"Don't call me 'cisgender'!"

[Kimstu]

@Czarcasm

Permission to use this as my sig?

Freely granted.

[Czarcasm]

@Kimstu

Freely granted.

Thank you.

[brickbacon]

@Cyros

There must be a misunderstanding somewhere. I can’t imagine why people are so upset by a word that is the functional equivalent of sighted or hearing.

People are split into categories when speaking of ability to see, blind and sighted.
People are split into categories when speaking of ability to hear, deaf and hearing.
People are split into categories when speaking of gender, transgender and cisgender.

But it’s not the same equivalent. To quote this article:

Of course, there’s more at stake in the viability of “cisgender” than mere words. “Cisgender” suggests a commonality among transgender and non-transgender people, at a time when transgender people are struggling for recognition. It tells us that we all experience some kind of relationship between our bodies and our selves, whatever that relationship may be. And it reminds us that those who experience a “match” between their body and their selves have it a lot easier in our society than those who do not. To the extent that “cisgender” helps raise awareness of intolerance and injustice towards transgender people, it serves a crucial political purpose right now. Potentially, “cisgender” could help build consensus on transgender rights.

Now, my problem is not so in agreeing trans-people deserve rights and respect, but that we need to modify our language to be raise awareness of how lucky we are to be born in the 99.7% of people. That’s not really luck, and we could literally spend forever pointing out how lucky we are to not be afflicted with some illness or condition. Not to mention you get groups championing phrases like, “die cis scum”.

Further, the word is clearly being sold with a political agenda. I actually agree with the aims of the political agenda for the most part, but I don’t think using language that is both unclear and academic is necessary or helpful. For example, as the article points out, does the term cisgender include people born intersexed who think they are intersex? In general though, it’s annoying that a simple question like gender gets bogged down by politics that seek to redefine the question to include whether you think your genitalia match whatever answer you want to give. To me, it’s like if a question about age had to reflect that you don’t have some aging disease like progeria that would render your age in years less important. Should respond to such a question stating how I an X number of non-progeria accelerated years?

This constant self-flagellation doesn’t have to creep into aspects of life that have nothing to do with the rare afflictions any one person might have, nor should it mandate we change the language in an imprecise and antiseptic manner in order to be deferential to their struggle. Should we bring back monosexual to indicated people that are not bisexual or polysexual? And look, surprise surprise, there is a monosexual privilege checklist too! At a certain point, this sort of stuff needs to be reevaluated.

[TommyzNR]

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, with the additional wrinkle being valid concerns that the transgenderism may be temporary and convenient, i.e. someone who would otherwise self-identify as cismale deciding to self-identify as transwoman for the duration of a single sporting event, which may require a standard other than the individual’s preference if “womens’ sport” is to maintain any meaning.

I was all-in on cis until this post. What the heck did you just say?

[Kimstu]

@brickbacon

Now, my problem is not so in agreeing trans-people deserve rights and respect, but that we need to modify our language to be raise awareness of how lucky we are to be born in the 99.7% of people. That’s not really luck, and we could literally spend forever pointing out how lucky we are to not be afflicted with some illness or condition.

As I noted before, a very high percentage of people are not born blind, yet most folks don’t seem to have a problem with the existence of the term “sighted” to describe that very large majority.

Again, if you don’t like the sorts of very specific discussions where such technical terms are used to describe very large majorities of people as distinct from very small minorities, ISTM that you could just stay out of those discussions.

In short: nobody’s suggesting that there’s any reason for you to use the word “cisgender” when you’re not actually talking about gender identity.

If you do choose to talk about gender identity, though, “cisgender” is a fairly standard technical term in that context. So scolding other people for using it in that context would be both fruitless and presumptuous.

[Kimstu]

@TommyzNR

I was all-in on cis until this post. What the heck did you just say?

IAN Bryan Ekers and cannot speak for him, but I think he was referencing the concurrent thread about transgendered athletes competing against cisgendered ones in sports.

