This is not true. And you know it.
We do seem to have a bit of double standard.
We call them “Tranny” and we are wrong. Why? Because they object.
They call us “cis” and they are right, even if if we object.
You want to start name-calling, fine - just don’t then claim that you are somehow special and get to use offensive terms, but nobody else does.
Some of us do not like it.
What more reason do you need?
Thank you. Actually, you said it far better than I did, and with less words. I bow in your direction.
No, people object to being called ‘tranny’, for the same reason people object to being called ‘nigger’ - because it’s a bigoted slur, which is considered a bigoted slur, because it has overwhelmingly been used as a bigoted slur.
There is no double standard, except in the minds of bigoted assholes who are looking for something to use as an excuse to pretend that they’re the oppressed ones.
I don’t know, why do people object to “phablet”? Some words simply sound stupid, or disphonic, or contrived, or annoying, and others don’t. IMO, “cisgender” fits each of the aforementioned categories and that’s why I object to it.
You’re not the first person in this thread to equate dislike of the term “cisgender” with desire or support for discrimination and oppression. I’ve certainly said nothing to indicate that I favor either, and in point of fact I don’t. Please don’t be one of those people for whom disagreement automatically = evil intent.
And usedtobe and DrDeth raise a very good point. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard it argued on this board that when a name or phrase is to be applied to a certain group of people it should rightly be the members of that group who get to choose what they want to be called…and further, that should they find a particular term objectionable everyone else should cease to use it.
Having read this thread with much interest and some care, I feel it is time that I self-identify as an Up.
I reached this age without feeling the need of any special word to identify myself as “someone who does not actually feel that their anatomy mismatches their self-perceived gender”, but having been educated, I certainly feel that I should take similar care to identify myself as “someone who does not have Down syndrome”, and what word could be more logical than Up?
It’s symbolic of my struggle against oppression of those with trisomy 21.
This is very odd. People take a label and stick on some other dudes. Those dudes object to that label. That objection means those dudes are called assholes and bigots
Thank you. Mind you, really, it’s not that horrid, it’s nothing at all like "nigger’ or anything really bad, and most people who use it intend no no slur.
Still, it’s a label, and a label that some of us don’t like. Please stop using it for us.
Seems to me this thread is getting a bit overheated.
Everyone calm down and play nice or bad things will start happening.
In a discussion of gender issues, what alternate term:
- Is almost always used in a respectful fashion;
- Describes cisgendered folk;
- Describes cisgendered folk for what we are, not what we are not; and
- Does so without attaching significant cultural baggage either to cis folk or to trans folk?
While a minority of cis folk know the term, a vanishing minority of cis folk object to it. The objections are not based on intended disrespect (this is true no matter how many times you Google “die cis scum”), nor on a history of the term’s usage in an exploitative manner, nor on legitimate etymological grounds, nor on plausible aesthetic grounds (comparisons to “cyst” instead of to “sister” are :dubious: ).
While in general I’m all about letting folks choose the terms that apply to them, there has to be some modicum of reason, and it needs to be something that a significant percentage of folk object to. That relatively low bar has not been met in this case.
If someone asks me not to call them “cisgender” (or literally any other word at all), I won’t call them that. That’s common courtesy, in my view (if someone says “don’t call me X”, don’t call them X). That doesn’t mean “cisgender” isn’t a useful word to use in some contexts (chiefly discussions of transgender issues) – it is. It’s entirely possible that at some point “cis” or “cisgender” could morph into a slur offensive to significant numbers of people, and if I had any indication that it did, I would consider stopping using it at all. But so far I’ve only heard from a couple of people (on this board and no one IRL) who don’t like to be called “cisgender”, and I think the best response is to not call those people “cisgender” while using the word in its proper technical context in applicable discussions.
ISTM that objection to the word has less to do with the word itself, and more to do with a general “there doesn’t need to be a word for ME, I’m normal/the baseline !” sentiment. As such, no alternate term will ever satisfy because the opposition is to there being a term at all, or a need for one.
Bingo, the perfect and sensible response and you can cut and paste this and use it as a template for respectful behaviour regarding any contentious term.
It’s not odd at all. That you dislike cisgender means, at best, it’s impolite to refer to you specifically as cisgender. But in order for cisgender to be viewed as inappropriate to refer to an entire population, that population in the aggregate must view the word as inappropriate and so far we cisgender people have not.
Colour me baffled why “cis” could be offensive in any way, I guess. Talk about a puny hill to die on.
I don’t think there’s any point analyzing – it could be genuine offense, it could be fishing for victimhood, or it could be something else. Just don’t call them (those that say it offends them) “cis”, and feel free to use the word properly in applicable discussions. If they join the discussion, continue to use the word normally, and don’t apply it individually to that person.
Oh, but now I simply must. I’m clearly ciswired to.
But why is an opinion of that sort completely unreasonable? The issue comes down to a few things everyone on your side wants to completely brush under the rug.
-
Is the fact that atypical people face irrational bigotry reason enough to discard all pretense as to normalcy as it pertains to human behavior, orientation, and attributes? Further, why is a distinct term necessary rather than just one doesn’t have X?
-
Is it okay that increasingly common and clinical term is being used in a way that is poorly understood, not very specific, and increasingly subject to misuse? It’s one thing if such terms are used in academia, but when Colbert is making jokes about it on his show, the term has become somewhat mainstream. Additionally, the term is not specific given an intersex person (among others) could be either cisgender or not.
-
Does it make sense to create an entirely new linguistic dichotomy SOLELY to normalize and describe a very rare condition. Again, why should we look at age any differently than we do gender given there are people whose existence and condition renders the dominant view of either problematic?
Sure, if you are talking to one person, not calling them X is fine.
If you are talking on the SDMB and you need a term for cisgender folk, what are you supposed to say?
With every term, there are a handful of people who will throw a fit. I won’t call those people, separately, by that term, but there is no way not to call them in the aggregate by that term without ditching the term entirely, which I won’t do. The intent is to deprive us of a term, and that’s not going to happen.
This is all fine with me, and jives with my answer.