# "Don't call me 'cisgender'!" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 30, 2015, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903 "2015-04-30T15:23:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/421 "2015-05-05T23:35:13Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Well, I didn’t know that words could only have one meaning, never to be changed nor additional meanings assigned to them. :dubious: That’s a very weird misinterpretation. Nobody is saying at all that words can only have one meaning or that their meanings can’t be changed or expanded. Of course none of that is true. What we’re saying is that **if we’re trying to deliberately _select_ a specific technical term to mean a specific thing, why would we pick an ambiguous word that already means something else instead of a non-ambiguous word that already means the specific thing we’re talking about?** So far, nobody has offered up anything even remotely resembling a rational reason for deliberately trying to adopt “gender-typical” to mean “not transgender”, given that “cisgender” already means “not transgender” and “gender-typical” already means something different. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/422 "2015-05-05T23:35:21Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > So now you have a cite to the usage in the transgendered community saying the word is used in a derogatory way, AND you have people in this very thread who object to being called cisgendered, and you STILL are sticking with “get over it”?? Really? Come on, Pop Tart! Yeah, I’m sticking with get over it. For you in particular. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/423 "2015-05-05T23:40:49Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Yes, that’s an ambiguity in the term “neurotypical”. > > We can cope with ambiguous technical terms if we have to, but there’s no reason on earth we should deliberately **seek out** an ambiguous term (“gender-typical”) to mean “non-transgendered” when we already have a perfectly good non-ambiguous term (“cisgendered”) for it. Isn’t “non-transgendered” a perfectly good term for “non-transgendered”? Isn’t that why you just used it, right there? It’s accurate to the point of self-explanatory, sure as people who’ve heard “transgendered” but not “cisgendered” seem (a) plenty more likely to know what it means, and (b) plenty less likely to object to it. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/424 "2015-05-05T23:40:55Z")
I second that manson should get over it. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/425 "2015-05-05T23:42:49Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I second that manson should get over it. thirded! ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/426 "2015-05-05T23:44:21Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Isn’t “non-transgendered” a perfectly good term for “non-transgendered”? Isn’t that why you just used it, right there? It’s accurate to the point of self-explanatory, sure as people who’ve heard “transgendered” but not “cisgendered” seem (a) plenty more likely to know what it means, and (b) plenty less likely to object to it. I don’t see any evidence for “b.” ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/427 "2015-05-05T23:45:49Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > That’s a very weird misinterpretation. Nobody is saying at all that words can only have one meaning or that their meanings can’t be changed or expanded. Of course none of that is true. > > What we’re saying is that **if we’re trying to deliberately _select_ a specific technical term to mean a specific thing, why would we pick an ambiguous word that already means something else instead of a non-ambiguous word that already means the specific thing we’re talking about?** > > So far, nobody has offered up anything even remotely resembling a rational reason for deliberately trying to adopt “gender-typical” to mean “not transgender”, given that “cisgender” already means “not transgender” and “gender-typical” already means something different. I did select a perfectly specific term to mean a specific thing - “gender-typical” a heterosexual, non-transgendered person. Gay non-transgendered people can pick their own word to describe themselves. I’M certainly not going to tell them what they have to be called. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/428 "2015-05-05T23:48:10Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > When these words are used in focus groups that look at messaging on transgender issues… I thought you were done with this thread? Anyway, thanks, I read the article, and I explained my problems with it. Quoting the article at me again doesn’t actually address any of the issues I raised with it. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/429 "2015-05-05T23:51:28Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I thought you were done with this thread? He’s cistematic. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/430 "2015-05-06T00:00:47Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Seems to me this situation cries out for _more_ terminology to cover all the nuances Agreed. We now should say “Jill, you should meet Bob. He is cisgendered, neuro-typical, unipolar, uniphrenic, body cismorphic, and attention-typical”, just to clarify what Bob is exactly and not offend anyone in the minority categorizations. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/431 "2015-05-06T00:07:22Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I did select a perfectly specific term to mean a specific thing - “gender-typical” a heterosexual, non-transgendered person. Gay non-transgendered people can pick their own word to describe themselves. I’M certainly not going to tell them what they have to be called. Thanks. You can call us “normal”. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/432 "2015-05-06T00:08:42Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Isn’t “non-transgendered” a perfectly good term for “non-transgendered”? See post #413. > [@manson1972](#): > > I did select a perfectly specific term to mean a specific thing - “gender-typical” a heterosexual, non-transgendered person. No, that’s not the specific meaning of “gender-typical”. As was already explained previously, “gender-typical” means “conforming to gender norms **overall** ”: i.e., not just being heterosexual and non-transgender, but **also** behaving and appearing in ways that are traditionally considered “appropriate” for their gender. Thus, a heterosexual, non-transgender man who has conventionally “feminine” behavior and/or appearance is not considered gender-typical. A heterosexual, non-transgender woman who is conventionally “masculine”-looking is not considered gender-typical. If you decide that you personally will insist upon using “gender-typical” to mean “heterosexual and non-transgender” irrespective of all other gender norms, knock yourself out. But your use of the term will generally be considered confusing and incorrect by people who already know the standard meaning of “gender-typical”. > [@manson1972](#): > > Gay non-transgendered people can pick their own word to describe themselves. I’M certainly not going to tell them what they have to be called. I’m not sure you quite understand how technical terms work. The point of having a specific term like “cisgender” to mean “non-transgender” is that it applies equally across **all** categories _except for the one category it’s intended to distinguish_. Both male and female people can be either cisgender or transgender. Both heterosexual and homosexual people, tall and short people, white and black people, “masculine-appearing” and “feminine-appearing” people can be either cisgender or transgender. Requiring two different terms for the state of being cisgender, depending on whether the person you’re talking about is heterosexual or homosexual, would be cumbersome and pointless. There needs to be a term meaning simply “not transgender, irrespective of sexual orientation or any other category”. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/433 "2015-05-06T00:22:59Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > See post #413. I did. It seems compatible with what I said: “cisgendered” is a word that (a) means “non-transgendered”, and which (b) anyone can of course discard at will and replace with “non-transgendered”. I added that “non-transgendered” will make more sense to people who’ve heard the word “transgendered” but not the word “cisgendered”; also, I sure wouldn’t mind seeing poll results about comparative dislike. ---
**Author:** ![JR\_Brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JR\_Brown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JR_Brown)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/434 "2015-05-06T00:23:45Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > See post #413. > No, that’s not the specific meaning of “gender-typical”. As was already explained previously, “gender-typical” means “conforming to gender norms **overall** ”: i.e., not just being heterosexual and non-transgender, but **also** behaving and appearing in ways that are traditionally considered “appropriate” for their gender. Wrong, sorry. Gender variance / typicality does _not_ consider gender identity or sexual orientation. You can be gay and gender-typical (buch gay man, femme lesbian), and you can be trans and gender-typical (buch trans man, femme trans women), and you can be trans and gay and gender-typical. The three things are completely separate. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/435 "2015-05-06T00:25:55Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > See post #413. > > There needs to be a term meaning simply “not transgender, irrespective of sexual orientation or any other category”. yep, gender-typical. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/436 "2015-05-06T00:27:40Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > Thanks. You can call us “normal”. As I said, you can call yourself whatever you want. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/437 "2015-05-06T00:33:43Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Agreed. > > We now should say “Jill, you should meet Bob. He is cisgendered, neuro-typical, unipolar, uniphrenic, body cismorphic, and attention-typical”, just to clarify what Bob is exactly and not offend anyone in the minority categorizations. This is so profoundly missing the point. I’m a gamer. Do you think I mention that when I introduce myself? I don’t watch bowling. Do you think I introduce myself as a non-bowler? I’m American. Do I mention that? Of course I don’t. The fact that a word exists to describe me doesn’t mean I use it if it’s not relevant. Why the fuck would I? And the idea that minorities are complaining that people aren’t using such words is profoundly contemptuous of the issues that folks are actually raising, and not contemptuous from a position of understanding but rather from a position of what looks like real ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/438 "2015-05-06T00:35:04Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Agreed. > > We now should say “Jill, you should meet Bob. He is cisgendered, neuro-typical, unipolar, uniphrenic, body cismorphic, and attention-typical”, just to clarify what Bob is exactly and not offend anyone in the minority categorizations. You didn’t specify if he was right- or left-handed. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/439 "2015-05-06T00:42:47Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > As I said, you can call yourself whatever you want. You can call yourself whatever you want, too. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/440 "2015-05-06T00:48:42Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You didn’t specify if he was right- or left-handed. Now that you mention it, we should stop calling people right-handed, since that implies that the others are wrong-handed. How about typical-handed? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903.md?page=23)