# "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:** 7
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/121 "2015-05-01T00:18:26Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Did you also describe how you are presumably not handicapped, blind, deaf, dumb, abnormally tall or short, or autistic? As I said previously, the game industry is particularly sensitive at the moment to gender issues. There’s a lot of concern over treatment of women in the industry. There’s a large trans development community. Gamergate and it’s harassment is still a fresh problem. Anita Sarkeesian has released a number of high-profile videos about representations of women in games. So, _for the audience I happened to be talking to_, “diversity” meant “how do we make the industry more acceptable to people who aren’t straight white guys.” If the game industry had spent the last year having a conversation about how awful it was that guys in wheelchairs were getting harassed at work, I probably WOULD have described myself as “ambulatory”. You guys have weird ideas about how language works. You seem to think that words have some absolute meaning independent of context. ---
**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 1, 2015, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/122 "2015-05-01T00:31:39Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Should there be a word for not schizophrenic, not body dysmorphic, not autistic, or not hemophilic? Neurotypical is a common term for people not suffering from a neurological disorder. Do you object to the existence of that term, as well? > [@](#): > > Further, I never said there was never a use for such a word, but rather that it is PC jargon that is annoying to people because it’s presumptuous not very useful IMO. You just contradicted yourself. Is there a use for the word, or not? Oh, wait, I see that there is: > [@](#): > > And TPTB want to deny cisgendered people the exclusive use of male and female as gender descriptors for better or worse. See how much easier that sentence was to write with the word “cisgendered?” Try to write it again without that word, while retaining the same meaning. Not impossible, obviously, but certainly less succinct. > [@](#): > > And you should get that the same applies to you. Very confused, here. Where have I said that something was useless in this thread? > [@](#): > > This is both false, and wrong given “White” didn’t really mean the same thing. Even if you use a modern defintion, it’s also false relative to the .3% we are talking about. Both false _and_ wrong? Geez, guess I really screwed that up. Mind explaining how? I don’t understand what “white didn’t really mean the same thing,” means. Also, what’s the cut-off point where it’s suddenly appropriate to identify groups with adjectives? ~10% seems a pretty low percentage to me. > [@](#): > > Aside from the irony that such a thing basically happened, the analogy is really flawed as I already explained. Right, I know. Kind of my point - that’s the sort of thinking we should be moving away from as a society. I’m not sure why you’re advocating it here. > [@](#): > > I disagree. Okay. You’re objectively wrong. > [@](#): > > Because your side keeps arguing that this language is used in limited areas where specificity is needed and it’s not foisted on people who have no interest in or understanding of the issue. My example shows that is not the case. How so? No one is forced to use any gender identity on Facebook that they don’t want to use. How is that “foisting” it on anybody? Is this one of those things where it’s somehow insulting to the majority of people to be reminded that a minority even exists? Like when two guys holding hands in public is “forcing” their sexuality on everyone else? > [@](#): > > No, it’s not at all. Holy shit, did you genuinely not recognize that as a joke? ---
**Author:** ![Small\_Hen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ad7895/32.png) [@Small\_Hen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Small_Hen)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/123 "2015-05-01T00:39:10Z")
> [@Nelson\_Pike](#): > > Heterosexual > Homosexual > Transsexual > > ERGO > > Heterogender(ed) > Homogender(ed) > Transgender(ed) Hetero and Homo as prefixes refer to situations involving parrings or groupings. Scientifically, Hetero means "things which are paired or grouped with things unlike themselves (e.g.: Male and Female), where as Homo means "things which are paired or grouped with things like themselves (e.g.: Female and Female). So I’m not sure how that would work with gender. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/124 "2015-05-01T00:41:54Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Should there be a word for not schizophrenic, not body dysmorphic, not autistic, or not hemophilic? Well, such parallel descriptors don’t tend to get coined so readily just to express the absence of actual **illnesses** or **deficiencies**. Schizophrenia is generally perceived not merely as a neutral/normal/acceptable alternative to not having schizophrenia, so we don’t use a parallel “this or that” categorization to talk about it. **But being homosexual, or being left-handed, or even being deaf, etc., is widely understood as a neutral/normal/acceptable alternative to the corresponding majority status.** So we have parallel descriptors like “homosexual or heterosexual”, “left-handed or right-handed”, “deaf or hearing”, etc., instead of “homosexual or normal”, “left-handed or normal”, “deaf or normal”, etc. **And the whole point of our culture’s recently developed trans awareness is the recognition that transgender is also a neutral/normal/acceptable alternative to the majority status.