# "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:** 34
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2016, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/661 "2016-03-24T02:28:29Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Not in general, no. > > Seems fine to me. > > **Miller** pointed out that, in some hypothetical scenario, non-transgender may not be sufficiently precise; in a situation like that, where it _has_ to be subdivided further, I won’t object. But in every situation where “non-transgender” _does_ suffice – which, in my experience thus far, has been all of 'em – my preference remains. > > Imagine someone tells us she’d prefer not to be described as African-American; she prefers _black_. I’d of course oblige her, instead of asking her to justify her choice, but that’s neither here nor there. But as we’re doing hypotheticals, imagine that we’re eventually in a situation where “black” isn’t sufficiently precise; say you explicitly don’t want to discuss Kenyans or Nigerians, but only – well, _African-Americans_. > > I understand why, when one absolutely must subdivide the imprecise term, one would reluctantly override her general preference. But I’d still default to using her general preference when that’s _not_ the case, because polite respect and basic decency. > > Well, look, I can easily think of times when all that needs to be conveyed is whether someone (a) is a brunette or not; or whether someone (b) is transgender or not. I’ve of course been in many discussions where the only relevant distinction was whether someone happens to be X or not. > > I’m willing to grant that, in a hypothetical situation where “transgender or not” _isn’t_ detailed enough, there doesn’t seem to be an alternate term; I merely note that, in situations where “transgender or not” _is_ the question du jour, the term I generally prefer would be clear (and AFAICT clearer) and accurate (and AFAICT more accurate). If you have a preference, and you clearly do, I won’t call you cisgendered unless it’s necessary to differentiate between different types of non-trangendered people. I don’t understand your objection, but that’s okay. It’s apparently simpler for you to use two prefixes, rather than one, and it’s simpler to refer to someone as a non-surgeon than to say he or she is a lawyer. I will continue to describe myself as cisgender female blond computer tech, because to me, that is worlds simpler than describing myself as a non-transgendered, non-brunette, non-male non-surgeon. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2016, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/662 "2016-03-24T02:33:30Z")
Waldo, shall we refer to you as non-cisgender? shall we assume this includes the possability that you are not cisgender? (Nothing against you if you aren’t cisgender. You may well be, but “non-transgender” doesn’t exclude the possibility that you’re not cisgendered.) Maybe it’s the chemical engineer in me, but “cis” carries the same baggage as the numeral two. Sure, it can be used as a negative (e.g. “die cis scum”) but so can any classification (Die Bart, die). ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2016, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/663 "2016-03-24T02:36:00Z")
I do wonder if there was ever any objection to heterosexual and homosexual, or if it would be simpler to refer to homosexuals as “non-heterosexual.” Yeah, that doesn’t indicate whether someone is homosexual, bisexual, asexual, or any other flavor of sexuality, but it may be simpler. ---
**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:** [March 24, 2016, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/664 "2016-03-24T02:37:20Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > I think you’re imagining I’m trying to make a much more abstract point than I’m making. The answer to your questions is yes. If someone said to me “don’t call me a physicist, call me a non-lawyer,” I would wonder whether they realize that there’s shades of meaning there, and whether they think it’s productive to eradicate those shades of meaning, if sometimes I personally found it important to indicate information about people pertaining to their vocation other than whether they were lawyers. Well, sure. Look, I’m saying that, if the relevant question is “are you a lawyer or a nonlawyer”, then “nonlawyer” is a perfectly good word; and in a discussion where the lawyer-or-nonlawyer question is irrelevant, then “nonlawyer” probably isn’t going to come up… …and I merely note that, when I’ve been in the latter situation, I haven’t typically _needed_ a word that’s not too different from “nonlawyer”; and when I’ve been in the former situation, I’ve of course used “nonlawyer” when it was relevant. > [@](#): > > And yes, your use of the term ‘nonlawyer,’ if you’re going to assert that it’s important and we’re going to have a conversation about which preference makes more sense, should hinge upon whether you realize that physicist implies nonlawyer and also connotes additional, sometimes important, information. In situations where folks treat is-this-person-a-lawyer-or-a-nonlawyer as an important and relevant question, I’d prefer not to reply with “he’s a physicist,” because (a) why imply “nonlawyer” when I can simply be accurate? And (b) why imply “nonlawyer” if he actually _is_ both a lawyer and a physicist? In situations where the relevant and important question is are-you-a-physicist-or-not, sure, I probably wouldn’t wind up using the word “nonlawyer”. I also probably wouldn’t use the word “lawyer”, because it’d also be irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2016, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/665 "2016-03-24T02:38:10Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > That’s…kinda what I was saying? They may not be transgender as the best descriptor either. OK. But you said “cisgender” was “imperfect,” I believe. I’m saying, used correctly, it is an ideal term. Useful, clear, precise, and concise. If both parties in a discussion know what it means, there is no better way to convey that meaning. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2016, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/666 "2016-03-24T02:40:20Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > OK. But you said “cisgender” was “imperfect,” I believe. I’m saying, used correctly, it is an ideal term. Useful, clear, precise, and concise. If both parties in a discussion know what it means, there is no better way to convey that meaning. Yes, used correctly it is an ideal term. I’m just saying that it can be a crutch and marginalize those who are best described as neither cisgender nor transgender. ---
**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:** [March 24, 2016, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/667 "2016-03-24T02:44:16Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > It’s apparently simpler for you to use two prefixes, rather than one, and it’s simpler to refer to someone as a non-surgeon than to say he or she is a lawyer. You know, my university had a professor who had both an MD and a JD; if there’s a surgeon out there who happens to be a lawyer, the fact that you treat “lawyer” as a subset of “non-surgeon” would be problematic. That said – I’d refer to someone as a non-surgeon if the relevant issue was whether that person was a surgeon; I wouldn’t reply that way if you asked whether that person was a lawyer. Please tell me you get that? That you’re being playful, but you of course know that “non-surgeon” and “nonlawyer” are only descriptions that come up when are-you-a-surgeon or are-you-a-lawyer are the distinctions in question? ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2016, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/668 "2016-03-24T02:53:17Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > You know, my university had a professor who had both an MD and a JD; if there’s a surgeon out there who happens to be a lawyer, the fact that you treat “lawyer” as a subset of “non-surgeon” would be problematic. > > That said – I’d refer to someone as a non-surgeon if the relevant issue was whether that person was a surgeon; I wouldn’t reply that way if you asked whether that person was a lawyer. Please tell me you get that? That you’re being playful, but you of course know that “non-surgeon” and “nonlawyer” are only descriptions that come up when are-you-a-surgeon or are-you-a-lawyer are the distinctions in question? Yes, I absolutely get that. Do you that the issue of gender isn’t so binary, in discussion or in real life? If the ONLY question is “is that guy a lawyer (yes/no)” that’s a different thing than “what is your gender identity?” If the word comes up at all, in my experience, it’s part of a fuller definition and not “transgender (yes/no).” I am cisgendered. My perspective will be different than that of someone who is transgendered, agendered, genderrfluid, or intersex person (or anything else on the spectrum that is gender.) If I am offering my perspective, it is as a person whose biological sex matches my gender identity. That is different than just being “not transgendered.” ETA you do get that, right? that in discussion as well as in life, the question of transgender or not-transgender is not the only information that is usually being conveyed, so cisgender is actually really useful if used correctly? ---
**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:** [March 24, 2016, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/669 "2016-03-24T03:06:34Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > Yes, I absolutely get that. Do you that the issue of gender isn’t so binary, in discussion or in real life? If the ONLY question is “is that guy a lawyer (yes/no)” that’s a different thing than “what is your gender identity?” If the word comes up at all, in my experience, it’s part of a fuller definition and not “transgender (yes/no).” I’ve never yet been in a non-hypothetical situation that called for greater detail than asking “is this person transgender (yes/no).” Again, if I’m ever in a situation where someone wants a greater level of detail than “transgender or non-transgender”, I’ll reluctantly go along with it – again, like someone who prefers “black” but realizes we in fact need to specify “African-American” just this once – but, again, to the best of my recollection, no, that hasn’t really come up yet. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2016, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/670 "2016-03-24T03:11:18Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’ve never yet been in a non-hypothetical situation that called for greater detail than asking “is this person transgender (yes/no).” Again, if I’m ever in a situation where someone wants a greater level of detail than “transgender or non-transgender”, I’ll reluctantly go along with it – again, like someone who prefers “black” but realizes we in fact need to specify “African-American” just this once – but, again, to the best of my recollection, no, that hasn’t really come up yet. Would you also refer to someone who is straight as being “non-homosexual”? Do you think that the term adequately conveys what you want it to? Most of the time I have encountered the word it has been as SELF identification - in that I want to convey specifically that my biological sex and gender identity are not in conflict. I have NEVER been in a situation where I was asked to identify as transgender or non-transgender. The whole thread started with “don’t call me cisgender!” Well, that’s what i am, go ahead and call me that. I have also never been a situation where I was asked to identify someone ELSE as “transgender or not transgender.” It has been volunteered to me, but I have never been asked to specify someone else’s gender identity. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2016, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/671 "2016-03-24T03:18:23Z")
This is all a pretty hypothetical discussion. These aren’t words that get used very often. Waldo, i have no beef with you. You have a preferred descriptor, I’ll try to use it for you. ---
