What were people who were “not transgendered” called in the 1980s?
Called it by post #5. Damn, I’m good.
You can’t be left-wing alt-right. I really think you just like to misuse terms to make yourself “special.”
You don’t need a term for something until you know that there is another option. Now that trans people exist, you need a word for those who do not fit the category. This is true for every single binary classification in existence. What is you’re guys’ problem with how language works?
Cis- is a preexisting prefix that means the opposite of trans-. If you want another word, come up with one and try to get it used.
This is like saying “I’m not heterosexual because I’m not different!” Hetero- is a preexisting opposite prefix to homo-.
Sure, but oftentimes the person posting those threads have an interesting point of view or information to share with people who may not have been exposed to that kind of life. Like Ask the gay guy, or ask the woman in a wheelchair or ask the substance abuse counselor. This thread isn’t like those, it’s much more antagonistic and
“look how controversial I am”. About the only interesting thing I could come up about the OP was whether and how an increase in awareness or concern for traditionally marginalized groups makes him feel somehow ignored or under siege.
What were people who were “not homosexual” called in the 1880’s?
As I said in my previous post, “It used to be, everyone was simply assumed to be cisgendered, so there was no need for a special word for it.” If you don’t recognize a distinction, you have no need for a word for that distinction.
What do you call someone who doesn’t have his ears pierced?
What do you call someone who doesn’t have a cleft pallet?
What do you call someone who doesn’t have 6 toes on his left foot?
Not that I’m sympathizing with the OP, but the idea that you must have a term for the opposite of everything is silly. Language works the way it works. If a word is needed, people find a word. Certainly there are instances where certain people will need to differentiate between trans and non-trans. But most of us, most of the time don’t need to. I suspect most of us actually never need to. Personally, I can’t imagine any situation where I’d need to use the term “cisgendered to describe myself”, or that “I’m not a transgendered person” wouldn’t work. So use the term all you like, but I probably won’t.
Mainly, I think, the idea is to avoid the word “normal” and imply a cisgendered normative viewpoint. Cis-boom-bah!
There were no transgender people before 1994?
What do you call someone who is not a crossdresser?
Is the opposite of transnational cisnational?
The OP was, and that’s a good start.
Who are you to question his political identity?
Sure, we don’t have to have a word for every opposite. But there’s no reason to object to having words for opposites. Especially not Zeke, considering his points #3 and 4. If you never need to differentiate between trans and cis, then you never need to use the words trans or cis (or non-trans), so the existence of the words shouldn’t matter to you.
Also, as far as I’m aware, there’s no single word to describe someone who does have their ears pierced, or who does have a cleft palate, so those aren’t particularly good examples.
Polydactyly is a good example though. There’s oligodactyly but as far as I know there’s no single word for having the ordinary number of fingers and toes. But if someone coined one (mesodactyly, maybe?), it would be ridiculous to claim that that word is offensive, just because it applies to the majority of people.
That’s strange. How do you distinguish between someone with 6 toes and someone with 5 if there is no word for someone with 5 toes?
Here’s a question for you, Zeke: Is your ire against the treatment of white males by not-whites and not-males based on treatment of you in real life, or just things you’ve heard on the internet? Is there any actual harm you’ve experienced?
Because I’ll tell you, as a white male who’s a complete lazy-ass and thus doesn’t bother to do anything to help my fellow humans (regardless of color or gender), I have somehow failed to develop a personal following of angry critics, in real life or online.
Did you read the very next sentence after that?
Oh, it turns out there is a word for it! Do you object to the existence of this word manson1972?
But if I’m talking about a group of people, and I want to talk about the subset of men who are the gender they were given at birth, what do I say? The point is that “man” and “woman” contain some important variations within them; “men” includes, among other subsets, “trans men”. If I want to talk about “men, but not trans men,” what word do I use?
I don’t object to the existence of words. I object to being labeled by other people.
What if you want to talk about men, but not trans men or, to use your word, cis men? what word do you use?
Neither trans men or cis men? What’s that leave, again?
Does that apply to all adjectives? Do you object if someone calls you “brown-haired”, or whatever color your hair is?
If someone said, “You have five fingers on each hand, that means you’re pentadactyl.” would you object to being labelled?
If someone said, “You’re attracted to the opposite sex, that means you’re heterosexual.” would you object to being labelled?
If your answer to those questions is no, they why do you object to the adjective “cisgendered”?