** So we don’t say “transgender or normal”, we say “transgender or cisgender”. Simple as that. > [@brickbacon](#): > > And TPTB want to deny cisgendered people the exclusive use of male and female as gender descriptors for better or worse. 😕 wut?? You mean, TPTB (whoever TPTB are) are trying to force cisgendered people to specify their cis status in situations where it’s not relevant? Well, as I said to **manson1972** , that’s definitely not appropriate. But that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with talking about trans/cis gender identity in situations where it **is** relevant. > [@brickbacon](#): > > And yes, many people do use it disrespectfully. I don’t think they make up the majority by an means, but it does happen. I don’t understand this at all. How would one even be able to use the term “cisgender” disrespectfully? Are there transgender people going around calling cisgender people “cissies” in imitation of the disrespectful term “tranny”, or what? I need an example here. > [@brickbacon](#): > > If the term “neurotypical” caught on, I would think it was just as stupid and useless. [Brace yourself](http://www.salon.com/2013/07/29/are_any_of_us_really_neurotypical/); it’s definitely catching on. (And indeed, I think it’s quite useful when people talking about autism spectrum and similar developmental issues need a term to specify “not on the autism spectrum”.) > [@brickbacon](#): > > But it’s not just rare occasions. That is the issue. If these terms were relegated to academic papers and trans fora, I don’t think anyone would care. Aren’t they? Except for discussions on messageboards and elsewhere specifically about gender-identity issues, I literally never see the word “cisgender”. Airline booking forms don’t ask me whether I’m transgender or cisgender. Tampon boxes aren’t marketed “For the Cisgender Woman Who Wants Sports-Level Protection”. Maybe I’m just woefully out of touch, but I really don’t see the words “transgender” and “cisgender” used irrelevantly. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/125 "2015-05-01T00:50:20Z")
Myself, I’m with **Una** – it is context-dependent and if specifically identifying trans- v. non-trans- is not _relevant to what I’m speaking/writing about_ then there is no imperative need for the “cis” prefix to be called up and shoehorned into the discourse. There is no need for my biography to start with “JRDelirious (1961- ), is a cis-het male born in…”. But when it \*does \*help to get your point across (e.g. _“trans women have been disappointed by the lack of solidarity and even hostility by a segment of cisgender women…”_), it’s a very fine and useful construction. Oh, and “neurotypical”? I’m all for it! Just look at it: it merely says these are the people who are “typical” of the overall population. No implications of “normality/abnormality” involved. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/126 "2015-05-01T00:57:37Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I simply object to someone telling me “From now on, we are going to call you cisgendered, regardless of how you feel about it. And by the way, unless you are 100% on board with this proclamation, you are transphobic” But is anyone doing that? Is anyone doing anything even close to that? ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/127 "2015-05-01T01:05:54Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I suspect it is being dangled out there by some in order to manufacture an opportunity to cry “bigot” when others object. I say bullshit to that. If you call transgender people abnormal, or if you distinguish trans women from real women, you actually expressing a bigoted viewpoint. “Bigot” often means something different from “person I don’t like.” > [@](#): > > I think everyone gets to define common terms for their own group. To have them imposed is simply offensive. You can claim neutrality for the word all you want but if the group being labelled doesn’t like it, tough shit. Find another or risk looking like a dick when you insist on using it when it is not welcome. That is a simple common courtesy I rather hope we can extend to everyone. How about “common”? If, as people have been heard to claim, the word “normal” is being used in a strictly numerical sense, “common” is no better or worse. > [@Slash1972](#): > > I’m not sure having a discussion on a message board is considered a “big stink” I simply object to someone telling me “From now on, we are going to call you cisgendered, regardless of how you feel about it. And by the way, unless you are 100% on board with this proclamation, you are transphobic” I’m not going to call you that “from now on.” I’m not likely to call you that personally, individually, at all. I am going to continue to use “cisgender” to refer to people who are not transgender in contexts in which that attribute is pertinent. “Transphobic,” by analogy to “homophobic” (and likewise straying a bit from the strict etymological meaning) means considering trans people as lesser, or treating them as such. For example referrig to them as “abnormal” or “unnatural.” > [@Small\_Hen](#): > > Non-trans people, if not cisgendered, what would you like to be called? … bearing in mind that your answer is followed by a tacit “which trans people are not.” So if you want to say that trans people are not normal, or natural, or real, I suppose I can’t stop you, but at least own it. