Damn. A while ago, after reading on Questioning Transphobia about something that happened on Pam’s House Blend, I wrote a whole, lengthy post trying to say what TransGriot says so succinctly here:
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.
There are no people being made the butt of societal jokes because they are cisgender. There’s no ‘cisgender panic defense’. There’s no one being denied a job because they are cisgender. There’s no one being killed because of folks hating on you for being cisgender. There’s no Cisgender Day Of Remembrance.
I repeat, cisgender means your body and the gender identity housed between your ears is comfortably aligned, nothing more, nothing less.
Thanks, TransGriot.
Via Womanist Musings.
Comfortably aligned is kind of imprecise; I’ve never wanted to be masculine or have a man’s body, but I wasn’t at ease in my femininity – and ironically it was drag queens and feminine transwomen like Roz Kaveney who inspired me to embrace my femmeness. It’s taken me years to realize that I’m at heart a dominatrix femme – or to be more accurate, a subdominatrix (yes, I make silly music theory jokes.)
It’s not neutral.
Well, it’s not neutral as soon as someone gives a shit. Me, I don’t care, so you can call me cisgender and it’s neutral.
But as soon as Joe Dude complains about being labeled cisgender, and Mary starts enforcing the use of the term against Joe’s wishes, then it ceases to be neutral and begins to simply be yet another element in the political power struggle. Labeling, self image, normality–there’s no real “neutral” in there unless you’re already preaching to the choir.
Just to be clear, the way I’ve always understood it, a lesbian woman who is very happy with her body and has no desire for a penis is Cis. Similarly a gay man who is perfectly with a man’s body is Cis. It is not gay/straight but happy with the gender of your body. True?
Gar, judging by what i’ve learned from the transfolk i know, true.
i’m yet another of the (seemingly fairly large) set of geeks who first encountered the cis/trans prefix pair in the sciences — org chem for me, stereoisomery and so on. then learned where they came from by a quick history lesson about the original latin; gallia cis/transalpina and all that. thus when i heard “cissexual” as a counterpoint to “transsexual”, my first reaction was “oh, yeah, that makes perfect sense”, and i’ve seen other people have the same reaction for much the same reasons since.
i can’t quite understand the point of view of people who think merely giving a descriptive name to their experience is somehow insulting them. where does that come from? egotism, narcissism, or what? surely they can’t even attempt to be consistent in never labelling anyone else, for fear of giving insult to others; they’d never be able to speak to anyone of anything.
i’m all for giving a description to people’s experiences- and non-trans worked perfectly fine. in fact, non-trans centered trans people whereas cisgender/sexual opens up all these ridiculous, waste-of-time conversations that center non-trans people. in addition, the term cisgender can apply to many transsexual people, who can be both cisgender and non-cissexual. confused yet? also, glad that we’re creating another term that can be used for people to identify themselves as “allies” or people who “get it”, i.e. privileged western english-speakers with too much education for their own good, while those who don’t use such pretentious and academ-ese terms are using the ‘wrong’ words.
blech.
a lot of “transfolk” (also, can we talk about that horrible term?) do not/will not use ‘cisgender’, fyi.
Sailorman, the whole point to having the term cisgender is to stop the Joes from assuming they are the default, normal, unmarked state by giving it a name. The fact that the Joes are upset says something about them.
I let you through because you’re @riseup.net which indicates to me that you probably have some kind of progressive/anarchic/whatever intention. Otherwise, I’m afraid it would be pretty hard to distinguish you from a troll.
If you want to argue against the term cis form the perspective of there being better words, then that’s one thing, but your argument does not appear to acknowledge the trans-centered arguments in favor of the word cis.
Well, would you say that the same thing is true about terms like ‘brown-haired,’ ‘tall,’ or ‘green-eyed’?
I think that the point being made about ‘cis’ is that it’s a descriptive term. If I’m brown-haired, and it pisses me off when people call me brown-haired, that doesn’t make it ‘not neutral’.
‘Brown-haired’ can still be neutral, it’s just that maybe I don’t like acknowledging the neutral reality it (accurately) describes. I think that the same is true in discussions about cissexuals.
—Myca
(Note: This Britkid is still pretty new to the progressive blogosphere, so I apologise in advance if I say something horrendously blinkered/inappropriate. Please call me out on it if I do.)