My interpretation of what he said would be, “Yes, we can agree to call people by the gender-identity terms they prefer to use for themselves. Except in a situation where somebody might be disingenuously claiming a different gender identity for a short-term specific advantage. In that case, we might not just take their unsupported word on it.”

[Nelson_Pike]

@Kimstu

“Man” in the sense of “human person”, not in the sense of “male human person as opposed to female human person”.

Yes, Latin “homo” is frequently used and translated to refer to a human person who happens to be male. But when specifically referring to a human male as distinguished from a human female, the correct word is “vir”, not “homo”.

There do exist other words that mean what you mistakenly thought “homosexual” meant, i.e., “attracted to males” in particular: e.g., “virisexual” or “androsexual” (from Greek “andros”, “male human, man”).

This is undercut by the fact that the original Greek word, upon which the latin translation was based, is “anthropos” (cite)

@cite

Whenever a particular person is introduced as an anthropos, that person is invariably male. If the person is female, the word gyne “woman” is used instead. In this respect then, the word anthropos has the same range of meaning as the English word “man,” which can be used in a gender-neutral inclusive sense, or as the ordinary word for “male human being,” and, like anthropos, it is never used in reference to an individual woman.

@Kimstu

Likewise, some people use “femisexual” or “gynosexual” to mean “attracted to females”.

Maybe some WF Buckley type in his prime. You know, one of those who have a compulsion to trumpet their superiority over you and me every chance they get. Excuse me! To me only. No one who knows you would dare take on superior airs.

[marshmallow]

Cis is fine. It was coined in the '90s AFAIK and is incredibly widespread and understood. So good luck changing it.

[Kimstu]

@Nelson Pike

Maybe some WF Buckley type in his prime. You know, one of those who have a compulsion to trumpet their superiority over you and me every chance they get. Excuse me! To me only. No one who knows you would dare take on superior airs.

You completely lost me here. What on earth are you talking about?

[OwnRules]

@TommyzNR

I was all-in on cis until this post. What the heck did you just say?

He’d like to be known as a Cisdude.

I can relate.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Kimstu

IAN Bryan Ekers and cannot speak for him, but I think he was referencing the concurrent thread about transgendered athletes competing against cisgendered ones in sports.

My interpretation of what he said would be, “Yes, we can agree to call people by the gender-identity terms they prefer to use for themselves. Except in a situation where somebody might be disingenuously claiming a different gender identity for a short-term specific advantage. In that case, we might not just take their unsupported word on it.”

Yes, this is an accurate summary of what I was going for, and it was indeed inspired by the ongoing transgenderism-in-sport thread. I’m okay with whatever arbitrary label one wants to use, as long as the label doesn’t grant an advantage not otherwise deserved.

[marshmallow]

No one tell them about MAAB / FAAB.

[JR_Brown]

@Nelson_Pike

Hotshot in a white lab coat you are, huh?

Why yes, thank you for noticing.

@Nelson_Pike

What percentage of the population do you think gets to the stage where it could be expected to encounter “cis” often enough to remember it? I will go with about 1% but even 10% would make the term a needlessly obscure one to employ in our context when there are terms available which 90% would understand.

The post you quote was responding to someone who was of the opinion that using “cis” as the opposite of “trans” was based on some super-obscure knowledge of Latin that no-one except “a few people with wide interests in historical topics” would recognize. When in fact cis is used as the opposite of trans in widely-known contexts in which many educated people, and in particular those with medical or psychiatric degrees, would be expected to become familiar with them.

@Nelson_Pike

As for me personally, I do not recall encountering “cis” in HS physics, chemistry and biology or college geology and zoology, and I not only paid attention in those courses, I worked my ass off (had to to pass). And that was at a private HS and a flagship state university where truly rigorous academic standards were enforced.

