"Don't call me 'cisgender'!"

[Kobal2]

@brickbacon

But why is an opinion of that sort completely unreasonable?

Because that’s how clinical/academic terms work, always and in every field ? Academics love their cladistics and want to make like cladistical babies with them. The scientific method* as a whole *emerged from a drive to file and categorize the entirety of reality, which admittedly was a bit ambitious a project back in the 17th century.

1. 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?

Yes, absolutely.
The very concept of “normalcy” is coercive in nature. Is normal what follows an enforced norm. That’s the definition of “normal”. And since said irrational bigotry is borne of the very fact that some people are angered and confused when people don’t subject themselves to a wholly arbitrary albeit traditional norm, subverting that harmful norm seems like it’d do some good on the irrational bigotry front.

IOW, the objection is unreasonable because in essence it responds to “The existing system is causing me profound harm and discomfort” with “that’s no justification for you to go and make *me *feel ever so slightly weird about it, or acknowledge the validity of your existence !”.

After all, defining a “new normal” worked for gays (kinda, but to a growing extent), no reason to exclude transfolk from the process. Or do/did you feel likewise threatened by the fact that a handful of decades ago, some utter *bastards *turned you from “normal” or “no word required” into a heterosexual ? Was that already “discarding all pretense at normalcy as it pertains to human behaviour, orientation and attributes” ?

Further, why is a distinct term necessary rather than just one doesn’t have X?

As has already been stated, because the absence of a term is not clear enough. “male” could mean “cisgendered male” or “transmale”. Adding “cis” eliminates ambiguity.

2. 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.

Pick a side, mate. Either it’s poorly understood or it’s mainstream. It can’t really be both.
And how is it misused, exactly ?

3. Does it make sense to create an entirely new linguistic dichotomy SOLELY to normalize and describe a very rare condition.

You mean like “right-handed” ? Or “heterosexual” ? Or “neurotypical” ? Or… you get the point. That’s how cladistics work. No classifiable *thing *will be left unclassified !

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?

Yer wot ? I’m not sure what you’re talking about here.

[Kobal2]

Err, that’s taxonomy, not cladistics. Brainfart there. The point stands.

[Miller]

@DrDeth

This is not true. And you know it.

I stand by my observation.

[DrDeth]

@iiandyiiii

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.

Very reasonable post, sirrah.

[DrDeth]

I dont get the need for some people to selects & paste a label on others. Why can’t we all just choose our own label? How much hurt and hate has there been in this world from labeling others? Pink Triangles, Yellow Stars, whatever. Its not so much “cis” I hate- it’s other people picking a label and forcing it on me.

Una Persson- have you ever felt hurt by other people choosing a label for you? Wouldn’t it be better if you had always the ability to choose your own label?

I tell the story of Belinda, a friend of mine with lovely mocha skin. She hated being called “black” - “I am not black, I am a lovely mocha brown!”- would the world end if Belinda could walk over and write “Mocha Brown” on her label? Does she have to wear the label "Black’ or whatever- or be called a “bigoted asshole”?

Instead of labeling others- let them label themselves.

Look, over there, a table piled high with labels of every color and shape, many pre-printed, some blank- and there’s a pile of multi-colored Sharpies to use on the blank ones. If you like the pink pre-printed one that sez “Cis-woman” Great! If you want to change that to “cis-womyn” also great. or whatever you like. Or hell- no label at all.

Pick your own label. Don’t pick other peoples- and especially don’t call them a bigoted asshole because they don’t like the label you want to force them to wear.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@DrDeth

I dont get the need for some people to selects & paste a label on others. Why can’t we all just choose our own label? How much hurt and hate has there been in this world from labeling others? Pink Triangles, Yellow Stars, whatever. Its not so much “cis” I hate- it’s other people picking a label and forcing it on me.

Pink Triangles, Yellow Stars. Teenagers! Bakers! Francophones! Christians! Guitarists!

Do you realize that some labels are motivated by hatred, and others are motivated by a desire to speak clearly about a subset of the population, and that it’s worth distinguishing between the two?

I tell the story of Belinda, a friend of mine with lovely mocha skin. She hated being called “black” - “I am not black, I am a lovely mocha brown!”- would the world end if Belinda could walk over and write “Mocha Brown” on her label? Does she have to wear the label "Black’ or whatever- or be called a “bigoted asshole”?

