That’s a very weird misinterpretation. Nobody is saying at all that words can only have one meaning or that their meanings can’t be changed or expanded. Of course none of that is true.
What we’re saying is that if we’re trying to deliberately select a specific technical term to mean a specific thing, why would we pick an ambiguous word that already means something else instead of a non-ambiguous word that already means the specific thing we’re talking about?
So far, nobody has offered up anything even remotely resembling a rational reason for deliberately trying to adopt “gender-typical” to mean “not transgender”, given that “cisgender” already means “not transgender” and “gender-typical” already means something different.
Isn’t “non-transgendered” a perfectly good term for “non-transgendered”? Isn’t that why you just used it, right there? It’s accurate to the point of self-explanatory, sure as people who’ve heard “transgendered” but not “cisgendered” seem (a) plenty more likely to know what it means, and (b) plenty less likely to object to it.
I did select a perfectly specific term to mean a specific thing - “gender-typical” a heterosexual, non-transgendered person. Gay non-transgendered people can pick their own word to describe themselves. I’M certainly not going to tell them what they have to be called.
Anyway, thanks, I read the article, and I explained my problems with it. Quoting the article at me again doesn’t actually address any of the issues I raised with it.
We now should say “Jill, you should meet Bob. He is cisgendered, neuro-typical, unipolar, uniphrenic, body cismorphic, and attention-typical”, just to clarify what Bob is exactly and not offend anyone in the minority categorizations.
No, that’s not the specific meaning of “gender-typical”. As was already explained previously, “gender-typical” means “conforming to gender norms overall”: i.e., not just being heterosexual and non-transgender, but also behaving and appearing in ways that are traditionally considered “appropriate” for their gender.
Thus, a heterosexual, non-transgender man who has conventionally “feminine” behavior and/or appearance is not considered gender-typical. A heterosexual, non-transgender woman who is conventionally “masculine”-looking is not considered gender-typical.
If you decide that you personally will insist upon using “gender-typical” to mean “heterosexual and non-transgender” irrespective of all other gender norms, knock yourself out. But your use of the term will generally be considered confusing and incorrect by people who already know the standard meaning of “gender-typical”.
I’m not sure you quite understand how technical terms work. The point of having a specific term like “cisgender” to mean “non-transgender” is that it applies equally across all categories except for the one category it’s intended to distinguish.
Both male and female people can be either cisgender or transgender. Both heterosexual and homosexual people, tall and short people, white and black people, “masculine-appearing” and “feminine-appearing” people can be either cisgender or transgender.
Requiring two different terms for the state of being cisgender, depending on whether the person you’re talking about is heterosexual or homosexual, would be cumbersome and pointless. There needs to be a term meaning simply “not transgender, irrespective of sexual orientation or any other category”.
I did. It seems compatible with what I said: “cisgendered” is a word that (a) means “non-transgendered”, and which (b) anyone can of course discard at will and replace with “non-transgendered”. I added that “non-transgendered” will make more sense to people who’ve heard the word “transgendered” but not the word “cisgendered”; also, I sure wouldn’t mind seeing poll results about comparative dislike.
Wrong, sorry. Gender variance / typicality does not consider gender identity or sexual orientation. You can be gay and gender-typical (buch gay man, femme lesbian), and you can be trans and gender-typical (buch trans man, femme trans women), and you can be trans and gay and gender-typical. The three things are completely separate.
I’m a gamer. Do you think I mention that when I introduce myself? I don’t watch bowling. Do you think I introduce myself as a non-bowler? I’m American. Do I mention that?
Of course I don’t. The fact that a word exists to describe me doesn’t mean I use it if it’s not relevant. Why the fuck would I?
And the idea that minorities are complaining that people aren’t using such words is profoundly contemptuous of the issues that folks are actually raising, and not contemptuous from a position of understanding but rather from a position of what looks like real ignorance.