I have no idea if cis/trans is used in geology. But if you didn’t encounter them in chemistry or biology, either you missed a couple of lectures or your courses didn’t cover chemical structure or genetics, respectively. Which are topics I would expect a reasonably good high school to cover.

@Nelson_Pike

Maybe some WF Buckley type in his prime. You know, one of those who have a compulsion to trumpet their superiority over you and me every chance they get. Excuse me! To me only. No one who knows you would dare take on superior airs.

Actually, some researchers investigating the biological origins of sexual attraction classify sexual orientation as gynephilia (attraction to women) and androphilia (attraction to men) rather than gay/straight, on the grounds that the former system seems to more closely match the way attraction is programmed biologically.

[DrDeth]

@The_Joker_and_the_Thief

Yes, it’s a pretty ugly word, because the the cis– prefix is obscure and the medical condition known as a cyst is revolting, widely-known and a near homophone. For better or worse, the word is intrinsically associated with something considered bad.

More importantly, the word was essentially created by the transsexual community to describe people who weren’t part of it. A group should have the authority to determine what they want to be called. I understand that cisgender serves a valuable purpose as a word, and I’ve probably used it a couple times myself. But this is English, the language seemingly without rules, and we can surely come up with a less-loaded term.

Yes, and the fact that it’s used as a bigoted pejorative means it should be banned on the SDMB.

Google

[DrDeth]

@Miller

As a descriptivist, the term “cisgender” is chiefly useful in that, as a newly minted term, it has almost no baggage attached to it.

Umm, didn’t you just say:

@Miller

That’s the thing about language. If people start using a word as a racial slur, it becomes a racial slur, irrespective of its previous meanings or connotations.

“Cis” is loaded with hate and bigoted baggage. Useful or not it’s still hate language now.

Google

Dont get me wrong, I see your point about “Normal”. But since “cis” is now used commonly as a hate/bigot term, it’s not longer acceptable to use it, especially here on the SDMB.

[DrDeth]

@Miller

I think that’s pretty much just your hangup. I’ve never heard this objection to the term from anyone else, including the real fire-breathing bigots.

Right. You know how many of the common terms used to describe gays were invented by straight people?

All of them.

I think this is something you’re just going to need to get over. Or you can try and invent your own term, but if you want it picked up by other people, you’re going to have to start doing a lot of publishing on trans issues, because “cisgender” is already pretty well established in the medical and psychiatric literature.

LGBT

LGBTQ

And- so was “Negroid”- do we use it much now?

[Miller]

Using your logic and research techniques, we should also ban the word Jew.

[Miller]

@DrDeth

LGBT
LGBTQ - Wikipedia

LGBT isn’t a word. It’s an acronym. And it’s an acronym composed entirely of words coined by straight people to describe non-straight people.

[DrDeth]

@Czarcasm

I can see confused, but why offended? It has no historically bad connotations, it wasn’t created as(or used as) a slur-what is offensive about the word?

It is commonly used as one now.

Talk:Cisgender

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/04/10/cissie-and-malcontents/

http://americablog.com/2011/11/dan-savage-glitter-bombed-again.html

Urban Dictionary: cisgender

cisgender
A derogatory term used by members of the trans community to refer to all the disgusting people in this world who don’t hate their genitalia.
Yeah, what did you expect from hetero cisgender shit like that?

Die Cis Scum

Die Cis Scum” is catch phrase used by some members of the transgender community in protest of the oppression they feel by people who identify as cisgendered, or those whose identities match the sex they were assigned at birth. The phrase is a response to the death threats commonly received by members of the transgender community.[8] Additionally, in certain social justice blogging circles, the term cis has become as a negative slur[9] towards those who question or dislike the choices of people who identify with non-standard gender practices.

Will the Word "Cisgender" Ever Go Mainstream?

*It’s clear that some gay men and lesbians see “cisgender” as a slur,… *

[wonky]

It’s funny that so many people are pulling up examples of “we don’t need a word for THAT” where there actually is a word for that. And often, it’s a word I use in my day-to-day work!