**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:** [March 24, 2016, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/672 "2016-03-24T03:19:30Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > Would you also refer to someone who is straight as being “non-homosexual”? If they told me that’s what they’d prefer. > [@](#): > > Do you think that the term adequately conveys what you want it to? Well, if you for some reason asked a guy _“are you homosexual?”_ and drew the reply, “no, I’m not” – then, yeah, I guess he’d have conveyed an adequate response to your question, just as he would’ve if he’d replied “no, I’m straight.” If that’s what you want to ask him, I’d say his answer suffices. > [@](#): > > Most of the time I have encountered the word it has been as SELF identification - in that I want to convey specifically that my biological sex and gender identity are not in conflict. I have NEVER been in a situation where I was asked to identify as transgender or non-transgender. The whole thread started with “don’t call me cisgender!” Well, that’s what i am, go ahead and call me that. Uh, okay. And if someone else says “don’t call me cisgender”, I won’t. ---
**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:** [March 24, 2016, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/673 "2016-03-24T03:20:53Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > This is all a pretty hypothetical discussion. These aren’t words that get used very often. > > Waldo, i have no beef with you. You have a preferred descriptor, I’ll try to use it for you. Much obliged. And right back atcha. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2016, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/674 "2016-03-24T03:27:18Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > This is all a pretty hypothetical discussion. These aren’t words that get used very often. > > Waldo, i have no beef with you. You have a preferred descriptor, I’ll try to use it for you. I will echo this Waldo. I may be coming across as antagonistic, but if you don’t want to be called that, I will try to remember that. ---
**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:** [March 24, 2016, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/675 "2016-03-24T04:03:21Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > I will echo this Waldo. I may be coming across as antagonistic, but if you don’t want to be called that, I will try to remember that. Well, shucks, I sure don’t want to seem antagonistic either; you’re aces in my book. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2016, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/676 "2016-03-24T04:39:04Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, shucks, I sure don’t want to seem antagonistic either; you’re aces in my book. Awesome - I don’t think I have ever been aces in anyone’s book. Now I feel all warm and fuzzy:D ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2016, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/677 "2016-03-24T05:22:58Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Well to describe people with my orientation, “sex god” would do just fine. Make it so! :dubious: This is perhaps not the best way to persuade people that objections to the perfectly cromulent and non-pejorative term “cisgender” are founded on anything more than frivolous obstructionism. But having noted that you personally don’t like the term “cisgender” for whatever reason, I’ll do my best to remember not to call you that. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2016, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/678 "2016-03-24T09:19:35Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > It still means that extra effort should be made to NOT invisibilize or marginalize those who are not, and to be conscientious of how our actions and expressions impact all, but that applies to everyone in every case! I’m not sure I completely agree, to be honest. I don’t think people should be expected to go out of their way to specially acknowledge or accommodate a statistically insignificant minority (Note the use of the word _statistically_ there. It’s very important) that in a general setting they are unlikely to be interacting with. As I said before, the number of transgender people I’ve met in my life numbers less than a dozen. If I’m addressing a crowd of people and begin with “Ladies and Gentlemen…” then I respectfully suggest the onus is on the perhaps literally one person in that room doesn’t identify as male or female (and stastically, there won’t be anyone in that room who doesn’t) to understand no offence was intended by not saying “and those of no fixed gender” as well. Unless I was adressing an audience at an LGBT+ event or something like that, obviously. Context is important. Let me be absolutely and unequivocally