Male or man or guy or any of the other commonly used and understood terms. I do not particularly want to be called (or call myself) terms that have only recently come into existence and are not known by 95% of the population.
In what way do you feel these terms are misrepresntative or perjoritive? If you don’t feel these terms misrepresent or insult you, then what’s your objection?
Isn’t it generally bad form to refer to someone as a <noun> rather than a <adjective> person for abstract statuses? Chinese person vs. Chinaman, lesbian woman vs. a lesbian, and the like?
'cuz I read that above, and when I saw ‘cisman,’ I kinda cringed. A cis-sexual or cis-sexual man, I can do, but just ‘a cisman’ feels… off, somehow.
I don’t find them to be insulting or inaccurate. I find them to be goofy, unnecessary, and weird. There is no need nor any demand for a term to mean a man that is born a male or a women that is born a female.
To draw an analogy, Elio Motors makes a car with three wheels. I would find it weird if drivers of this car suddenly wanted to convince everyone to stop calling normal cars with four wheels “cars” and instead “eucars” or something. No one would do it. It would be a solution to a non-existent problem.
You may as well be asking me why I don’t want to start speaking Esperanto.
I find them to be necessary.
See, I’m honestly confused by this sentence. “Male” is usually used to refer to gender. As gender is a social construct, NO ONE is born male or female. We are LABELED male or female.
If you meant to say “a man that is born a man” I would vehemently argue that a transman with born with XX chromosomes, ovaries and a vagina is still a man.
Well, I mean this with no disrespect, but be prepared to be disappointed. These terms just simply will not gain wide spread acceptance or usage. That’s just my opinion, but I feel very strongly that it is the case. We won’t even develop a term for a plural “you”, which I think would be far more useful than a term used to mean people of a biological sex matching with their gender.
Really? I guess I am completely in over my head then. It seems to me that male/female means physiological sex. Other terms like man/woman, boy/girl, guy/gal, dude/chick or whatever are gender terms used to denote the societal gender role a person has. It is certainly possible that I am in need of an education, but I thought that was the basic idea.
Umm… on what planet?
Oh, I don’t expect cisgendered to gain wide spread usage. It doesn’t need to. If you say man or woman in most conversations or contexts, the default assumption is cisgendered. Just as if you’re talking about a human being the default assumption is Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
And how do you define physiological sex? I go by the brain, specifically the stria terminalis. But I get the feeling that when you say physiological sex you mean either chromosomes or genitalia.
Then why do you consider the terms necessary if they don’t need to be used?
Sex has to do with sexual reproduction. Males make sperm; females make eggs. I thought that was basic.
Most people will never use the term “bicuspid”, but to dentists everywhere it is necessary.
I know of nobody trying to make cisman an everyday term. But, in conversations like these it is necessary.
So a woman is only a woman as long as she makes eggs? What about after menopause?
But, I’m sure that’s not what you meant.
What about a woman who has has her ovaries removed?
Nah, I’m sure you’d think she was still a woman.
What of a woman born sans ovaries?
What of a woman born with Turner’s Syndrome (XO chromosomes)?
What of a woman born with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (XY chromosomes, undescended testes, a vagina, and a complete inability to respond to testosterone making her look more feminine than most women)?
I didn’t say anything remotely like that.
I didn’t mean it nor did I say anything remotely like it. If I say humans are bipedal that doesn’t equate to me saying wounded war veterans are not humans. There is nothing wrong about what I said.
The term sex has to do with sexual reproduction. Without introducing other variables, a male will produce sperm and a female will produce eggs during their prime reproductive years.
How many arms does a human have? The answer is two. Do you think this is incorrect?
Male/female/intersex = chromosomal sex. Refers to all sexually-reproducing animals.
Man/woman/boy/girl/transman/transwoman/cisgender/whatever = gender. Refers only to human culture.
I disagree.
What exactly do you mean by “other variables”? A discussion like this one calls for precise terms and words.
Just incomplete. I would say the standard human being is born with two arms.
And why do you chose chromosomes as the determinant of sex?
They’re needed specifically for talking about gender identity and trans* issues. That’s the context where these words are used. You seem to have got some idea that people are trying to make “cissexual”, “cis man”, etc. part of common parlance outside of discussing gender identity, but they really aren’t. Nobody is identifying people as “cismale” or “cis men” instead of “male” or “men”, except in situations where it is specifically relevant to distinguish those who are not trans from those who are.
“Cissexual” is to “transsexual” as “heterosexual” is to “homosexual”. Do you object to being called “straight” or “heterosexual” (assuming here that you are) because (paraphrasing your words) “there is no need nor any demand for a term to mean a man that is attracted to women or a women that is attracted to men”?
Because it’s a biological term, and biology includes animals other than just humans. Do you have a useful alternative that applies to both apes and, say, spiders?
I don’t have any problem with using a term like cissexual in the manner that you are saying here. I think when we’re talking about not only that but numerous other terms such as g girl and natal boy, we’re moving far past your purpose into more of a attempted colloquialism.
Having said that, I’ll drop it as I think I may have misinterpreted how these terms were generally being used.
I agree with this. IME we NEVER use a word like “g-girl” unless its actually relevant. Dave, what I mean is no one in my community would say “A rude cis man served me at Taco Bell”, but we would say “is you new roommate a cisman? Does he know he’s sharing an apartment with a t-girl?”
Chromosomal indicators are a good starting point in most cases. But when you have an XY person with CAIS, calling them “male” is of highly ambiguous accuracy. In fact, persons with CAIS are generally referred to as “women.”
Not all species have their sex determined by the same sort of chromosomal arrangement that humans and other mammals do. I do not know about spiders, but I believe that male insects (of some species, at least) have no equivalent of the Y chromosome. They have a single X where the females have two Xs. In some reptiles (and, I think, fish) sex is not determined by any genetic difference at all, but by the temperature at which the fertilized eggs develop.
AFAIK, biological sex is standardly defined not in terms of chromosomes (because that does not work in a consistent way) but by whether an individual produces ova or sperm (or of which they would produce if they actually produced either). These are identifiably different sorts of cell, that behave fairly consistently differently across species.
None of this, however, has much relevance to the question of how we ought to treat transgender persons, or what is the most polite way to address them or refer to them.