My response would be, “No, I’m not sure what you meant, because ‘normal/real/natural’ is a loaded term with a lot of value judgements baked into them, and I can’t tell if you intended to communicate those value judgements or not.”
As a descriptivist, the term “cisgender” is chiefly useful in that, as a newly minted term, it has almost no baggage attached to it. If an entirely different neologism were coined to describe non-transgender women, I’d be okay with using that one, instead - I’m not wedded to “cisgender” simply because “cis” is the opposite of “trans,” which I think is where you’re coming from with this prescriptivist/descriptivist stuff.
I’ll take this up, because while it might be a hijack, I think it might illuminate the issue.
I’m not at all a “rules is rules” guy. I’m a pretty strong descriptivist.
But that does NOT mean that it’s all, like, cool man, and we all have our own linguistic groovy truth.
Instead, the rules I have are these: communication is successful to the extent that the relevant audience understands the thoughts the communicators intends them to understand, with the intended connotations.
As such, “cisgender” is a great word to use instead of normal, under many circumstances. If I’m talking to someone who knows what the word means, great: I communicate the idea successfully, and there’s no baggage associated with it as there would be with the word “normal” or “regular.” If the relevant audience doesn’t know the word, of course, I ought to define it for them; if I don’t, it’s a poor use of the word (unless the audience is savvy enough to figure out what a novel word means).
A cisbigot might use the word “normal” an d successfully communicate to their audience both the concept and the connotation they want to communicate. In this case, communication was successful; the problem is instead with the crappy thoughts that the cisbigot wants to communicate.
Someone else might use the word “normal” to communicate without intending that baggage to go with it. In this case, I’d argue that even though they don’t intend the baggage, and even though their audience might not notice it, the baggage is probably gonna be there, something that influences them without their awareness. That’s pretty insidious.
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.
FWIW I’m not happy about the sound of cisgendered either; it is a bit hissy or something. But you’re right that it’s something for me to get over, which is why I wouldn’t bring it up in the first place.
I suspect there’s something to the idea of another group naming and identifying me that’s a bit uncomfortable, like “white privilege” or “neurotypical” or whatever. It takes away from me the idea that I’m the normal default setting, and that’s not a pleasant thing to have taken away. But since it’s not true anyway, it’s just as well that it’s taken away.
Does it? I would think it causes confusion (at least, the sort of sensation I experience as “confusion”) not if people don’t know what it means, but if people think it means something different from what it does mean.
And as Czarcasm points out, not knowing what it means is not a permanent condition.
It’s easy enough for someone who doesn’t intend the baggage of “normal” to not use the word “normal” even if they don’t know “cisgender.” But they’d have to notice the baggage, and not noticing it isn’t necessarily a sign of ill intent; it at least indicates absorbing the attitudes of the broader society, but we all do that to some extent.
I think that is the exact reason for using cis and trans. You don’t have to use it at all unless you need to specify how the mentioned gender happened.
I can’t speak for Miller, but yes and no; that is, I wouldn’t ask, but that’s because I would assume that the person believes, or accepted without challenge the belief, that transgender people are abnormal or unnatural or fake. I wouldn’t ask if that was what they meant for the same reason I don’t ask if someone who says “dog” means “domestic animal that says ‘woof’”
Well, depends on the context: who’s speaking, where we’re at in the conversation, how they’ve been addressing the issue up to that point in the conversation. If Una used “normal” to describe cisgendered women, I wouldn’t need any clarification over what she meant by the term. And there are posters on the opposite side of the issue where no clarification is needed, either. But in the case of someone where I don’t have any real idea of where they stand on trans rights issues, then yes, there would be some genuine confusion there.
If I am lecturing to a mixed audience largely unaware of transgender topics, or doing a media appearance, sometimes I will define quickly the two terms. Or if time is short, simply use “non-transgender.”
From an etymological perspective, “cisgender” is an excellent neologism. I don’t know why people say it’s a loaded term. It’s about as bare-bones descriptive as you can get.
“non-transgender” I would not take that as what we are calling cis-gendered, but it would perhaps change in context.
I would either take non-transgender as they have not yet when through the medical procedure to change their body but do consider themselves the other gender then their ‘born to’ gender or a person who is getting ready for the medical procedure but has not yet.
They’re objecting to the term “cisgender” because they don’t want to have to use an entirely new term to describe what they are, even though it’s needed, because it was never needed before. It’s like if somebody came up with a term to use to refer to time-travellers, or people who had been raised from the dead.