I’ve been aware of this discussion (in general, not just the one on this blog) for a while. While it seems a little odd to have a group given a name mainly (or apparently so) by people who aren’t members of that group, I understand the benefits of “cisgender” as a term, and the word itself I rather like (it even abbreviates nicely to “cis”), so I’ve had to spend some time reflecting on why it makes me feel bizarrely uncomfortable. (I’ve read enough blogs by now to realise that it’s probably due to some kind of privilege I didn’t know was there. I’m still working on figuring out what this particular one is.)
Somehow, it seems like my subconscious mind is not so sure about that “nothing more, nothing less”. I have this instinctive, irrational fear that, if there’s a name for a particular group that I’m part of, however irrelevant that group to my character and attitude, people might start judging me by other members of that group, rather than actually perceiving me. When I think about it logically, though, I can see that this argument is invalid and rather silly, not only because there are other groups I belong to based on my physical form that people don’t judge me by (blue-eyed, long-haired), but because I’ve always been part of this particular group– it’s just been called “non-transgender” or something before now. I imagine I can’t be the only one with that kind of knee-jerk anxiety, however– maybe it’s behind some of the more vocal oppositions to “cisgender” as a term, though it’s a point I don’t think I’ve seen addressed explicitly by the people complaining as yet.
But those Joes are the normal, unmarked state. Most people are not trans; being trans is abnormal.
I realize that previous sentence sounds offensive, but I used those words deliberately to make a point: “Normal” is also a neutral word, meaning “usual.” But–surprise!–lots of people don’t like being called abnormal, or unusual (I don’t, either) and the dislike of the “abnormal” label has nothing to do with trans status. Trans status is statistically rare (abnormal or unusual in a technical sense) but it says nothing about the trans person him/herself.
Not only do many people dislike being called “abnormal,” but they also tend to dislike being told that they are not normal or that they can’t claim the “normal” label.
So, say you’re talking to Joe, who doesn’t want to be called “cisgender” and wants to either be called “normal” or–quite likely–not have you talk about his genderstatus at all ;) If you tell Joe “you’re not normal,” or “there is no ‘normality’ about trans status,” or “you’re not normal you’re just cisgender…” then you are not telling the truth. You are also going to piss him off.
Really? What, exactly, does it say? Doesn’t using a label for someone who doesn’t like it say more about the motivations of the labeler than it does about the recipient? Especially when a variety of alternatives exist (from “non trans” to “normal genderstatus” to a host of others.)
Sailorman,
““Normal” is also a neutral word, meaning “usual.” ”
Normal isn’t a neutral word used in everyday conversation. When people say “You’re normal” what they usually mean is “You’re good”, not “A large percentage of the population falls within a specific set of parameters”. I’m not a scientist, and neither are most people who talk about trans and cis things. The second the word ‘normal’ comes into it to describe cis people it brings specters of Bad/Other.
“Really? What, exactly, does it say? Doesn’t using a label for someone who doesn’t like it say more about the motivations of the labeler than it does about the recipient? Especially when a variety of alternatives exist (from “non trans” to “normal genderstatus” to a host of others.)”
Well, I thought it says something along the lines of “There’s words that describe you, too, I don’t need to be singled out as merely the opposite of the dominant group and by Jove, you’re getting a name for your general description whether you think you need one or not.” Being unnamed is a privilege. The alternatives you listed suck, ‘non trans’ describes you by what you are not instead of what you are, and normal genderstatus suggests my gender isn’t normal, that is, in every day conversation, that’s it’s somehow bad.
It really is academic, and I mean that literally.
When we develop language for discourse between interested parties, that’s one thing: We can feel free to develop a language in which all non-trans people are defined as cisgender; or a language in which all whites are defined as racist; or a language in which all sex is defined as rape; or a language in which the words “normal” or “usual” are assiduously avoided like stale cheese. Specific languages are useful and create real value. We can nod our heads in the academy and assign labels to our hearts content.
But then what do you do when it hits the non-academic, non-activist, world? As Mandolin notes, “cisgender” springs from a “trans-centered” argument. One should, hopefully, at least acknowledge trans issues when discussing transsexuality. And it is a virtual requirement in certain academic settings. But outside limited settings one doesn’t (and shouldn’t) need to center trans issues when discussing gender, any more than one would center male issues in a feminist curriculum.
Telling Joe to “center” trans issues in accepting a label he doesn’t like is simply a reversal of the normal power dynamic, in which the majority centers their own views and applies the labels they choose, damn the opposition. If you say “Yes, Sailorman, that’s right!” well, then… that may be a just reversal, but it sort of vitiates the claim of neutrality, doesn’t it?
