My problem with cisgender is the same that many people have with the word, fablet – it looks and sounds stupid.
I have no problem with coming up with some word to indicate to indicate people who identify with their birth gender, but it needs to be something that sounds less silly and precious (i.e., excessively refined: affected).
First, context matters. If I am talking about normal people vs. transpeople, I think the distinction is clear. Or for that matter, I could just say non-trans.
Second, cisgender isn’t really more accurate absent any context. Is an intersex person who identifies as intersex or (male/female) cisgender? The issue is that the current party line is that there are dozens of genders. At best, cisgender just tells you if a person agrees with their biological sex, which is almost never the intention of the question when someone asks what gender you are.
Further, the word only functions as a meaningful phrase vis a vis transgender people because the distinction made is only relevant to people with that condition. Why does individuals’ experiences of their own gender matching the sex they were assigned at birth matter at all if we are to only asking about gender? That’s part of the reason people find it annoying. It’s trans-centric word that is creeping into spaces to answer questions that weren’t asked. Does it belong in academia to make a specific point? Sure, I can buy that. But that is clearly not the case in a number of cited examples as varied as people using it as a slur, Colbert making a joke that largely works by pointing out the absurdity and commonality of the term in certain circles, and people almost feeling like they need to apologize and acknowledge their “privilege” for having been born like literally almost everyone else on Earth.
Again, I ask. Should the presence of rapid aging diseases mean we should create specific terms for our age in years that specify that we are aging in a normal fashion, and to acknowledge how lucky we are to not have progeria or some other disease?
So this is the board where ignorance is celebrated and knowledge deemed too esoteric. Okay then.
This quite eloquently sums up my point of view. I knew I hated “cisgender” but couldn’t quite put my finger on it. I agree with SA here completely.
Several people have made comments about how “they” invented the term cisgender/cissexual as a label for “us”, a group that “they” presumably do not belong to. According to Wikipedia, the term was not coined by transgender activists but rather by German sexologist Volkmar Sigusch. I suppose it’s possible that Sigusch is himself transgender, but if so his rather bare-bones Wikipedia entry doesn’t make any reference to this.
It seems more likely that he simply felt it would be useful in scientific writing about transsexualism to have a word that specifically meant the opposite of transsexual. I just pulled up his 1998 Archives of Sexual Behavior essay “The Neosexual Revolution” (which seems to be the first time “cissexual” appeared in an English publication), and in it Sigusch writes “For if there is a trans‚ a beyond (physical gender)‚ there must be a cis‚ a this-side-of‚ as well.” Given that transsexual was already an established term and that the “cis-” prefix has an even longer history as the opposite of “trans-”, I can’t think of a more obvious or less offensive scientific term with the same meaning as cissexual than “cissexual”.
I could complain that Mr. Fancypants German Scientist didn’t consult me before he decided that people like me should be called “cissexual”, but no one consulted me before coining any other word, including those that describe other aspects of my identity. Most were well-established long before I was born. I am of course free to object to any term that I dislike, and if I’m lucky then enough people will agree with me that the term will fall out of use, but it would be stupid and petty to object to a word simply because it was coined without my input.
But there isn’t a familiar term. And we need a word. And “cis” is short, which is generally a good feature.
Of course, that would be confusing, because the “normal” people are homogendered ( having the same gender as their birth-plumbing) and the trans people are heterogendered (having mixed/different gender from birth plumbing) so my guess is that would spawn confusion, and decrease accessibility.
Perhaps most people don’t remember “cis” from high school chemistry, or college biochem. But most people are familiar with “trans” (as in trans fat, as well as trans sexual or trans gender) and in context, I’d guess that most people can guess that “cis gender” is the opposite of “trans gender”. So, I think it passes the accessibility test.
Do you mean phablet, as in a phone so large it’s a tablet?
Anyhow, esthetic tastes vary. “Cisgender” just looked a little long and technical to me, but clear and descriptive.
What I like about it:
It does look technical, which usually prevents people from freaking out.
It doesn’t look so much like another word that it’s hard to distinguish. It’s not fiddly.
It makes me think “Cisalpine Gaul!” every time I see it, which amuses me, and which makes me think I spent too long in Latin.
Bingo.
