Traditionally in English, all cats are referred to as “she / her” whenever their sex is unknown or irrelevant; they only take “he / him” when you need to specifically indicate that it’s a tomcat. Americans stopped doing this sometime in the early 20th century; the British still do it to an extent, especially older people.
I didn’t know that, thanks!
Try reading that post again, because you missed the point. “Male” has always had two meanings; male-sexed and male-gendered. We have not changed the possible definitions of male, we have changed which definition is relevant to social interactions.
Dude. No one is saying you are not male. The point is that there are multiple categories of male, and we sometimes need words to distinguish between those categories.
You are confusing “easier” with “worth the effort”.
If redefining “gender-typical” to replace “cisgender” is so important to you then you’re welcome to devote your time and energy to pursuing this. Don’t expect much help though, because most people aren’t going to share your passion for this cause. But in a way that will be to your advantage. Since “gender-typical” and “cisgender” are little used outside certain academic disciplines or discussions of transgender issues – they don’t even appear in most dictionaries – you will face a tiny fraction of the opposition that same-sex marriage advocates have had to deal with. You won’t need to fight a legal battle all the way up to the Supreme Court. You only need to convince the small number of people who actually use these terms on a regular basis that they must be changed.
Let us know how that works out.
I don’t think you understand linguistic gender very well. Words have linguistic gender; that doesn’t mean that the animals or objects that they refer to are considered to be male or female in the biological sense.
Really? 100 years ago there were 2 definitions of the word male? What about 200 years ago? What about 1,000 years ago? ‘Always’ is a pretty strong hanger to put your hat on.
And using “cisgender” is SO important to you, that you would rather take the time to type a rebuttal referring to same-sex marriage and the US Supreme Court, instead of just saying “yeah, i guess gender-typical would work too”?
I realize that linguistic gender isn’t a perfect analogy to human gender. But they share the fact that neither of them is dependent on biological sex.
The English word “male” first appears in the 1300s, so not literally 1000 years, but since then, yes. Actually, most European languages use the same words for sex as they do for gender.
For most of the history of English we did not distinguish between sex and gender when talking about people, because it’s only been recently that we accepted that sex and gender can be discordant in humans. But the two possible senses go all the way back.
I think it is reasonable to describe the masculine (boy, man, etc) gender as a set of generalizations that were made about characteristics that tended to accompany the biological state of being male. And the feminine (girl, woman, etc) as a set of generalizations about behaviors and traits and etc that tended to be expressed by those who were biologically female.
To generalize isn’t evil or wrong. It becomes evil and wrong when it becomes prescriptive instead of descriptive. And for completeness’ sake, it becomes unfortunately ignorant if not necessarily evil and wrong when people are aware of the generalization but have only a murky unclear understanding of the outliers, the exceptions to that generalization… a murky and unclear understanding that doesn’t match up very well with the understanding that such people have of themselves and their own experience.
We are a social species. We, each of us, grew up in a world where there were widespread beliefs about what you would be like if you were male (and a different set of such beliefs about what you would be like if you were female). Those beliefs are so widespread and embedded that everyone knows them, everyone expects everyone else to know them, and everyone even expects everyone else to expect everyone else to know them. That is to say, if at some point you behave as if you did not expect everyone else to know them, that would be considered peculiar behavior on your part, sufficient to provoke comments, ridicule, laughter.
If you are one of the outliers and you grow up against that backdrop (and if you are, you did), it is going to be a hell of a lot more self-explanatory to you that sex and gender are two different things. Sex is your plumbing, your biological equipment. That whole matrix of expected understandings that I just discussed, which in your case doesn’t match worth a damn with your morphology? That’s gender. Yeah it originated as a set of generalizations about sex but no it isn’t, therefore, the same as sex. Because it has long since taken on a life of its own.
Please provide a cite that shows that 1000 years ago, the word ‘male’ include a definition similar to 'one who self-identifies as male, regardless of natal genitalia"
That’s not a claim he’s making.
It isn’t complicated. You don’t get to declare a word to be offensive. You get to show that it is typically used in an offensive fashion. No one has done that for cisgendered. There’s thus no reason to change it.
There are a few people arguing against it. At least two of them, brickbacon and manson are both on record as being transphobic. It is reasonable to ascertain that the reason they find the term offensive is just the idea transgenderism is legitimate. Replacing the term would not help.
Polerius seems to have ultimately wound up on the same side as everyone else, so I will leave him be. DrDeth is the oddball out. Unfortunately, his argument is all over the place and doesn’t make sense, and attempts at making it clear have faile, and so can be discarded.
Then there are a couple of people who just think the word “cis” sounds bad for some weird reason, but this is far from a norm, and both have admitted that there are other words that aren’t banned that also sound bad to them. (Cysts, phablet).
I also disagree with Andy (I will get the i’s wrong) on this. You don’t get to just tell me the word is offensive and have me not to use it for you. That will only cover what I call you when I am being polite or at least civil. If I don’t think you can argue that it is discriminatory or some other category that would make it off limits, I will use it the same way I would other insults.