It also put into question the implication (made by PG above) that getting defensive “says something” about Joe. Look at the implied threat: “accept this label which I made up for you, or you’ll be considered a bigot.” I can’t be the only one here who reacts poorly to that sort of conversational dynamic. If Joe does, whose fault is it?
This also stems from the same political motivations as a variety of other academic disciplines. Names are powerful things, and they get used to create or transfer power.
Do you think that there’s no political motivation behind calling cisgender people “cisgender” instead of, say, “gendernormal” or what have you? Of course there is. It’s a good motivation, sure… but again, it isn’t really neutral.
Happens all the time. Do ya think it is simply an accident that critical race theorists decided to vastly expand the then-common definition of “racism” rather than use a new term or limiter? Do you follow all the various threads in which people are shocked, simply shocked, that some dude who uses a working definition of “racists lynch people” gets defensive when told opposing illegal immigration is a racist act? You want to claim that this is accidental, ‘neutral,’ or what have you?
Same thing here: the term gets pushed onto people NOT because its’ the only possible term (there are many such terms) but because the labeler is trying to make a point. Because of all those factors, “cisgender” isn’t neutral. Or standard, or common.
Asking Cisgender Joe to give up thinking of himself as “normal” is, in effect, asking Joe to sign on to give some little support to the cause of trans advocates. It is asking Joe to personally give up some of his “stuff”–to cut down on his bundle of cisgender privilege. It is asking Joe to change.
Such change is good IMO, because trans people could use some political help. But it’s not neutral. And disagreement with changing one’s identifying labels, and/or a preference for a different label than “cisgender,” doesn’t really say a lot.
Yes, exactly. Like it or not, Joe’s getting the label, and it’ll be one that you choose, not one that Joe chooses. We can even label this conversation itself as authoritarian, patriarchal–take your choice. Joe may be in the majority, but the dynamic of the conversation is age-old.
That’s pretty in-your-face, though at least it’s honest. With, of course, the added implication that if they bristle at your demands you’ll (1) ignore their wishes anyway, and (2) give them another nasty label (“bigot,” “transphobic,” etc.) …
Once again, people are surprised, shocked even, that Joe gets so defensive. Why? Joe’s not doing anything that most people don’t do, it’s just atht Joe doesn’t subscribe to our political beliefs.
you guys are getting way too academic and abstract for my poor little practical-minded brain to follow.
i’m righthanded. so’s most of humanity. but when my lefthanded brother calls me righthanded, i don’t take that as any insult on me or those like me. if there’s a good reason why the difference between the situations ought to matter to anybody, i’d love to hear it explained — but please, use small words.
“When we develop language for discourse between interested parties, that’s one thing: We can feel free to develop a language in which all non-trans people are defined as cisgender; or a language in which all whites are defined as racist; or a language in which all sex is defined as rape; or a language in which the words “normal” or “usual” are assiduously avoided like stale cheese.”
One of those things is not like the other. Cissexual / cisgender (or wherever on the spectrum) to trans, whites to racists and sex to rape. Your later two don’t have anything in common with the former. All whites are racist = and your point is? It’s not the creation of another word. Your all sex is rape and it, to, is not the creation of another word for a group of people that had no label.
“But then what do you do when it hits the non-academic, non-activist, world? As Mandolin notes, “cisgender” springs from a “trans-centered” argument. One should, hopefully, at least acknowledge trans issues when discussing transsexuality. And it is a virtual requirement in certain academic settings. But outside limited settings one doesn’t (and shouldn’t) need to center trans issues when discussing gender, any more than one would center male issues in a feminist curriculum.”
Transexuality isn’t limited to academia. When I go to the store and people double check my ID that isn’t an academic discussion. Hell, when I’m walking down the street, that isn’t an academic discussion. I have a life, and it involves a hell of a lot of cis people making gender identity and sex assumptions in it. It wouldn’t kill people discuss things like that while discussing their own problems within the gender binary. It’s not exactly centering the more privileged (male) to the less privileged (female), like your suggestion, since trans people as a whole aren’t the dominant group.
“Telling Joe to “center” trans issues in accepting a label he doesn’t like is simply a reversal of the normal power dynamic, in which the majority centers their own views and applies the labels they choose, damn the opposition. If you say “Yes, Sailorman, that’s right!” well, then… that may be a just reversal, but it sort of vitiates the claim of neutrality, doesn’t it?