clear: I do not think there is anything wrong at all with being homosexual or transgender. > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > So you seem to be best by hordes of as you describe them “social justice warriors,” who have somehow soured you on the word. And all of them must be transgender too, or else they’re Self-Hating Cisgender Social Justice Warriors. > > Oddly, in the real world I work in with my community, my experience is pretty much the opposite. Among the people who will say to my face they don’t like the term “cisgender,” 100% of them have been anti-transgender people who were looking for some wedge issue. I’m not saying this has any bearing on yourself; just that the people who tend to feel most strongly about it in the public fora where I debate and lecture tend to be the one who are also campaigning actively against me and my people. I work in the communications field. There’s a lot of socially progressive people there who like being offended on behalf of other people. Often other people they don’t know or have anything meaningful to do with, IMO. > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > I stand by what I said in response to **Martini** , and it is **not** a comment on his opinions per se. In the real world, the only people who I meet who are bothered or “upset” about the term cisgender are the same people who are standing up and proposing or supporting legislation, policies, guidelines, or practices to discriminate against and further marginalize people like myself. I live in the real world. I am bothered by the term “Cisgender”. I’m not religious. I am not anti-transgender. I am not anti-homosexual. I don’t condone the deliberate oppression of transgender and/or homosexual people. But at the same time, I’m not going to go around constantly second guessing myself in case I offend someone by omission or having an outlook that isn’t considered progressive enough by people on the social justice spectrum. If someone is transgender and wants me to refer to them as a whatever gender they identify as, then that’s fine and I’m happy to oblige. If they want to use the restroom which matches their self-identified gender - again fine. I can’t see why that would be an issue for anyone, to be honest. Ditto wanting to dress as a member of their self-identified gender, and basically live their life as whatever gender makes them happy. What I don’t like is the way the whole thing has been politicised. If someone is transgender, then that’s their thing. Let them live their life and be happy. I’m sorry there are so many fuckwits out there who use a two-millenia old book to justify being deliberately and actively shitty to them. > [@](#): > > As of this year I’m now a paid researcher in the field of transgender studies, professionally this word works very well to simply replace “non-transgender.” I try to avoid it in casual conversation and among mixed audiences, but really when you are lecturing and teaching and giving testimony on the subject of transgender, it’s just a very convenient and useful word. In an academic context the word is fine - it has a legitimate, recognised and sometimes necessary use. In a general context, however, the only time I’ve heard the word used is by people going about “white, cisgender heteronormative privilege” and similar stuff. Which is why I don’t like it. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2016, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/679 "2016-03-24T12:00:04Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > …I work in the communications field. There’s a lot of socially progressive people there who like being offended on behalf of other people. Often other people they don’t know or have anything meaningful to do with, IMO. > … > In an academic context the word is fine - it has a legitimate, recognised and sometimes necessary use. In a general context, however, the only time I’ve heard the word used is by people going about “white, cisgender heteronormative privilege” and similar stuff. Which is why I don’t like it. Thank you, i understand where you are coming from, now. I think it is unfortunate, because “cis” is a useful, convenient word. I come from a technical field, and while sometimes someone will edit a memo to remove the implication that the person referenced is a guy, that’s about as much “offense on behalf of others” as i normally run into. In my personal life, i hang out with enough trans people that the topic comes up, however. And in that context, typically no one is offended, no one is looking for trouble, and many in the room want an easy tag for those of us whose gender and biology match comfortably enough. “Cis” does the job. It is usually used in the context of describing an “ally”. It might be used to describe the events at a trans convention that are targeted at the cis partners of trans people, many of whom attend. It’s still not a word that comes up that often. After all, it’s the default, you don’t usually have to say anything. But it’s a useful word, and one i am comfortable with to describe me. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2016, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/680 "2016-03-24T12:49:08Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > In a general context, however, the only time I’ve heard the word used is by people going about “white, cisgender heteronormative privilege” and similar stuff. Which is why I don’t like it. Do you deny that you are thusly privileged, or you just don’t want to talk about it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903.md?page=33) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903.md?page=35)