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/128 "2015-05-01T01:14:34Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Neurotypical is a common term for people not suffering from a neurological disorder. Do you object to the existence of that term, as well? Do you actually read the posts? Yes, I would object if the term became common as I think it’s stupid. > [@Miller](#): > > You just contradicted yourself. Is there a use for the word, or not? > > Oh, wait, I see that there is: Try reading for comprehension. Obviously, given we are discussing the word, I am going to use it. Further, I have never said the word wasn’t useful in very strict contexts. > [@Miller](#): > > See how much easier that sentence was to write with the word “cisgendered?” Try to write it again without that word, while retaining the same meaning. Not impossible, obviously, but certainly less succinct. Cisgender and Non-transgender are about the same length. Further, far more people would now what the latter means. > [@Miller](#): > > Very confused, here. Where have I said that something was useless in this thread? You said my person feelings in usefulness do not imply something is or isn’t generally useful, and I responded that you personal feelings don’t either. > [@Miller](#): > > Mind explaining how? I don’t understand what “white didn’t really mean the same thing,” means. Whiteness is a relatively recent [term](http://www.amazon.com/Working-Toward-Whiteness-Americas-Immigrants/dp/0465070744/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y) used to be inclusive of all European immigrants. > [@Miller](#): > > Also, what’s the cut-off point where it’s suddenly appropriate to identify groups with adjectives? ~10% seems a pretty low percentage to me. More than a fraction of a percent I would think. > [@Miller](#): > > Okay. You’re objectively wrong. Okay, YOU’RE objectively wrong. See how easy that was. > [@Miller](#): > > How so? No one is forced to use any gender identity on Facebook that they don’t want to use. How is that “foisting” it on anybody? Because you are redefining a term that works the vast majority of the time for dubious reasons. > [@Miller](#): > > Holy shit, did you genuinely not recognize that as a joke? Yes, I saw the comment after. My point was that rather than answer the question, you dodged by making a lame joke. Do you think such a restaurant menu procedure would make sense, or would it just be an annoyance to most people? > [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, such parallel descriptors don’t tend to get coined so readily just to express the absence of actual **illnesses** or **deficiencies**. Schizophrenia is generally perceived not merely as a neutral/normal/acceptable alternative to not having schizophrenia, so we don’t use a parallel “this or that” categorization to talk about it. How is an illness like Schizophrenia not “neutral”? Regardless, no one feels the need to state how they are not suffering from an illness like one of the above, so why must you do that for being trans? Further, it’s a hard sell to say being trans is a neutral/normal thing given it’s rarity and the steps needed to transition or take corrective procedures. > [@Kimstu](#): > > **And the whole point of our culture’s recently developed trans awareness is the recognition that transgender is also a neutral/normal/acceptable alternative to the majority status.** So we don’t say “transgender or normal”, we say “transgender or cisgender”. Just to piggyback on a recent thread here, is having body integrity disorder normal in your opinion? > [@Kimstu](#): > > 😕 wut?? You mean, TPTB (whoever TPTB are) are trying to force cisgendered people to specify their cis status in situations where it’s not relevant? I think when a gender box Facebook example is apt here. If we are still operating under the premise that there are two genders (male and female), then being trans has nothing to do with the question, and is largely irrelevant. The intent of the question typically isn’t to probe into whether you think your genitals match your soul or body. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, as I said to **manson1972** , that’s definitely not appropriate. But that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with talking about trans/cis gender identity in situations where it **is** relevant. I agree. I just think the times it is relevant are sparser than you think. > [@Kimstu](#): > > I don’t understand this at all. How would one even be able to use the term “cisgender” disrespectfully? Are there transgender people going around calling cisgender people “cissies” in imitation of the disrespectful term “tranny”, or what? I need an example here. I think the disrespect largely revolves around the idea that not being transgender confers privilege in the way being rich or White does. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Aren’t they? Except for discussions on messageboards and elsewhere specifically about gender-identity issues, I literally never see the word “cisgender”. [Here](http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/09/cisgenders-linguistic-uphill-battle/380342/): > [@](#): > > For a while, “cisgender” only appeared in academic journals. But now it’s all over the Internet, and not just on blogs and sites of, by, and for transgender people. It’s made it into online reference works like the Oxford Dictionaries. And since “cisgender” is one of the 56 options for gender identification on Facebook (along with “cis female,” “cis male,” "cis woman, “cis man,” “cisgender woman,” “cisgender man,” and just plain “cis”), it has already achieved a kind of pop officialdom. > > Even more auspiciously, Stephen Colbert referred to “cis-language” in a recent episode of The Colbert Report. On June 17, in a segment of the show called “The Word,” the comedian announced that his racial identity is “ciswhite” because, as he put it, “I’ve always been comfortable with my birth-race.” Colbert’s announcement should be a big deal as far as disseminating “cis” goes. So, no, I don’t hear it everyday, but it’s creeping usage is an annoyance to me right along side neurotypical I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Small\_Hen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ad7895/32.png) [@Small\_Hen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Small_Hen)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/129 "2015-05-01T01:19:20Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > [QUOTE=Small Hen] > Non-trans people, if not cisgendered, what would you like to be called? … bearing in mind that your answer is followed by a tacit “which trans people are not.” So if you want to say that trans people are not normal, or natural, or real, I suppose I can’t stop you, but at least own it. [/QUOTE] Thank you, that was a nice addendum, you said that much clearer than I. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/130 "2015-05-01T01:30:27Z")