The reason I woudln’t use cisgender as an insult is simply this–there is no way to construe it as an insult that would not be bigoted. It would be like using gay as an insult. And that, ultimately, is why you can’t object to the term.
You’re just being obstreperous, right? For most of European history, as I’m sure you can guess, there was no such idea as “self-identified gender”; human gender and sex were held to be the result of a single cause (whether that was a male or female “essence” or a high or low “heat of decoction” or various other theories that went in and out of fashion), and thus directly linked. But people who were non-gender conforming were often explained (medically) as having the wrong mix of whatever-it-was that caused maleness or femaleness; so you ended up with “male women” (masculine personality but female body) and “female men” (vice versa). This was perceived as pathological and abnormal, and the people in question were generally treated as criminal or sinful, but it was recognized to happen.
Animals and inanimate objects, on the other hand, could have gender without sex or gender that did not match their sex, in the natural course of things. The English word “male” is attested in reference to gender almost from its first appearance (eg, references to the planet Jupiter being male a decade or so after the first known uses for humans).
Using “cisgender” isn’t important to me at all. I don’t think I’d ever even typed it before this thread. What is of some importance to me is using the standard or accepted terms for things. Once you have won your battle to have “cisgender” stamped out and “gender-typical” redefined to replace it then that is the term that I will use…on the rare occasions that I have reason to.
As things are now though, it simply isn’t true that “gender-typical” would work just as well as “cisgender”, because “cisgender” is already the accepted term and “gender-typical” means something different. However, once-accepted terms have been abandoned and other terms redefined, so if you’re willing to work hard enough then you just might reach your goal.
It’s actually less work to introduce a new word, even one you find ridiculous, than it is to change the connotations of an already existing word (or denotation, in the case of “gender-typical”).
Particularly since I don’t see anyone really objecting to the fact that “abnormal” and “unnatural” are negatively loaded, only to the use of negatively loaded terms to refer to trans people. I’m perfectly fine referring to melanoma as “abnormal” and letting that convey that melanoma is bad; I just don’t think trans people are like cancer.
Someone who does think trans people are like cancer can still put all the contempt they can muster behind “cis,” of course. For that matter, they can still call cis people “normal.” But if “normal” isn’t the standard word, everyone will know what they are.
Anti-trans bigots say substantially that now.
Isn’t there a rule that once you use “womyn,” you have lost the argument? If not, there should be.
In that context, pace AHunter3, I’d probably assume the sister was cis – otherwise she’d have said. But that just means no descriptor is needed, it doesn’t mean “normal” or “natural” or “real” or “actual” or “not a horrific clownlike parody of my supposed gender” is a better term to use.
I’m fine with “gruxedemar” rather than “cig[gender]” except that all the relatively sensible arguments against the use of “cis[gender]” also apply to “gruxedemar,” plus it’s an even more recent coinage.
Is this an admission that the conclusions people have drawn based on things you did say are true?
Well, feel free to advance gruxedemar (along with a definition) and see where that takes you.
BigT - and everyone - if you’re going to refer to someone as ‘on the record as XXX’ you’d better be able to link to where they’ve self-identified that way. Even then I’m not a fan.
Simply put, pejoratives have no place in debate and should be omitted from discussion.
No warning issued because this was weird, but please let’s keep it civil.
I am cisgender female, and that’s a useful designation when discussing issues of gender identity. The word exists, and I am perfectly comfortable self-identifying as such. I am a pretty tomboyish woman, though, and I am more comfortable mowing the lawn than doing housework. I HATE shopping. Am I gender typical? What are the criteria to decide if someone is gender typical? I suspect that I may not be wholly gender typical, but I know that I am cisgender.
While I don’t have a cite for gender identity definitions 1,000 years ago, there is a case from about 400 years ago that may be interesting. Thomas(ine) Hall, was, by his/her own account, both male and female, and wore alternating styles of dress accordingly. When this came to a legal head, in Jamestown in 1629, (s)he was examined and determined to possess male parts. Other examinations may have indicated the matter was unsettled. Poor Hall sounds like s/he may have been subjected to involuntary examinations on multiple occasions. Hall however said (s)he had both. Was Hall intersex? No idea, but the decision was ultimately to allow Hall both identities, and several determinations were made: at first ordered to dress as a man, then as a woman, and finally as a sort of hybrid of male and female dress. It’s not exactly what the discussion is at hand, of course, but to me it looks like even 400 years ago, at least some people were acknowledged to have a different gender identity than biological sex.
Wikipedia cite: Thomas(ine) Hall - Wikipedia
From that entry:
- Until the early 19th century, theories of sexual difference were not solely determined by anatomy, according to several scholars. Many early modern medical theorists and scientists emphasized that gender identity was not constant and could be subject to change. *
(That is cited form a book I do not possess. Many of the cites from the Wiki article are at JSTOR, and I don’t have access to them)