It also put into question the implication (made by PG above) that getting defensive “says something” about Joe. Look at the implied threat: “accept this label which I made up for you, or you’ll be considered a bigot.” I can’t be the only one here who reacts poorly to that sort of conversational dynamic. If Joe does, whose fault is it?”
I’m not PG, though I agree with her. Refusing neutral language does say something. It says “There’s more of my people than there are of yours, so you don’t get to call us anything to distinguish us, but we can call you whatever we please. We’ll continue to define ourselves by what we’re not, thank you very much.”. I explained why your suggestions aren’t anywhere near neutral, so unless you have a neutral one to throw out (and I’ve never seen a convo where the dominant group makes honest to god neutral suggestions, you can bet straight, white people didn’t pick their own words back when vocab was coming into being) the complaints for the “Don’t label me!” vocabulary are pretty ridiculous.
“This also stems from the same political motivations as a variety of other academic disciplines. Names are powerful things, and they get used to create or transfer power.”
Yes. Although it’s not transfering power in this case so much as creating it. Cis people already named trans people, they did that a long time ago, though they generally prefer ruder words. If someone has no choice but to name themselves then they also must put a name to the people that insisted on naming them.
“Do you think that there’s no political motivation behind calling cisgender people “cisgender” instead of, say, “gendernormal” or what have you? Of course there is. It’s a good motivation, sure… but again, it isn’t really neutral.””
Of course there’s political motivation. The motivation is to not be considered ‘Other/Wrong/Bad’ and to have that reflect in laws and regulations. ‘Gender normal’ has a host of fucked up subtexts in cis people’s favor starting with “we were born – correctly -” and speeding right along down the line, it isn’t even close to neutral.
“Happens all the time. Do ya think it is simply an accident that critical race theorists decided to vastly expand the then-common definition of “racism” rather than use a new term or limiter? Do you follow all the various threads in which people are shocked, simply shocked, that some dude who uses a working definition of “racists lynch people” gets defensive when told opposing illegal immigration is a racist act? You want to claim that this is accidental, ‘neutral,’ or what have you?”
Racism is a set of beliefs and/or actions, not an adjective like, say, white. Cis is an adjective like white, not a set of beliefs or actions, although like people who have the adjective a set of beliefs and actions are encouraged in their favor. Try your argument with any other adjective used to describe a noun, as it stands your paragraph is meaningless.
“Same thing here: the term gets pushed onto people NOT because its’ the only possible term (there are many such terms) but because the labeler is trying to make a point. Because of all those factors, “cisgender” isn’t neutral. Or standard, or common.” ”
So far, it is the only possible term. I’m still waiting for cis people to come up with a neutral one that isn’t actually in their favor, and you haven’t explained why cissexual / cisgender isn’t neutral. (let alone why transgender or transexual is neutral.
You seem to be big on neutral and you haven’t said a word against naming trans people, so how is trans as a label neutral while cis isn’t? Since cis isn’t a set of beliefs and behaviors like racism (which you compared it to) or again, ‘sex is rape’ which is equating an act with all the repercussions of another act, again, not coming up with a new label but insisting one label is actually another with gilded edges. Which is odd, since cis people previously had the privilege of not being labelled at all.
Sailorman,
” Well, I thought it says something along the lines of “There’s words that describe you, too, I don’t need to be singled out as merely the opposite of the dominant group and by Jove, you’re getting a name for your general description whether you think you need one or not.”
Yes, exactly. Like it or not, Joe’s getting the label, and it’ll be one that you choose, not one that Joe chooses. We can even label this conversation itself as authoritarian, patriarchal–take your choice. Joe may be in the majority, but the dynamic of the conversation is age-old.
That’s pretty in-your-face, though at least it’s honest. With, of course, the added implication that if they bristle at your demands you’ll (1) ignore their wishes anyway, and (2) give them another nasty label (”bigot,” “transphobic,” etc.) … ”
Joe doesn’t actually want to label himself with a neutral word. We’ve had these discussions before, Joe never wants to label themselves. Joe wants to label what (for the sake of pronoun clarity) he isn’t, not what he is, so unless Joe is being honest, no, Joe doesn’t get to choose not only what he calls me but what he calls himself. Joe may not think he needs a word to describe himself because he’s ‘normal’ and trans is, apparently, not, but Joe is wrong and Joe needs a word to describe his situation, whether he thinks he needs one or not, because there is a difference that needs to be discussed and to discuss you need labels. Your mythical Joe is shit out of luck there, that’s how all these conversations wrt priveleged people go and I’m frankly surprised to see you arguing otherwise when I know you’re familiar with how things work. Anything less is not neutral. All parties must be labeled to even get close to equal footing.
