For the record, I do not feel insulted or offended at the term, as stated above several times.
But for those who do feel offended, your responses feel right to you because you don’t find ‘cisgender’ offensive. Try replacing cisgender with other terms that people find offensive and you will quickly see that ‘don’t worry I won’t call you that to your face’ doesn’t pass muster.
For example:
See, when you substitute terms that are actually offensive to a lot of folks, the promise of “Don’t worry, I won’t use it in front of you” seems weak and condescending.
So, let’s try to show why cisgender is not offensive, and not just give the above vacuous promises about its use.
Because transgender and cisgender have fuck all to do with mental health ? They’re orthogonal concepts, dude.
And I’d say it’s fine to assess transfolk as atypical. Which is distinct from abnormal.
But… why ? That’s not how scientific nomenclatures work.
I’m… just going to quote that and let it hang there like the turd it is.
Neither was “cisgender”. Also, *still *not opposites. Different identifiable groups based on a given criteria, one nomenclature for each. Sedimentary rock is not called “disigneous”, is it ? Are mammals designated “not-fish” ?
Nope. No dichotomy. Some people feel they have ambiguous gender. Some alternate between two genders. Some deny the validity of gender altogether. Some feel they belong to a third gender (anthropologists were actually up to five identified genders last I checked).
Again, those are completely orthogonal concepts. Transsexuality/transgender is neither a pathology nor a mental illness. Suggesting it is *is *quite offensive, though.
Oh my lawd. This is precious. Remember how this whole tangent started ? This is you
Ah, you’re right, I’d misread you. Yes, they would be cisgendered intersex then. And… what ? Do they get a cookie ? I hope they get a cookie. Cookies are nice.
Oh, for fuck’s sake.
Maybe. As I said, the mentally ill face very significant stigma of their own. But then, that’s why they came up with “neurotypical”, so…
It’s based on the notion that the fact that they’re atypical is reprehensible, invalid, wrong, freakish, a mental illness (hint, hint) and what have you.
Tweaking language and raising awareness on gender issues in general to try and diminish this perception is obviously not going to solve the issue on its own, or change it overnight. But language is a powerful thing. It shapes the way people think. This kind of social engineering is never going to change how *you *think - but it might change the way your kids think, exactly like most kids of today don’t really get what the big deal is supposed to be with teh gheys.
This could literally apply to any word in the English language (including “person” or “human”). I’m not worried if a handful of people on Earth find “person” offensive, and I’m not worried if a handful of people on Earth find “cisgender” offensive. I won’t use any word to describe someone if I know they find it offensive. And I won’t use a particular word at all if I have reason to believe that significant numbers of people find it offensive.
But there’s another thing to consider here – I’m cisgender. I am fully able to see this from a cisgender point of view. It’s not offensive to me, and I’ve yet to see any reason why I should find it offensive. For other possible slurs, I can’t see it from their point of view, so I have to take people’s word for it – not for “cisgender” – I can take my own word for it.
Until you can demonstrate to me why I should find “cisgender” an offensive descriptor for me, I’ll continue to use it as the proper technical term for people whose gender matches their biological sex, except for those individuals who have indicated that they are offended by it.
Sometimes people deserve to be called assholes. If they find it offensive, they can stop being assholes.
Anyway, if we don’t need terminology for a majority that is sufficiently large, we don’t need the phrase “right-handed.” There’d just be left-handed people, normal people, and maybe a few rare ambidextrous people. Athletes who bat or shoot “right” can instead bat or shoot “normal” (or just omit the stat entirely), and the world will magically become a better place somehow.
The problem with your examples is, you’re swapping out a term a small number of people dislike for poorly explicated reasons, with terms large numbers of people don’t like for very clearly described reasons.
You’re also still missing the in-group/out-group dynamic. If I called an Asian guy “oriental,” I’d expect him to take offense. If another Asian guy calls him an oriental, I doubt he’d make an issue of it. Certainly, if an Asian guy describes himself as oriental, nobody’s going to make any bones about it.
I have a friend named Charles. He really dislikes being called Chuck. So I don’t call him Chuck. I have another friend named Charles. He *prefers *being called Chuck. I don’t think I’m being condescending by using the name one guy prefers for him, and not using for the guy who doesn’t prefer it.
Or take DrDeth’s alleged friend, Brandi, who doesn’t like being called black. It’s simple politeness not to call her black since she doesn’t like the term, but that doesn’t mean “black” is off the table entirely as a racial descriptor.
That’s… pretty much what this entire thread has been about.
It occurs to me belatedly that I’m being pedantic - it’s perfectly fair to use an offensive term if your intent is to give offence, and there are plenty of situations where this is appropriate. If your intent is to not give offence then fine, cater to the person’s expressed wishes, though still within reason.
That’s what I mean. Though I won’t use racial/ethnic/religious/etc slurs even if I want to give offense to a member of a racial/ethnic/religious/etc minority. There are plenty of generic slurs to choose from.
I would read “gender-typical” more broadly, as a cis, hetersexual member of one sex or the other. That being said, if that happened to be a term in use for “not trans” I would be fine with it. But since we already have a term, one that is brief, descriptive, etymologically sounds, and doesn’t carry much baggage, I’m not looking for a new term.
Already has a different meaning: opposite of gender-variant. A traditionally masculine man would be gender typical / gender-conforming regardless of whether he were cis or trans, whereas a feminine man would be gender variant / gender non-conforming / gender atypical, whether cis or trans.
I, too, would read “gender-typical” more broadly, as a cis, heterosexual member of one sex or the other. Therefore, gender-typical is even MORE descriptive than cisgendered, since it has both gender identity and sexual orientation wrapped up into one word, and is brief, and carries the same amount of baggage as neuro-typical. Seems like a better choice to me.
What? No-one is arguing that gender norms do not exist. You should probably look up what a gender norm is (hint: what a culture defines as appropriate behavior and attributes for a man vs a woman). Certain people are arguing that having a gender identity concordant with biological sex is more common than the converse and therefore needs no designation other than “normal”, which is a completely unrelated issue to gender norms.
Not quite. A gender norm is a cultural standard (for example, what the culture defines as being properly masculine); being gender-normative or gender typical as an individual means conforming to that standard, while being gender variant, gender non-conforming or gender atypical means going against that standard. A gender-typical man is one who conforms to our cultural standard of masculinity, which is entirely separate from whether he’s a cis man or trans man.
No. “Gender norm” is a noun meaning a socially-assigned set of roles and behaviors considered appropriate for a given gender.
“Gender-variant” is an adjective meaning “not conforming to standard gender norms”.
The opposite of “gender-variant” would be an adjective along the lines of “gender-norm-conforming” [ETA: Or, as JR Brown pointed out, “gender-typical”].
A similar construction would be “Lactose-tolerant people tolerate lactose consumption well. Lactose-intolerant people do not.”
Likewise, “Gender-norm-conforming people conform closely to standard societal gender norms. Gender-variant people do not.”
Bah. I’ll stick with the term that has traditionally been used to describe me and people who are like me, one that has no pejorative meaning and was not made up by no hifalutin’ sex doctor: “Evil.”
Would you consider those who conform to gender norms as “gender-normal”? Especially if that person’s name was Norm? As in “Gender-normal Norm conforms to gender norms”?