I have no idea where you are going with this, because this thread isn’t about gender norms in any way, but no; it’s perfectly normal to be gender non-normative.*
No, that term would be misleading because it would suggest that those who do not conform to gender norms are “gender-abnormal”.
And “abnormal” implies not just “not conforming to the norm” but “wrong, pathological, unhealthy”. And that’s not necessarily a correct implication for gender-variant people.
So no, sorry, you can’t appropriate the word “normal” to describe the majority group when there’s nothing abnormal (in the sense of “wrong, pathological, unhealthy”) about belonging to the minority group. Not even if the minority group happens to be very small.
Not “normal vs. lefthanded”, not “normal vs. homosexual”, not “normal vs. having absolute pitch”, not “normal vs. red-haired”, and not “normal vs. transgendered”.
I’m not appropriating anything, and I have not once suggested to use the term normal when describing anything you mentioned there. I am advocating gender-typical as a term to describe non-transgendered people. As I understand it, typical does not carry some sort of baggage the way “normal” does, or else neuro-typical would not be an acceptable term.
And I think this is a terrible idea because 1) the word is already taken, 2) it’s ambiguous anyway, since the thing we are trying to specify is the person’s gender identity, not their gender, and 3) we have a perfectly good word for the concept that no-one has a meaningful objection to beyond “it sounds funny” or “why do we need a term for something that’s in the majority”.
Well, you said
And I explained why such a term would be misleading.
[QUOTE=Slash1972]
I am advocating gender-typical as a term to describe non-transgendered people. As I understand it, typical does not carry some sort of baggage the way “normal” does
[/QUOTE]
Yes, that’s true. But as JR Brown pointed out, the term “gender-typical” already has a standard meaning that’s different from “non-transgendered”: i.e., it means “conforming to gender norms”, or “behaving and appearing in a way that’s typical of gender norms”.
There are people who are not transgendered but who are also not gender-typical. For example, a man who’s biologically male and self-identifies as male but likes to wear women’s clothing and makeup would be a cisgendered or non-transgendered male, but he wouldn’t be described as gender-typical.
There are people who are not schizophrenic but who are also not neuro-typical. For example, a man who’s autistic but not schizophrenic wouldn’t be described as neuro-typical.
So, we are OK with neuro-typical used to distinguish between the “typical” mental condition and a large set of atypical mental-related conditions.
Why are we then not OK with using gender-typical to distinguish between the “typical” gender-related condition and a large set of atypical gender-related conditions?
Dunno. Do we? I’m guessing not, or such terms would have been coined. Do you know how language works?
Well, the people who mind are socially marginalized, so their opinions are often disregarded. Not quite the same as “nobody seems to mind.”
Whether a state is marked or unmarked is probably one of the purer examples of a social construct. How can that possibly be biology?
Quite so. Which is why the people who reject the term sound like they think transgenderism is not both real and worthy of specific distinction.
Yes, that’s an ambiguity in the term “neurotypical”.
We can cope with ambiguous technical terms if we have to, but there’s no reason on earth we should deliberately seek out an ambiguous term (“gender-typical”) to mean “non-transgendered” when we already have a perfectly good non-ambiguous term (“cisgendered”) for it.
Dude. We already use the term gender-typical. We use it for people whose behavior and preferences correspond to our cultural gender norms. Traditionally masculine men are gender-typical. Traditionally feminine women are gender-typical. Feminine men and masculine women are gender-atypical.
What this thread is arguing about is a term for people’s gender IDENTITY. Which is completely separate from the question of whether they are gender typical.
Handy chart:
cisgender vs transgender: does your gender identity match your biological sex? John is biologically female but wants to be legally and socially recognized as a man. John is a trans man.
gender-typical vs gender-atypical: do your personality, behavior and preferences conform to what society expects from your gender? David likes knitting, romance novels and pink drinks with umbrellas in them. David is a gender-atypical man.
You already said that you don’t intend for this term to mean non-transgender people in general, but specifically heterosexual cisgender people. In fact, you said that “gender typical” is a better choice than “cisgender” because it would exclude people who aren’t heterosexual.
Which would mean having yet another term, this time describing cisgender folk who aren’t straight. What happened to the argument that we don’t even need the one term?
A cite that isn’t a specific case but a claim that it’s not uncommon inside the LGBT community. The author is a transgender woman who serves as the Director of Advocacy for an LBGT advocacy organization her experience is probably broader in addressing the issue than many. She says in her post:
Also from that very same cite:
Again, nobody here is suggesting that the word “cisgender” needs to be used outside of technically specific discussions of gender identity issues.
Nor is anybody saying that those who personally prefer the synonym “non-transgender” to “cisgender” shouldn’t use it.
It was terminated!
That’s not a bad cite, if a little non-specific. But without seeing the actual context she’s describing, it doesn’t sound to me like the problem is with the word itself, but the attitude some trans people have towards cisgendered people in general. She’s arguing in favor of “non-transgendered” as the proper terminology, but I’m not seeing how that’s going to solve the problem she describes. She says, “The addition of “cis” or “cisgender” is used to imply a certain level of contempt and a desire that they leave discussions on transgender issues. It also implies that they don’t, can’t, or won’t ever understand transgender issues.” But if the accepted term is “non-transgender,” won’t these same people be using the the term in exactly the same way they’re (allegedly) using cis and cisgender today?
Also, I frankly question her assertion that there’s a significant number of gay people who have never heard the phrase used in a neutral or non-hostile context. Some, sure, particularly if they have only heard it used a few times, but enough that it taints the usage entirely? I don’t buy it, not without some more solid stats.
NM
*When these words are used in focus groups that look at messaging on transgender issues, the responses are nearly universally negative. The conclusion of many organizations is that you should not use either “cisgender” or “cis” in any sort of public narrative.
Even inside the LGBT community the words have a very negative connotation. When someone is referred to as a “cisgender lesbian” or “cis gay man” by a transgender person, it is often in a negative way. The addition of “cis” or “cisgender” is used to imply a certain level of contempt and a desire that they leave discussions on transgender issues. It also implies that they don’t, can’t, or won’t ever understand transgender issues.
In some cases it is appropriate to call someone on their unexamined privilege. However, using the word “cis” or “cisgender” is not necessary to do so. Just as no one ever called me “tranny” and meant it in a nice or affectionate way, many LGB people have never been called “cis” or “cisgender” in a way that wasn’t accusatory. Therefore we find common ground in disliking a word because its context has always been nasty and demeaning when applied to us personally.
It isn’t logically or ethically consistent to tell one group of people that they need to get over a word they dislike being used to describe them while strenuously objecting to a word being applied to you, even if both words can be used in a contextually neutral way. The logic cuts both directions.*
Seems to me this situation cries out for more terminology to cover all the nuances, and to accept that the terminology will be in constant flux, where terms that were just fine yesterday are no longer so today, to be replaced by new terms that have a lot of us saying “huh? Why do we need a new term?”
Just like the English language itself. Basically, the complaint is about 900 years too late.
Well, I didn’t know that words could only have one meaning, never to be changed nor additional meanings assigned to them. :dubious:
So now you have a cite to the usage in the transgendered community saying the word is used in a derogatory way, AND you have people in this very thread who object to being called cisgendered, and you STILL are sticking with “get over it”?? Really? Come on, Pop Tart!