Look, when you fill out a profile, do you go around calling yourself ‘not black/not straight/ not disabled – you get the idea. No, I’m betting you don’t. Because it doesn’t actually describe you, it describes what you’re – not -. It’s still othering. Your suggestions for other labels for cis people are in stark contrast to neutrality. ‘Gender normal’, ‘non trans’, neither of those suggestions are neutral. All Joe does is come up with suggestions like that and when people explain why they won’t work, Joe gets pissy. Often, Joe dislikes being called white or abled or straight as well. Joe has plenty of time to find a label that doesn’t promote trans people as ‘other’, but I’ve yet to hear a label that Joe’s come up with that does anything close to that.
Sailorman — out.
Sure, there’s an easy difference. You’re not bigoted against people who are left-handed, so you don’t get offended when people say you can’t use the word ‘normal’ to describe yourself, thus making it clear that whatever those icky left-handed people are, it sure as fuck isn’t NORMAL.
(Caveat: I do think there are a fraction of people who are entitled to bristle at the words ‘cis’ and ‘trans’ when they are used as an unyielding dichotomy — and those are the people who aren’t right-handed or left-handed but ambidextrous.)
A.W., if you try the “blockquote” button above it may make your responses easier for everyone to read. Just as an aside.
What exactly are you arguing here?
On the one hand, you appear to be claiming that this is some sort of “neutral” language.
On the other hand, you’re not treating the parties equally (“neutrally”) insofar as you want to be able to label other people while maintaining their inability to label you. You’re basically taking the “everyone gets to make their own labels and define themselves how they want” meme, which is nice and basic when applied to everyone, and standing it on its head.
Your “dominant group can call you anything you please” line also doesn’t make sense: the dominant group can certainly change its manner of address. It does; “tranny”, I hear, is going the same was as “Negro,” “mongoloid, “cripple,” and a variety of other now-obsolete terms.
And of course, if you’d prefer not to be called “trans,” your request is going to have a bit more merit if you’re not simultaneously refusing to reciprocate. But you knew that, right?
There’s an important difference between neutral and neutralizing. You seem to be arguing for a neutral outcome. Since things aren’t neutral now, you need to treat people differently to get there. (attaing equality from inequality requires unequal treatment.) OK in theory, but it doesn’t grok to claim you’re not doing it.
Frankly, I have never seen a conversation where almost ANYONE simultaneously advocates a position and also manages to obtain objective neutrality. That applies to majority and minority groups both. Am I biased? yup. If you think you’re objectively neutral somehow, you’re way off: you’re biased, too. We all are.
(often seen on Alas and elsewhere: “Majority’s claims that there’s no discrimination against Minority are biased by self-interest, because Majority will lose power if discrimination is shown.”
Rarely seen, for some reason: “Of course, Minority’s claims that there IS discrimination against Minority are also biased by self-interest, because Minority will gain power if discrimination is shown.”)
I mean, come on: Obviously enforcing the use of “cisgender” on someone is LOADED with meaning, hidden and apparent both. It’s political. It’s personal. It’s both.
Getting pissed because someone doesn’t instantly want to adopt “cisgender” or because they have trouble with your presentation* doesn’t make sense. It’s more than a bit disingenuous to sorta take the “it’s just a neutral term, no big deal, nothing to justify upset” tactic while flipping out if someone doesn’t agree with you.
*Frankly, it’s a good thing I got convinced to adopt cisgender by someone else. If the person who first talked to me used the “by god you’ll do what I say or else” tactic, and if they represented that position as being standard for transpeople…. well, I suspect I’d still be calling myself “normal.” Being pushy backfires sometimes.
Sorry, mandolin–cross posted. Delete away, of course.
This is actually the nub of the matter, and the reason Sailorman’s objection falls flat.
I am right-handed, as is my daughter. That’s a neutral term; my maternal grandmother was left-handed; that is also a neutral term. The terms are descriptive, but they do not imply a value judgment.
