Yes, but she’s one of the self-effacing ones so that gives her a free pass.
Pretty sure trans people voted for Trump too. Like Caitlyn Jenner.
It’s also partly her fault too. The failure of the radical left to engage its ideological opponents with discussion, choosing instead to shame and silence, has predictably backfired. As a social liberal, I’m angry and disgusted with socialists for foregoing liberal commitment to free speech, and I’m angry and disgusted with liberals for betraying the working class.
Ironically, the only left-of-center people I know who just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for that “awful capitalist warmonger” Hillary are about the same type of purer-than-thou scolds who write for The Orbit.
Were the Orbit crowd even concerned about Trump prior to last night? On the admittedly rare occasions that I check their homepage, it mostly seems to be a lot of purity policing, navel-gazing self-obsession, and “analysis” of high art like Marvel comics and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Well, I suppose she’s technically correct. “Cis” people *did* elect Trump. Just not for the reason she thinks.
#5: Why bother standing up to actual fascism when you can spend all day calling Amy Schumer a racist in a Twitter pile on, or complaining about Johnny Depp getting a good role in a movie? Pop culture is what’s really important!
Only trans people are affected adversely by the Trump disaster?
Not LGBT/black/Muslim/women/workers/disabled?
Everyone is f*cked by this. Why the focus on one segment of the community?
Unless you are seeking brownie points on Reddit.
Because that’s where the “cool” (by their accepted definition of cool) kids are hanging out.
At least she didn’t include a call for an anti-Israel boycott.
There goes my faint hope that actually waking up to TrumPOTUS might serve as an impetus for people who claim to be interested in social progress to figure out ways to perhaps find ways we could work together against a common enemy on the basic things we can agree on.
Bearing in mind that she wrote “white folk” before writing “cis folk”, I’m a bit bemused by the responses here (particularly #8).
Why?
You really don’t see the stupidity of singling out “cis folk” for blame?
??? That’s my point; she didn’t. Learie @ #8 goes so far as listing black people, directly in contradiction to “White folk.”
And it’s not as though the list stops with white & cisfolk. The rest of the paragraph, after “You did this” goes on to include several other groups, e.g. “people who voted for Trump because you’re … too sexist” would (presumably) be the calling out of sexist men.
Why mention “cis folk” at all? It’s like blaming people with two legs, or people with teeth.
Normal people, you mean?
Sorry, let me back that up a step – in fact, scratch it altogether, I know that’s not where you were going.
Presumably, you’re okay with Dana imputing blame on “white folk”. At least, relative to your chagrin at blame placed on cis-folk. Why?
Do you think things are likely to get better or worse for transgender individuals under Trump’s reign?
@ Kevin Kirkpatrick
I’m not exactly popular around here, specifically because of my revulsion toward transphobes who try to use feminism as a cover for their transphobia, but I must say I agree with Ophelia here, in practice if not in spirit.
Focussing on “cis folk” is weird. Trump is bad for women, Hispanics, Muslims, you name it, anyone who is not a wealthy straight cisgender white man. “Cis” is like, over 99% of the population. Almost everybody who voted for Clinton was cis. I’m cis, you’re cis, Ophelia’s cis. So blaming cis people in particular seems a little weird. The people who tried to defeat Trump were overwhelmingly cisgender. So “cis folk, you did this” is weird.
In my humble but not particularly popular opinion. ;-)
Trying to understand if we’re talking qualitative or quantitave differences. Would this blog post have been written had Dana said “heterosexuals” instead of “cis folk”? How about if cisfolk had been written in a more grammatically-list-like context?
In fact, do that: pretend Dana’s article had replaced “cis folk” with “straight people”, and then read Ophelia’s response, and the enthusiastic “hoo-rah” responses of her commentariate, through the lens of a reaction to that usage of “straight people”. I’ll not try to speak on behalf of the gay/lesbian community, but, IMO, it really wouldn’t reflect well on the blog.
And do re-read Emily#5 response; no need to change context at all to see the broader sentiment of some of the responses here.
Yes, do that, pretend I said something completely different from what I did say and then gather together to hiss in outrage.
Also, Kevin – see again my comment @ 15. Surely my meaning is obvious enough.
Okay, I’ll be honest. I don’t understand what you are saying in #15. You say, “people with two-legs”; can I presume, then, you have written this blog post if Dana had said, “Able-bodied people. You did this” instead of “Cis folk. You did this.”?
Can you make you point plainly, without rhetorical questions?
[Assuming a widespread fad within Trump’s base for supporting legislation that would demonstrably make life harder/worse for paraplegic people or amputees]
Do you consider your entire article, and your commentariate’s “hoo-rah” responses to be something other than hissing outrage over the word (slur?) “cisfolk”.
Jesus. It is not that fucking difficult. You’re so determined to see me as The Enemy you’re ignoring the obvious.
No, I wouldn’t, because people with disabilities are a huge chunk of the population. So are non-straight people, to spell out the answer to yours @ 21. People with one leg or no teeth, not so much. (Although, in the wake of a war that left a lot of amputees, maybe that’s not such a great example.) Trans people also not so much. I think it’s risibly pathetic to single out “cis folk” as an example of privilege, especially when there are so many better ones. Rich people spring to mind…
That was addressed to 24. 25 and 26 came in while I was typing. I’m sick of this, I’m going back to posting now.
Missed that meaning because I didn’t want to think so low of you. Quantitative? Are you serious? You were driven to post this entire blog article based on quantitative differences? There are more gay folk than trans folk (it’s like 1-2% vs 0.2 – 0.4%) , ergo you’ll be damned if you’ll stand by while Dana Hunter laments the impact Trump’s presidency on transgender people?
You are word-policing the blogs of those with friends, family, and loved ones whose well-being is under legislative and physical attack; and whose lives are almost certain to take a turn for thee worse under a Trump presidency… that’s odd enough. But THIS is your basis for complaining about it?
She did not “lament the impact of Trump’s presidency on transgender people.”
Whose fate do you think she was thinking of with, “White people. You did this.”? Are you white? Did that statement of hers get under your skin?
I wasn’t addressing what she was thinking of. I was addressing her fatuous word choice.
And that fatuousness boils down to 0.2% vs 2%?
Or are you purely word-policing. Google alerts on “cis”?
I’m not sure you’re in a good position to accuse other people of “policing.”
Sorry, no. I’m not approving any more comments of that kind.