> [@Small\_Hen](#): > > Thank you, that was a nice addendum, you said that much clearer than I. Why are you attaching a value judgement to the term “normal”? Do you contend there is no human behavior, orientation, characteristic, or state that is normal? Is having 10 fingers normal? Are non-conjoined twins normal? Is having 46 chromosomes normal? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/131 "2015-05-01T01:48:20Z")
> [@Small\_Hen](#): > > Wow, did not know that offense to this was a thing. Cisgender makes total sense to me - we needed a word that was the opposite of Transgendered. Why? We do not need a word for every frickin’ thing that you can be the opposite of. I’m male. If you’re a transgendered male, then you can call yourself that. What if I don’t have a shoe fetish? Do we need a term for people who are the opposite of those who have a shoe fetish? Language has a funny way of working these things out naturally. If there are enough transgendered people around, then a term for not transgendered will make its way into the vernacular. If there aren’t that many, then it’s probably not going to happen that there will be a word to describe what 99.99% of the population is. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/132 "2015-05-01T01:49:05Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Just to piggyback on a recent thread here, is having body integrity disorder normal in your opinion? I’m not qualified to have an informed opinion on that issue; my uninformed opinion is that it doesn’t seem to be. But if research and medical assessment ends up determining that bodily integrity identity disorder **is** a normal and acceptable though rare variant of the human psyche, I won’t have any problem with somebody coining a new term like “bodily-integrated” or whatever to designate people who don’t have it. > [@brickbacon](#): > > I think when a gender box Facebook example is apt here. If we are still operating under the premise that there are two genders (male and female), then being trans has nothing to do with the question, and is largely irrelevant. I am an old and don’t have much truck with Facebook, so I have no direct experience with this, but it’s my understanding that Facebook lets you define your own gender identity as you wish, or you can just leave it blank. So I don’t see how anybody is being forced to assume a gender identity that they don’t want. > [@brickbacon](#): > > I think the disrespect largely revolves around the idea that not being transgender confers privilege in the way being rich or White does. 😕 Speaking as a white cisgender person myself, I think it’s pretty self-evident that not being transgender **does** confer privilege in the way being white does. (Rich is a somewhat different issue, because being wealthier than most other people is objectively advantageous in many ways, not just a socially constructed privilege.) The core of “white privilege” is that in historically-and-majority-white cultures, being white is what’s seen as the normal, default identity: white people are assumed to be the ones who automatically “belong” in that culture. And yes, that constitutes to some extent a privileged status compared to the status of non-white people. Similarly, in strongly gender-binary cultures, cisgender people are seen as the normal, default, “belonging” ones. Historically, transgender people in such cultures are perceived as not only less representative but as downright abnormal/deformed/delusional/unnatural. How can we not acknowledge that being the type of person who’s automatically accepted as “normal” in such a culture means we’re privileged vis-a-vis the “not normal” people? > [@brickbacon](#): > > So, no, I don’t hear it everyday, but it’s creeping usage is an annoyance to me right along side neurotypical I guess. Welp, okay, I promise not to call you “cisgender” except in situations where we’re actually discussing your gender identity. And in fact, I rather doubt that anyone in the world **is** calling you “cisgender” except in situations where you’re actually discussing your gender identity. So why do you find it annoying that other people are voluntarily choosing to reveal more about **their** gender identity? No skin off your nose, I’d have thought. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/133 "2015-05-01T01:56:50Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > . . . , or people who had been raised from the dead. Zombies? ---