Now, by Sailorman’s logic, one could argue that the world should instead be divided into left-handed and normal. After all, the vast majority of people are right-handed, and that’s “normal.” But the opposite of normal is abnormal, and abnormal is not a value-neutral word. It implies defect or failure, a difference from the way something is “supposed to be.” For this reason, we don’t describe righties as “normies,” because it would be offensive to left-handed people to do so.
One can argue whether cisgender is the right word to describe the majority state of having one’s internal concept of one’s gender match one’s biological gender; there might be better words for it, though I for one think cis is a perfectly cromulent word. But it is, at the least, value-neutral. It doesn’t imply that a cisgender person is more or less normal than a transgender person, only that the two groups are different groups.
That’s what the whole cisgender argument is — that by dividing the world into “trans” and “normal,” we’re saying flatly that “trans” is “abnormal.” It is defective. It is wrong. We may put up with it, but we don’t accept it.
For that reason, as with right- and left-handed, we need words that eliminate the value judgments of previous categorization. Using cisgender to describe me — a boy who sees himself as a boy, is comfortable being a boy, and does not feel a need to become a girl — is, it seems to me, a perfectly reasonable description. It doesn’t imply that I’m wrong to view myself as a boy, but neither does it imply that I’m right; it simply states that I am what I am. And that, it seems to me, is the essence of tolerance.
I don’t think the problems with “cisgender” and “cissexual” are because of the Joe’s of the world. I’ve known people who objected to being called “straight”, despite being … “straight”. They view it as some kind of “gay lingo”. Okay, call them “heterosexual” then.
The problems I’ve seen in the real world are with glomming people into “transgender” and “cisgender”. Butch dyke — call her “transgender” and she may bristle at the wealth of implications about “transgender”. Call her “cisgender” and she may bristle at the implication that she’s performing “woman” in the heteronormative “women are feminine” sense.
When “transgender” gets too tied up in bodies —
— it becomes a transsexist definition. Male Crossdresser — say he’s “transgender” and he might bristle at the implication that something is wrong with his body or his brain under that definition. Say he’s “cisgender” and he may bristle at the notion that wearing women’s clothing implies he’s a member of the “transgender community” (the historical definition of “transgender” included crossdressers who had no desire to change their bodies, and who identified as men).
Is “cisgender” an insult? I think it depends on its application and the working definition. Using the common definition, people who do not view themselves as having a differing gender identity — large numbers of masculine women — can be insulted by the “transgender” label. And people who would otherwise have been historically included in “transgender” find themselves over in the “cisgender” label.
Sailor — We’ll just consider the request for you to leave the thread to have gone up when you saw it.
Well, I think some people may get to be ambidextrous. I don’t know if it’s those people per se. I realize that the dichotomy between cisgendered and cissexual is meant to allow those people some breathing room (so that someone can identify as transgendered and cissexual), but I’m not sure the terminology is working for everyone. Well, I should make that a stronger statement — it seems to me from reading and talking to people that there are definitely some people who are non-gender/sex-conforming who are not comfortably described by any of the labels currently in existence. I think we could use some more widely accepted words for ambidexterity.
That doesn’t change the fact that trans/cis is a decent dichotomous description for most of the population, and certainly an excellent way for talking about social stuff.
Sailorman,
What I’m saying is the reasons people tend to argue against labeling themselves it to keep power-over. Labeling yourself what you’re not, or choosing words that have positive connotations. Like ‘normal gender status’. Your advocating for the “do not describe me against my wishes” people, and at the crux, that above is what their argument boils down to.
It’s not that rarely seen, I mentioned something like it above when I agreed that naming is creating power and that that was the whole bloody point – a redistribution of power, ie; eventual equality. Starts with words, and naming the dominant group is no exception. I mean, what’s the point of this? I never claimed neutrality for my argument. Cis the word itself is neutral – I am not and I’ve never claimed to be. We’re not on equal footing, there’s no reason for me to be ‘neutral’. And I’m starting to read neutral as ‘nice’, s’almost like there’s a tone argument going on, as if we all had the same footing with regards to language to begin with and can’t we all just get along.