Yes, or more specifically, a phone so large that it functions as a combination phone and tablet. Here’s a thread where there was some talk about why it was so annoying.
No one has ever said that to me, since I dont use that term.
I am not upset. But yes, the word has been hijacked by haters and bigots. Mind you, it’s still a rare word, so not a huge deal.
But like i said- the rule here on the SDMB, the thing we have agreed upon- is that the user of a term does not get to decide whether or not that term is offensive.
The person who that term is being used about gets that choice.
Why is that useful rule being discarded for this term?
Good points.
Ok, Una, what do you think of the word “Tranny”?
I think cisgender would work okay as a term to identify some small subset within the trans community, which is what I thought it was the first time I saw it. But then when I looked it up and found that it’s supposed to be a term intended to apply to (if you’ll forgive me) normal people, my eyes rolled so far I could see my brain.
I’m thinking that the term would die out or fail to catch on in much the same way as fablet, except for the fact that a considerable number of people are determined to push it as part of a pro-trans political agenda and using “Science, bitch!” as their foundation, even though I doubt that one in twenty people among the population at large has any idea what the technical meaning of “cis” is.
As for me, should an occasion ever occur where I need to refer to the non-trans population, that’s exactly how I’m going to phrase it…“non-trans”.
By the way, if anyone wants to buy some metal pins that say TRANS, I have some extras.
Hetero- and homo- have always referred to people who do not wish to change their birth pluming and there is no reason to be confused about it.
If you are looking for one word to encompass both heteros and homos how about “standard” i.e. “standard gender(ed)”. I admit that is a bit clumsy and not very euphonic, and hopefully someone can think if something better, but I will continue to object to “cis” because of its obscurity.
“Standard gender” would not require pause to guess or analyze context.
No, it hasn’t, and you really need to stop posting things that are demonstrably untrue.
Speaking of things that are untrue, where did this rule come from, and when did we “all” agree to it?
Google “die cis scum”. Sure, it’s only a few people- but only a few people use the term “cis” anyway.
Ok, then- so *who does *get to decide? the user? If I use the term “Jap” is it Ok if I dont mean anything pejorative about it?
I’m familiar with the term - you haven’t been able to shut up about it for two days now. For what is at least the third time in this thread, the word “cis” in that sentence is not being used as a slur, and more than the word “black” is being used as a slur in the sentence, “Die black scum.”
You’re looking for a single, bright line rule that determines what words are okay, and what words aren’t. There is no such rule. Language and culture are far too complicated for such a rule to possibly be workable. If you want to determine the offensiveness of any given term, you need to take into account an enormous number of variables, including (among other things) the intent of the speaker, the historical context of the relationship between the speaker and the person he’s addressing (on either an individual or class basis), the history of usage behind the word, the general reaction to the word both by the people it describes, and the people doing the describing, and whether the person objecting is doing so honestly, or is acting out of some sort of agenda of their own.
What almost never works is trying to create parallels between other terms. “Jap” is not rendered unoffensive because nobody objects to “Brit.” “Honky” is not as bad as “nigger” because it’s the “opposite” term. It’s not enough just to say, “I don’t like that term, therefore, no one gets to use it.” You need to present an argument as to why it’s offensive, and why I should care that I’ve offended you. Black people can do that very easily for “nigger.” Japanese people can do that very easily for “Jap.” Trans people have a bit more trouble doing it for “tranny,” but it looks like they’re probably going to win that language shift in the long run.
As this thread, and your posts in particular, show, there is no good case to be made for classifying “cisgender” as a slur. It’s was not coined as a slur. With vanishingly few exceptions, it’s not used as a slur. And it’s only received as a slur by a small subsection of the population it describes, many (not all) of whom have ideological objections to trans rights from the get go.
I think I do not need any more Private Messages sent from you to me attempting to police my language on here. Cisgender is a legitimate, scientific word used in the context of discussions on transgender topics.
Your heartache over it may be real, but it is unwarranted and without foundation. The fact that some assholes say “die cis scum” means only that they are assholes, who would just as easily post “die normal scum” in lieu of the former pejorative.
Despite my not holding a degree in psychology I have been recognized as an community activist, advocate, and researcher on transgender issues, and I shall continue to use the word “cisgender” in the fact-based contexts previously mentioned.