It is not the only descriptor one should use.
In fact, I think cisgender is quite a good descriptor too, especially in discussions about transgender people.
It’s just that people take “normal” as an insult to transgender people, even though it describes 99.8% of the population, and that is essentially what “normal” means.
Is that only what “normal” means? Has anyone ever been punished or scorned for being “abnormal” or “not normal”?
Suppose instead of “normal”, we describe 99.8% of the population as “conventional”, since it’s antonym (“unconventional”) carries less of a negative connotation?
Ultimately though, call anybody anything you like.
Because when it comes to LBTQ arenas, too many of us have not very pleasant memories of loved ones crying “Why can’t you just be noormal” which isn’t very fun.
Nor is cisgender identity. Thus… the point.
Agreed that “normal” can carry some negative connotations for people who are not in that category.
How about synonyms for normal: typical? ordinary?
Don’t people with Asperger’s/Autism refer to the rest of the population as “neuro-typical”?
Since we’re cordially throwing around terminology now, what’s wrong with “cisgender” ?
I find it fascinating (not just from one perspective, either) that this and the “thug” debate are going on at the same time.
As I said, what would happen if you called your mother and said “mom, you’re abnormal”? Can I refer to you as “uninteresting” or “mundane,” both of which are denotatively equivalent to “normal”?
“Mundane gender identification” doesn’t sound too bad 
As I said above, I think it’s a good descriptor. It’s just that, if several people who are cisgender find it offensive, don’t we owe it to them to come up with a less offensive term?
After all, we do try to find terms that alternate/non-majority genders find agreeable to them so why can’t we do that for cisgendered folks?
They don’t find the term offensive. They’re offended that there is a term; no alternate is likely to be much better.
At least, they haven’t offered anything they find preferable, beyond the imprecise and awkward, “normal,” or “non-transgender.”
Well, we are the cisgender folks, for one thing. The politics of in-group identity are different from out-group politics. This isn’t a situation where someone from outside a group tries to dictate to the group how they should feel about things. It’s not like me going up to a black guy and telling him that “stop and frisk” policies aren’t that intrusive, or telling a woman that being whistled at should be taken as a compliment. I’m a white guy. I don’t have the experiences with that sort of thing that those people do. If they tell me those are bad things, I should listen, because they’re the ones who know what they’re talking about. I don’t. They’re the authority on the subject, not me.
But I do know a lot about what it’s like to be cisgendered. I know the struggles cisgendered people face in society, and the discrimination cisgendered people have to overcome. (None, and none.) So when some other cisgendered person starts talking about how offended they are by being called cisgendered, I’m actually in a position of authority to tell them to stop whining and get over it.
Which still puzzles the hell out of me. I don’t get why people wouldn’t be delighted to discover that there’s a word for something they are that they didn’t even know was a thing.
Like Moliere’s “bourgeois gentleman” who was pleased with himself when he found out he’d been speaking prose all his life without knowing it, I think it’s kind of nifty to find out I’ve been cisgender all my life without knowing it.
Naming things is part of how we understand what things exist and what they’re like. Not having a name for something often means you aren’t really aware of it and don’t have any conception how it could be different from what it is.
Except that we haven’t seen any examples of “cisgender” being used as a perjorative. Have you?
OK, and “abnormal” means the opposite of “normal.” Following your idea, I propose we should start calling cisgender and transgender “normal” and “abnormal.” Everyone should be OK with that, right?
How about the obvious?
“Birth gender”.
Instantly recognizable in meaning and derivation.
p.s. Dr.Derth posted numerous cites of places where “cis” is termed pejorative. His cites weren’t good enough. They were real-life examples of real people saying it is pejorative. Are you going to demand OED cite for all cites?
Then Una/s massive work she represents as the defining statement on the matter has to also be hooted down, right?
Sure, if you mean to include both trans and cis people. Why you wouldn’t just say “everyone,” though, I have no idea.
Neurotypical, healthy and healthy, respectively. See ? It’s not so hard.
What do genetics have to do with anything ? Gender identity is a social construct, not a genetic one.
And who gets to define what threshold is acceptable ? There are, roughly speaking, an estimated .5% of transfolk in the US today. That’s one person in 200-250. It’s really not that rare. Compare and contrast with your progeria example, of which there seems to have ever been 100-150 reported cases, total. That’s worldwide and in the entire history of modern medicine, BTW.
Or, more to the point perhaps, with the incidence of blindness which is 1:350. And yet us sighted people have to suffer countless indignities for the benefit of this small minority - braille signage, audio cues in subways or at street crossings, telling our kids what the white canes mean, having to identify as sighted, it’s madness !
Ah, yes. The brand new question that is sexual orientation :rolleyes:.
“Intersex” seems to be the common nomenclature. Although obviously that would describe their biology, as distinct from the gender they identify with.
I hope you do not mean the “die cis scum” nonsense.
As it happens, neither is cisgender. You’d be amazed just how many of those there are. But being left-handed is pretty rare (ambidextry even more so), as is homosexuality. And yet, here we are, having common and well-accepted terms for the overwhelming mass of those who are neither.
And speaking as a southpaw, I’d be pretty irritated if there was a drive by right-handers to amend that nomenclature to “normal”. That’d be downright sinister of them.
You do realize that, even though their bodies degrade at an accelerated pace, they don’t move faster through time, yes ? A 10 year old healthy kid and a 10 year old kid with progeria are both 10 years old. As in, they spent 10 years on this planet. Nothing remotely ambiguous about that.
Tell you what. As soon as they organize and spread word of their plight, I’ll listen to all 100 of them.
Who said you had to ? In 99% of social interactions, male/female/genderqueer suffices to indicate one’s gender. It’s not sufficient to indicate plumbing, but that’s a separate point - that one opines is, or should be, wholly irrelevant outside of “tab A into slot B” gymnastics and the quest thereof.
Beyond that, this thread is not entitled “Don’t make me call myself cisgender”, is it ?
In general, do we need terms for the opposite of every human condition that is less than 0.5% of the population?
For example, for people who don’t have body integrity identity disorder, do we need to call their state, for example “body cisidentity”?
Do we need terms for people who don’t hallucinate, people who don’t collect green bicycles, etc?
Schizophrenia affects about 1.1% of the population, and as far as I know, we don’t have a term for people who are not schizophrenic. Why not? In fact, dare I say, we call people who don’t have schizophrenia as ‘normal’, and nobody seems to mind.
I don’t think we even have a term for people who don’t have ADHD, and ADHD seems to affect a significant percent of the population.
Overall, I’m fine with cisgendered. The term exists, let’s use it. But it’s funny that people are coining terms for the opposite of human conditions that only take up a tiny percent of the population.
Except that gender is not necessarily fixed at birth, and is very certainly not identifiable at birth. Gender is not correlated one-to-one with sex organs.
“Neurotypical.” For fuck’s sake, it’s right there in the post immediately before yours, as well as many times throughout the thread.
If you are having a discussion about mental illness and schizophrenia, it is entirely reasonable to refer to “individuals with schizophrenia” and “individuals without schizophrenia,” and it it eminently reasonable to refer to the latter as “neurotypical.”
Does it offend you that someone has labeled you as neurotypical against your will?