She doesn’t need to wear it, but it doesn’t really seem like a sensible thing for her to worry about. If someone calls her “black” as a simple descriptor, that’s not a word typically associated with bigotry, and it’s unlikely that–absent other factors–the person using the word is using it in a disrespectful fashion. If she genuinely got worked up about it, I’d be a bit leery of her, in the same way I’m a bit leery of you for getting worked up over “cisgendered”, only less so, since “black” as a label HAS sometimes been associated with bigotry (e.g., when the word is used as an identifier unnecessarily–“This angry black woman glared at me at the grocery store” where “this angry woman” would be the phrasing used for a white woman), whereas “cisgender”, despite your laudable googling skills, has not been associated with genuine oppression in any case I’m aware of.

Instead of labeling others- let them label themselves.

Sometimes it’s helpful to have a genereic term to talk about commonalities.

[Kimstu]

@DrDeth

I dont get the need for some people to selects & paste a label on others.

Because they’re talking about a topic that requires distinguishing between two categories that are often lumped together or not easily distinguished. Giving each category its own label is the natural and convenient way for people to talk about such topics.

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Pink Triangles, Yellow Stars, whatever. Its not so much “cis” I hate- it’s other people picking a label and forcing it on me.

[/quote]

Seriously, dude? You are actually comparing the existence of a technical term for a biologically-specific gender-identity category with genocidal campaigns? :rolleyes: That comes across as, to say the least, kind of whiny.

Surely you’re aware that the problem with the Nazis forcing homosexuals to wear pink triangles and Jews to wear yellow stars was not one of simple category identification? The issue wasn’t that Nazis were (correctly) describing homosexuals as “homosexuals” and Jews as “Jews”, but rather that they were rounding up anybody so described in order to oppress and/or outright murder them.

@DrDeth

I tell the story of Belinda, a friend of mine with lovely mocha skin. She hated being called “black” - “I am not black, I am a lovely mocha brown!”- would the world end if Belinda could walk over and write “Mocha Brown” on her label? Does she have to wear the label "Black’ or whatever- or be called a “bigoted asshole”?

Assuming that Belinda is an actual person instead of a rhetorical figment, then of course people who are speaking to Belinda and know about her preferred form of description should not call her “black”.

That doesn’t mean that anthropologists or statisticians talking about perceived racial classification would be wrong or insensitive to describe Belinda as pertaining to the standard racial category called “black”.

These are factual, standard technical terms we’re talking about. You can request people not to use such a technical term about you when talking to you, but you can’t somehow opt out of belonging to the category that the technical term factually describes.

[Miller]

By the standards DrDeth has argued for in this thread, the fact that Belinda doesn’t like being called black means the term “black” needs to be discarded entirely. Also by his standards, this is true whether or not Belinda actually exists.

[DrDeth]

@Miller

By the standards DrDeth has argued for in this thread, the fact that Belinda doesn’t like being called black means the term “black” needs to be discarded entirely. Also by his standards, this is true whether or not Belinda actually exists.

This is not true.

[Inner_Stickler]

@DrDeth

I dont get the need for some people to selects & paste a label on others.

Please don’t use “some people” to refer to me. I find it offensive as someone someday might bookend it with die and scum. And remember, if you don’t honor my request, you’re like nazis or something.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@DrDeth

This is not true.

Please explain why not–I’m really unclear how Miller is misreading you.

[Miller]

@DrDeth

This is not true.

Oh no?

@DrDeth

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.

And when I pointed out that literally none of the cites you posted supported your claim that “cisgender” is a slur, your response?

@DrDeth

It doesnt make any difference. If even a few people use “cis” as a pejorative slur, and only a few people think being called one is insulting, then we shouldn’t use it.

[DrDeth]

@Kimstu

That doesn’t mean that anthropologists or statisticians talking about perceived racial classification would be wrong or insensitive to describe Belinda as pertaining to the standard racial category called “black”.

These are factual, standard technical terms we’re talking about. You can request people not to use such a technical term about you when talking to you, but you can’t somehow opt out of belonging to the category that the technical term factually describes.

They may be, but there’s two things- first of all, I checked Google Scholar- nearly every time they used “cisgender” in a paper, they used some variant of self-identify, self-identification etc. In other words, scientist accept that they arent putting labels on people, they are reporting on what *labels people put on themselves. * In reality, they must do that- you really can’t as a sociologist or anthropologist label the participants in a study as “gay” Lesbian", “cis”- you generally have to accept their self-identification. And if scientists insist on self-identification, why cant I? Thus, I can certainly "opt out’. When a sociologist asks me what gender I identify with, I can simply refuse to answer- that is “Opting out”.

