Dirty to cisgendered, transgendered, or dirty to those who don’t identify as either?
Manson1972, is the identity of your gender as “typical” important to you? Considering that “cis” and “typical” denote two quite different conditions, and in the context of gender identity could indicate vastly different experiences, does this mean you would rather be identified as someone who is “standard” rather than someone who “has not undergone a trasition”?
Is it fair to say that in this situation it was not the label that you objected to, but the prejudices associated with that label by the people you encountered?
Do “cis” and “typical” denote two quite different conditions? A typical human being on this planet is, using your words “cis”
Good question. It was not the prejudices associated with the label, it was the fact that I didn’t want to be bothered by morons who only knew “Bush is bad”. If any of them had an intelligent argument, I would have loved to have a conversation with them.
WPATH 7 is likely the most authoritative answer one is likely to find. From my copy of the handbook, page 97:
(emphasis added)
Gender fluid and gender non-binary persons “cross or transcend culturally defined categories of gender.” It can differ in varying degrees, from not at all, to profoundly, but the point is it changes.
One either crosses or transcends these categories, or one does not. Two states of being.
Intersex does NOT count as a “third gender” because sex and gender are not the same. Speaking as a transgender person who is also intersex.
Some gender fluid or non-binary persons don’t like being called transgender. That is normally a political statement or an awareness-raising point, and they are not actually asserting that they are not transgender. Or it’s due to a misunderstanding, such as one non-binary person who told me incorrectly “transgender means you MUST transition, that’s the ‘trans’ part of it.”
Of course definitions can be argued with, as long as people can argue about anything. I’ve seen debates where people will argue that all dictionaries are wrong about definition X, because “they’ve heard differently.” I saw a person go hammer and tongs for weeks in a debate because “everyone they knew” said “take it for granite” instead of “take it for granted”, thus the former was the only correct expression to use.
I didn’t know there was a World Professional Association for Transgender Health. That’s pretty cool.
So you believe everyone on the planet can be classified as “cisgender” or “transgender”?
That’s pretty much the sticking point.
Because the definition is set up as a binary, it’s like someone said earlier: the set of A + !A includes everything in a category.
If the definition is redefined, then it’s no longer a is/is-not definition. But that applies to pretty much anything.
Sorry, but that’s not really an answer. Do you think that everyone on the planet can be categorized into “cis” or “trans”?
Do you think every number in the world can be categorized into “6” and “not 6”?
Yes, the words do have separate definitions.
Cis indicates a lack of transition.Typical indicates a condition of normality.
If you do not consider them to be significantly different, what is your objection to the prefix “cis”?
Why would you prefer to be identified as “typical”?
Is that important to you?
So, is it reasonable to infer that neither the label itself nore the inherent attitudes of people in regard to that label bothered you particularly? Just so long as they left you alone?
Have you similarly had people lecture you on how terrible cisgendered people are?
Do you think every person in the world can be categorized as a number?
Do you think that’s what I asked?
I disagree. Typical simply means most prevalent. It says nothing of normalcy.
I’m not sure what your question is here.
Well, I thought this thread was about people. If you are not drawing parallels, then I guess you are talking about actual numbers. Then no, numbers that are not six are not the same as numbers that are six.
Thanks to someone (hint: you) derailing it, this thread has turned into a discussion about whether there really are two types of people in the world: those who understand what people mean when they say there are two types of people in the world, and those who don’t.
OTOH, neurotypical and neurodiverse are pretty well established as a similar binary.
That said, if I heard someone describe themselves as gender typical without further clarification, I would expect it to mean the same thing as gender-conforming. That is, someone who conforms to the societal expectations for their gender and culture. Gender-nonconforming cisgender people certainly exist, so the term to me seems to indicate something more than just cis.
Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk
I am a cisgendered male, but I have waist length hair. Am I still “gender typical”?
If transgender is defined as being not cisgender and vice-versa, as per the definition I provided a citation for above, then that’s exactly what it is telling you.
There is no way this is ambiguous.
Just like everyone on the planet can be divided into the categories of “born in Memphis” or “not born in Memphis.” What on earth is ambiguous about a 2-state definition?
~
In my experience, the people who are most strident against being “labeled” cisgender are doing so because they feel (mistakenly) that if they acknowledge the fact that they are cisgender, it therefore must give acknowledgement that transgender people exist. While this sounds completely batshit nutty, I’ve had more than a couple anti-transgender activists tell me this directly: by allowing us any sort of identifier (other than “crazy person” or “mentally ill” or whatever) they feel we will somehow become real. :smack:
Depends on the culture around you. Where I live I’d consider long hair pretty normalised for men by now, so I’d say yes, if you otherwise fit your gender role’s expectations. Your milage may vary.
If you wore high heels, I might think otherwise - but if we lived in the 16thC the reverse would be true and it would be the AFAB folks who were gender nonconforming by wearing heels. It’s all relative, there’s no bright line or objective truth here.
I’d consider myself both trans and gender-nonconforming, FTR.
Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk
OK, fine. If that’s what you wish.
Why is it preferable to you that, if your gender identity is under discussion, it be identified as “most prevalent” rather than “has not undergone transition”?
Again, is it important to you that your gender be identified as “typical”?
I didn’t think I was being obscure.
Simply, if the label “American” itself wasn’t the problem, and the associated prejudices of the American-hating jerks you encountered weren’t really a problem to you, then it seems that the only problem you had with the label “American” was . . .
You brought up this anecdote as an analogy to explain your aversion to being labeled “cisgender”.
So I’m asking if you have had similar encounters with moronic people railing on you with “a litany of complaints and bitching” over your being “cisgender”?
Really, I’m just not getting what your hang-up is with this terminology.
You haven’t really presented any understandable justification for it.
Maybe it’s similar to my own hang-up with the term “cisgender”: a visceral discomfort at being presented with a new label that forces me to see myself as anything other than the accepted norm; but I consider that hang-up to be entirely unjustifiable.
Now we’re getting into something more - a deep dark abiding uncompromising instinctive primal hatred on the cellular , no the subatomic, level 