In a way that non-transgender doesn’t. It’s like magic!
I"m OK with the idea and nomenclature that if you aren’t gender variant you’re gender typical.
Gender variant includes transgender, genderqueer [including agender, genderfluid, bigender, gender inverted, and a host of other subcategories], gender-role noncompliant, and any other sense in which a person’s gender ID or expression vary from the typical or conventional.
And, as always, the meaning of such things is largely in the eyes of the beholder, whether the beholder is a self-labeling person beholding themselves or someone describing someone other than themselves.
So we’re in agreement that there is nothing inherently offensive about “cisgender,” and that its use is entirely appropriate–or at least reasonable–in certain contexts. We win the debate!
.
So we’re in agreement! WE win the debate!
So glad to see you’ve come around.
For some reason I first read that as “a person’s gender IQ”. I was thoroughly confused and wondered for a second whether there was a sex-based phrenology revival going on that I hadn’t heard about.
I should get some sleep at some point.
You’ve quoted the wrong person, or your reading and comprehension skills need improving.
I dunno, you seem to agree that a term is useful and not offensive by any reasonable standard - exactly what that term should be is a fairly trivial matter - so you’re on board. Congratulations.
Great, so “gender-typical” it is!
Sorry, I’m offended by gender-typical for… I dunno. Reasons, I guess. Nobody ever gets to use it now.
classy response, Pop Tart.
But again, that proposal would redefining words that are already in use. Gender-variant / gender-typical already have definitions that cover gender expression, but not gender identity. We would have to identify when the words had been used in the older more narrow sense, vs. your new broader sense, and there would be cases of confusion, ambiguity and misunderstanding. I don’t see the point.
Inherently offensive? Of course it’s not inherently offensive. I’m sure people use it without meaning to offend, and some people are called that without being offended.
I merely note that, compared to “nontransgendered”, it (a) lacks the clarity that was being touted as its signature virtue in the post I copy-and-pasted my reply to; and that (b) while anecdote can’t be pluralized to data, some people right here in this very thread have expressed their displeasure with the term and been told, well, okay, now that I know it bothers you, I’ll of course use a different word.
I just don’t see what’s gained by switching out “non-transgendered” for “cisgendered”; the latter is a little less clear, and seems to draw more objections.
(Let me add that, before reading this thread, if someone had stopped me on the street and asked whether I was a “sis-vestite”, I’d have wondered what the heck that meant, and made a guess if necessary – are you asking whether I dress like my sister? is this some ‘sissy’ subset of ‘transvestite’, for guys who can pass for female while dressed in drag, as opposed to the guys who can’t? – but if you’d asked whether I’m a non-transvestite, I would’ve said, wow, I’d never heard that word before, and yet I knew exactly what you meant by it and can answer your question! What sorcery is this?)
Classy is my middle name. Pop Classy Tart, that’s me.
I use “gender variant” as an umbrella term to describe myself (along with other types of being gender variant). If I want to be precise, I use “gender invert”.
I don’t use “transgender”, not because it’s entirely wrong but because it has a rather heavy connotation of transitioning: that one has transitioned, wishes to transition, is in the process of, or something of that general ilk. I’m not a transitioner. I wasn’t born in the wrong body. It’s the perfectly (mostly) healthy male body of a male girl.
I do use “genderqueer” (it’s a better catchall umbrella term than “transgender”) but that also isn’t embraced by everyone whose gender identity is not, in fact, typical. Ask some of the transgender people whether they feel like “genderqueer” covers them.
Gender variant is the best giant-umbrella term I’ve encounterd. So I use it.
shrugs I don’t greatly care how the terms “gender-variant” and “gender-typical” have been used by a few others; they are sufficiently self-explanatory up until someone decides to try to limit what they refer to. That’s generally a losing strategy.
I’m not transgender nor am I cisgender. I’m a non-transgender gender-variant person, specific subtype “gender invert”.
Yeah, sorry. Make more room in your head.
Hey, the people on the inside of this phenomenon not only have to make more room, they have to try to maintain an acronym!
I bet, back when “Male” was solely used to describe someone born with male genitalia and then started to also mean “Someone who self-identifies as male regardless of birth genitalia” there was also someone who whined “But it ALREADY has a meaning, we can’t just redefine words that are already in use!”
Does anyone else remember the “‘Woo’ means vagina, so when you refer to crazy people into paranormal stuff as as woo, you’re calling them ‘vaginas’” uh…debate…from years back? Because this argument is so loopy it makes the “Woo=Vagina” one look less insane.
I beg your pardon. “Tart” can refer to a womyn of negotiable virtue, and by appropriating it for yourself, you’re clearly marginalizing such womyn. Since I’m offended, you will now refer to yourself as “Pop Classy Toaster Pastry”
Because, if it only offends one person, you must stop right away.
That depends on whether the context requires that the listeners understand that the speaker is cisgendered or not. Sometimes it won’t matter (“as the sister of a transgendered brother, I have always tried to be loving and supportive”) and sometimes it will (“as the cisgendered sister of a transgendered brother, I appreciate that I have been accepted into the genderqueer community with open arms”).
I don’t have any particular objection to the term “non-transgendered”. If that ends up as the most commonly used and understood term I will happily use it. That said, the majority of contexts in which using either word is necessary are contexts in which issues of sexuality and gender are already being discussed, which makes it more likely that the listeners will be familiar with “cisgender”.
And a lot of people who object to “cisgender” in this thread are going way beyond “I think non-transgendered would be a better choice” to far more angry objections.