**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 1, 2015, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/134 "2015-05-01T02:03:53Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > And TPTB want to deny cisgendered people the exclusive use of male and female as gender descriptors for better or worse. Yes. Yes they do. They want equal rights to the words male and female and men and women, which means the rest of us are going to have to give up our exclusive claim to those words. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Why? We do not need a word for every frickin’ thing that you can be the opposite of. I’m male. If you’re a transgendered male, then you can call yourself that. You are male. A trans man is also male. If you want to specify that you are a man who is not trans, you don’t get to just say “male”. How does it hurt you to have a word that means “not transgendered”? ---
**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 1, 2015, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/135 "2015-05-01T02:04:33Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Why? We do not need a word for every frickin’ thing that you can be the opposite of. I’m male. If you’re a transgendered male, then you can call yourself that. What if I don’t have a shoe fetish? Do we need a term for people who are the opposite of those who have a shoe fetish? You mean retrofism? Old news, bub. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/136 "2015-05-01T02:04:52Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Why? We do not need a word for every frickin’ thing that you can be the opposite of. No, but when such a word actually gets coined and becomes widely used, that generally indicates that many people find it useful. Being on Team Neology and all, I’m a bit sad that the coinage and dissemination of new words seems to irritate people so much. I thought we were having such fun ☹ Anyway, it’s not like we’re stuck keeping the new words around forever and looking after them if it turns out we don’t need them after all. They’ll just die a natural death and decompose back into phonemes to nourish the rest of language. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/137 "2015-05-01T02:12:23Z")
> [@JR\_Brown](#): > > You are male. A trans man is also male. If you want to specify that you are a man who is not trans, you don’t get to just say “male”. How does it hurt you to have a word that means “not transgendered”? Yeah, this is starting to remind me a bit of the debate over the term “same-sex marriage”. Same-sex married couples are married. Transgendered males are male. It would be silly to insist that same-sex spouses are “same-sex-married” instead of just “married”. Likewise, it would be silly to say that transmen have to be called “transgendered-male” instead of just “male”. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/138 "2015-05-01T02:16:41Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I’m not qualified to have an informed opinion on that issue; my uninformed opinion is that it doesn’t seem to be. But if research and medical assessment ends up determining that bodily integrity identity disorder **is** a normal and acceptable though rare variant of the human psyche, I won’t have any problem with somebody coining a new term like “bodily-integrated” or whatever to designate people who don’t have it. And given that the more we know about the human psyche, the more we normalize rare variants, don’t you think this process is going to become a bit cumbersome and unnecessary? > [@Kimstu](#): > > 😕 Speaking as a white cisgender person myself, I think it’s pretty self-evident that not being transgender **does** confer privilege in the way being white does. Is the concept of privilege useful if it describes 99%+ of people? Does it make sense to argue I have privilege because I wasn’t born as a conjoined twin, or tay-sachs? Yes, I am more fortunate to have been born relatively healthy, but the idea of privilege is more than just not having a terrible disease. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Similarly, in strongly gender-binary cultures, cisgender people are seen as the normal, default, “belonging” ones. That’s because it is normal. > [@Kimstu](#): > > How can we not acknowledge that being the type of person who’s automatically accepted as “normal” in such a culture means we’re privileged vis-a-vis the “not normal” people? See above. Such a definition is too broad to be meaningful given the near infinite number of ways one can be disadvantaged. > [@Kimstu](#): > > So why do you find it annoying that other people are voluntarily choosing to reveal more about **their** gender identity? No skin off your nose, I’d have thought. Because the expectation is that others must use the same language. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/139 "2015-05-01T02:18:53Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Why are you attaching a value judgement to the term “normal”? Here we go. Two of the first three definitions in [Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal) have a value judgement (the first doesn’t apply here). The first two definitions in [Witionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/normal) incorporate value judgements. I have a feeling if I looked at the last 20 times you used the word “normal” outside this thread, very few of them would be in the statistical sense. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2015, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903/140 "2015-05-01T02:28:11Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > Here we go. > > Two of the first three definitions in [Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal) have a value judgement (the first doesn’t apply here). Bullshit. Here are the full definitions: 1. perpendicular; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency 2a. according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle 2b. conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern 2. occurring naturally Where is the value judgment in any of those things? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-call-me-cisgender/718903.md?page=8)