Again, I’ve never claimed objective neutrality. I’m saying your suggestions themselves of terms to replace cis aren’t neutral. This wouldn’t change if I was cis, the fact remains that words have connotations and the ones you’ve chosen to present your argument do not work. (I mean, comparing the creation of a word to broadening racism and renaming sex as rape? If I wanted to insult someone for saying that, and I really do, I wouldn’t use ‘cis’ to do it as it – isn’t an insult to begin with -). ‘Cis’ as a word is neutral – There is no connotations of normal or bad with it. Unlike Trans. I, however, am not neutral. My reasons for wanting it are not ‘neutral’, I don’t have that privilege. You;’re right, dominant group’s claims of neutrality are also bogus, ime, because they stand to lose privilege when they’re not named. I already know you’re not neutral, Sailorman, that’s not the point. I’m not neutral either. But we’re not talking about me, we’re talking about words for groups of people. I’m saying that your – word choices themselves – aren’t neutral. You are not your argument, and neither am I.
N’since you were booted off (I assume that’s what the stop was) I won’t reply t’you any more here.
I could’ve sworn that was listed as the definition for cissexual, not cisgender. More definitions would prolly help matters.
AW,
That is the definition for “cissexual”. If “body” is involved, the correct term is “cissexual” / “transsexual”. If “behavior” is involved, the correct term is “cisgender” / “transgender”.
Unfortunately there is a very strong movement trying to do away with “transsexual” (they claim to have Good and Nobel Reasons — I think they are whacked, but I digress) that is sweeping “cissexual” right into the waste basket along with it.
Mandolin,
I think you’re onto something — I have a transsexual friend who describes herself as “ambigendered”. She and I had some discussions in my earliest Crusade To Stomp Out The Word “Transgender”, and I was unsuccessful in (forcibly) getting her to see that “ambigendered” was nothing more than rejecting gender rigidity. Since “ambi-” isn’t Greek, like “Cis” and “Trans”, I vote for “metagender”. It has lots of cool implications, too.
Just a quick mention that left-handedness hasn’t always been regarded neutrally. Beliefs about bad luck/evil/etc. aside, it’s not so long ago that children were discouraged and even punished for writing left-handed.
I feel fairly comfortable saying that one feature of patriarchy is that whenever you have a binary, one designation is privileged and the other is marginalized.
Which doesn’t explain why right-handed people might not mind being named as such, but I have certainly heard the binary described as “normal” and “left-handed.” And I have heard right-handed people complain about being asked to make accomodations for lefties, in a way which (faintly) echoes the kind of complaint about being asked to include trans in a cis-centric view of sex gender.
@ Mandolin: for real?
i’m not coming at this from some ‘anarchic’ perspective. i’m a transsexual who’s been thinking/writing/teaching about these things for years now. perhaps that context would have been helpful when i commented, but not sure how being critical without any rays of sunshine makes me a troll . i didn’t mention the trans-centered reasons for these neologisms because i think they’re kind of obvious (and already mentioned by other commenters), but just not satisfactory to me and lots of other trans people.
I do think the point that cisgender isn’t a strict binary is a fair one, and I think the whole notion of an axis applied to these concepts leads to some unwieldy conclusions.
I try to use these definitions:
I would go further and say it’s not just having a gender, but having a gender expression – butch lesbians do run into people telling them they’re not women or that their gender isn’t valid, while they’re not particularly transgender, either.
I think that while some trans people still talk about cisgender and transgender as a binary, others have actually talked about how cisgender and transgender, and other identities that don’t strictly fit into either, are all valid, and that the language is not fully adequate at addressing all identities in a few words.
I think cissexual and transsexual are much closer to being either/or, although there’s probably people who want to change their bodies who might not be transsexual, but who aren’t cissexual, who might consider themselves transgender or genderqueer, or some other category.
Adam,
“cisgender and cissexual” isn’t academic language, any more than “transgender and transsexual” is, or “heterosexual vs. bisexual vs. gay vs. lesbian.” And I’m not sure of the relevance of comments like
It’s kinda derailing to invoke the ability to use easily explained words as some kind of byzantine, academic, privileged language. While it’s certainly fair to point out that not all trans people agree with cis terminology, is it really necessary to try to paint those of us who agree with it as somehow absurd and overeducated for doing so? What does overeducated even mean? I think it’s problematic to try to negate marginalized people’s voices by invoking other privilege (actual or assumed).
Could you perhaps try presenting some of those arguments rather than alluding to them?
Elusis, nail on the head. when i thought up that handedness analogy, i had precisely that very much in mind.
although i must confess i’ve never heard any right-handed person complain about accommodations for lefthanders — but, now that you mention it, it sadly doesn’t surprise me to hear it happens, either.
