Yep, it sure is. Is this something that bothers you? What about the part about hair color? Or anything else?
Note that YOU are the person who is offended being labeled **anything **by anybody. Not me. I don’t particularly care if somebody assumes my gender.
Forgot to say thanks for finding this. It’s a cool word. I think I’m going to go with **quinquedigitate **instead though.
I’ll ask for the third time. Describe a person who doesn’t fit into one of those two buckets, but who also fits under the “man” bucket.
I don’t pretend my thinking about this is exhaustive.
Also, “cisgender” describes you, even if you don’t “identify” with that term. Just as “single-nosed” describes you even if you don’t “identify” with that term.
It’s a functional descriptor.
Yes, but some people DO care. Any you won’t know who those people are until you mistakenly assume their gender. So to be safe, don’t assume anyone’s gender. Unless you don’t care about offending people 
What if you hadn’t, but they knew because someone else told them?
I have described such a person. A person who neither identifies as transgender nor cisgender.
Not necessarily true, unless you subscribe to the idea that all people on the planet are either cisgender or transgender. Is that what you think?
We’re not talking about them. We’re talking about you, and your objection to be labeled anything by anybody.
Or is that, gasp, not actually a sincerely held belief of yours?
I feel like you’re under the impression that you’ve found some sort of “gotcha!” in all this, but for the life of me I can’t tell what it is.
Well, they don’t really “know” then, do they? They only know what someone else told them. Which may or not be true. Best to avoid 3rd hand information when dealing with people.
Sorry, I don’t deal in gotchas. I also don’t lie. Put both of those together, and that means yes, it’s a sincerely held belief. I don’t like other people telling me what labels I should use for myself. I didn’t wake up one day and think “Wow! From now on I’m cisgendered!” Some people keep telling me that’s what I am. And I don’t like that.
Sure. But would you object, or be offended? Or would you barely notice and not really care since that kind of labeling is so common and mundane?
I would care.
As an example, during the Bush years I traveled overseas on vacation a lot. And every time I told someone I was American, I had to listen to a litany of complaints and bitching that I would rather not hear during a vacation.
So, I started telling people I was Canadian. Now if a person came around and said “yeah, I heard from Joe that **manson1972 **is a fine American” I would care.
(I realize this is contradictory to my “I don’t lie” statement, but meh)
I’ve never heard the term used in common conversation, but then again I don’t hang around at Starbucks.
We know you’re a dude because you’ve told us you are a dude. And, even if we’d made a mistake, you never corrected the many, many times people used “he.” We are assuming nothing about your gender.
When I don’t know someone’s gender on here, I use “they,” or reword things to avoid the pronoun altogether. If I make a mistake, I apologize and make a note so I don’t mess up again.
What I won’t entertain is your bullshit about not being cisgender. It’s just a medical term, without any replacements. And you are not an oppressed minority, so you don’t get to pretend the term has been used to oppress you.
I am a white heterosexual cisgender male. I know the term is not offensive. So I know that you are just full of shit, pretending to be offended to make a stupid point.
If I was to accept this line of thinking, then I would say that there are no such things as fetuses because no fetus identifies itself as a fetus.
For that matter, there’s no such things as corpses, since they don’t identify as corpses - so humans never die, because they never can become dead. Tables and rocks don’t exist either.
What I’m saying, in my subtle way, is that your statement is stupid and I don’t subscribe to your newsletter. And not because newsletters don’t exist, either.
Not liking the sound of the word is a perfectly good reason to come up with another word, and try to get it to take on. It’s not a reason to pretend to be “offended” by it.
The offense that does happen is not offense to the word. It’s offense to the very concept that we would need a word for the category. The whole point is to invalidate the trans* identity by making the only possible word something like “normal.”
So does that mean that you subscribe to the idea that every person on the planet can be categorized as cisgender or transgender? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Strange. I was under the impression that you don’t get to tell other people what they can be offended about. Has that changed?
I’m of the opinion that the only real definition for the term “cisgender” I’ve ever heard is not transgender.
Which would mean that, by my understanding of the term, the answer is a resounding yes - every person on the planet can be categorized as either trangender or not transgender (aka cisgender).
I have never, not once, advocated for the use of the word “normal” to describe someone who isn’t transgender.
Thanks for answering.