I have no objection to anyone calling me 'cisgender"* if I put that label on myself. *

And, Ok, if you publish a Peer reviewed paper, you can use the term 'cis" in that paper, if you get it past the editors and review committee. :rolleyes:

[DrDeth]

@Miller

Oh no?

And when I pointed out that literally none of the cites you posted supported your claim that “cisgender” is a slur, your response?

“…label that some of us don’t like. Please stop using it for us.” See, stop using it for those who dont like the label.

I disagree, it *has *been used as a slur. Read the rest "If even a few people use “cis” as a pejorative slur…

But Ok, so if that’s how we’re going to define slurs on this board. You can use any slur you want vs any group, but just not vs a individual who has asked that it not be used for them. Is that it? :dubious:

[Miller]

@DrDeth

I disagree, it *has *been used as a slur. Read the rest "If even a few people use “cis” as a pejorative slur…

Then you should be able to demonstrate that. To date, you have not.

[Kimstu]

@DrDeth

They may be, but there’s two things- first of all, I checked Google Scholar- nearly every time they used “cisgender” in a paper, they used some variant of self-identify, self-identification etc. In other words, scientist accept that they arent putting labels on people, they are reporting on what *labels people put on themselves. * In reality, they must do that- you really can’t as a sociologist or anthropologist label the participants in a study as “gay” Lesbian", “cis”- you generally have to accept their self-identification.

Sure, but the names of the standard categories remain the same.

If a study participant says “I’m male and I’m not transgendered”, the study is going to report him as “self-identifying as cisgendered”. Even if the participant doesn’t happen to like that term in casual use, for the purposes of the study, the correct term for “not transgendered” is “cisgendered”.

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
And if scientists insist on self-identification, why cant I? Thus, I can certainly "opt out’. When a sociologist asks me what gender I identify with, I can simply refuse to answer- that is “Opting out”.

[/quote]

Not really: you are merely choosing to conceal which gender-identity category you identify as. You’re not opting out of actually belonging to any such category altogether.

If the information about your gender identity is necessary for the study, you’ll either be dropped from the study for refusing to reveal it, or perhaps described as “refused to specify gender identity, assumed to be cisgendered male”. Scientific facts can be concealed or guessed at, but they don’t actually disappear just because somebody refuses to talk about them.

[QUOTE=DrDeth]

I have no objection to anyone calling me 'cisgender"* if I put that label on myself. *

[/quote]

Then if you don’t want to put that label on yourself, I advise you to stay out of scientific studies on gender identity, and discussions thereof.

(And to be on the safe side, you may want to avoid looking at the results of exams by your physicians. Doctors put all kinds of labels on us that we never voluntarily self-identified as. I never volunteered to be called “nulliparous”, for example, but dayum if that isn’t how my doctor takes the liberty of describing me, just because she thinks it’s an okay thing to say about somebody who’s never had kids. :dubious: )

[QUOTE=DrDeth]

And, Ok, if you publish a Peer reviewed paper, you can use the term 'cis" in that paper, if you get it past the editors and review committee. :rolleyes:

[/QUOTE]

Yes, I know I can. When it comes to publishing scientific papers, the people whose opinions matter concerning technical vocabulary are the authors, the editors and the readers, not the study subjects being discussed in the paper.

[DrDeth]

@Miller

Then you should be able to demonstrate that. To date, you have not.

Have too. :rolleyes::dubious:

[Miller]

@DrDeth

Have too. :rolleyes::dubious:

No, you haven’t, and when I demonstrated, at length, that you had not, your response was, “It doesn’t make any difference.” Which is not a great attitude to have towards facts, but at least is in keeping with your attitude towards logic.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Cismen say “Have too” a lot.
Probably other people, too.

[DrDeth]

@Miller

No, you haven’t, and when I demonstrated, at length, that you had not, your response was, “It doesn’t make any difference.” Which is not a great attitude to have towards facts, but at least is in keeping with your attitude towards logic.

Taking peoples words out of context:" It doesnt make any difference. If even a few people use “cis” as a pejorative slur, and only a few people think being called one is insulting, then we shouldn’t use it."