But as soon as Joe Dude complains about being labeled cisgender, and Mary starts enforcing the use of the term against Joe’s wishes,
(with apologies for quoting Sailorman, since he is no longer allowed in this thread)
“Cis-” is a perfectly neutral prefix; no political agenda there at all. It’s simply the opposite of “trans-“. However….I didn’t know that, until I googled it after reading posts and threads on transgendered persons. I never heard the prefix “cis-” before; it isn’t anywhere near as common in the English language as “trans-” (transatlantic, transnational, the Department of Transportation, etc.). So, part of that “it’s academic” attitude comes from first having to explain what the prefix means. “It’s academic” really means, “it’s unfamiliar”, or “damn! you’re pointing out my limited education! And here I am trying my damndest to hide that!!”
Joe Dude got used to the term “heterosexual”, even though “hetero-” wasn’t a commonly-used prefix in the English language prior to “heterosexual” becoming an everyday word. Joe Dude will get used to “cis-” also, despite the fact it sounds like “sissy” (“hey! I’m not a “sis” sexual! Nothin’ sissy about me!” No Joe, not “sis”, cis. Means “on the same side of”). Joe will get it; it’ll just take a little time.
La Lubu,
While I agree that “cis” is a sufficiently unfamiliar prefix, such that we should be aware that it will require explanation and that people who don’t already know it might use clumsy and potentially-offensive substitutes like “man born man,” that doesn’t explain why Sailorman believes that Joe is reasonable in feeling insulted by having the word applied to him even when he knows what it means. It’s like when I used to pick on my little sister by screeching, “Your epidermis is showing!” Once she knew what epidermis meant, she had no problem with having it show. Why should Joe, when he knows what cisgender or cissexual means, have a problem with being labeled as such?
i’m righthanded. so’s most of humanity. but when my lefthanded brother calls me righthanded, i don’t take that as any insult on me or those like me. if there’s a good reason why the difference between the situations ought to matter to anybody, i’d love to hear it explained — but please, use small words.
Exactly. (I always say, use small words, I’m a scientist.) I guess allies could have come up with their/our own term, but I wasn’t aware there was one. There need to be corresponding terms for the unmarked state, because otherwise it’s recognized as the default. Plus, description and precision are helpful for effective communication.
PG:
It makes no sense unless you assume the idea of having a word for ‘cis’ at all is offensive, because they should just be able to be normal.
The argument that inspired a lot of these posts is here: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11753/enough-already
The discussion thread, while long, is potentially worth a read, because of the very large amount of sheer WTF. Repeatedly, for instance, trans people ask objecting cis people what word they would like to use, since cis is insulting. The only times they ever get a reply (and mostly they’re ignored), the reply is: “Call me a gay man.”
OK, but gay / trans is not parallel terminology. People can be gay AND trans. That’s like saying “don’t call me white, call me gay.”
These people then sort of vaguely suggest that they dislike labels in general — and yet they use other ones. They use white, and straight, and gay in the course of the conversation. Yet it’s offensive, apparently, to use the label cis (as in you are a cis person) instead of just calling them by their given names (as in you are a Name person). The fact that it’s acceptable for them to say “white friends”, but not acceptable for a trans person to say “my cis siblings” is really astonishing.
In re: sailorman specifically:
I think he was making a semantic point by misreading the word neutral. Trans people are claiming that the word is sociologically and historically neutral, in that it does not have a history of being used as an insult or being used to wound populations and deny them their rights (unlike, say, the word trans). Sailorman seems claiming that any term about which one has feelings is no longer neutral, because your feelings aren’t neutral, which is true; I could decide ‘red-haired’ was an insult, and the word would technically no longer be neutral to me. That would not change its larger context as neutral.
Mandolin writes:
BINGO! We have a winner!
Because where “L”, “G” and “B” are about who we do the deed with, “T” has nothing to do with that, and this is just a huge problem with education — that the alliance between LGB and T isn’t over SEX, but about social perceptions of overall queerness. Which is why I just stick with “Queer”.
It’s like when I used to pick on my little sister by screeching, “Your epidermis is showing!” Once she knew what epidermis meant, she had no problem with having it show.
great example! For the record, I agree with you….of course it’s unreasonable for him to be insulted by “cis-“, and once he understands it’s just as neutral as being told (like your sister) that his epidermis is showing, he’ll get it. I just remember how “controversial” the word heterosexual was at one time; now it’s seen as standard, descriptive (and neutral) language. This will happen with the term “cisgender” as well.