See also: Chevalier d’Eon.
Ok, perhaps a quick review is in order. Languages, and the words that comprise them are arbitrary. The characters d, o and g have no meaning in and of themselves and likewise, the arrangements I can make out of them, such as dog mean nothing in isolation. But, over time, among a select population of humans (those who speak english), that arbitrary arrangement is agreed to stand in as a reference or signifier for the concept of the animal more formally known as canis familiaris. The critical piece here, though, is that the meaning is not a part of dog, it is just attached to it and the meaning could transfer to another word with the key caveat that such a transition must occur with the approval of the community. Because if I don’t know that you personally have dropped dog as a signifier and replaced it with eph, then when you tell me to beware of the eph, I cannot understand you.
So, gender-typical could mean cisgendered, because the selection of the signifier is arbitrary, but as it currently stands, that is not one of the standard accepted meanings of that word. You are more than free to use it in a nonstandard way if you so choose, but in terms of it catching on, I know that if I’m addressing a transgender-familiar audience and my choice is cisgender, which I am reasonably sure they know, and gender-typical, which I know I will need to explain, I’m probably going to go with cisgender.
Consequently, for clarity’s sake, *both *words should be used as a matter of course. I would therefore advise you to beware of the eph ‘n’ dog.
Watch it, you.
Dude back. No, there aren’t “multiple categories of male.” Hard enough to keep up with all the transgender types (again, not much interested in getting a PHD on the topic, but good for all of them. They bother me not) to introduce yet more confusion.
Then again, when people say something “isn’t natural,” what they really mean is it’s not natural to them.
I’ll cop to that.
Completely false. Feel free to quote me if you think that’s at all a justifiable critique. It’s not, and I expect you to be adult enough to apologize for your libelous remarks.
In terms of how people identify themselves, outside of perhaps certain specific medical contexts or whatnot, yes. I do disagree with taking any random group of people and calling them the normal default. You can call them the most common or whatever, sure. But normal and default both are pretty damaging to anyone who happens to be outside the random group you picked.
“Normally, people have 5 fingers on each hand.”
“The most common configuration (among humans) is having 5 fingers on each hand.”
If you’ve lived your life with an extra finger, one of these is different than the other. And that is of course a deliberately chosen super-minor example.
So, the feelings of trans people don’t matter to you at all then? The fact that the exact ideas your putting forward here are what drive them to suicide in massive numbers is an “oh well” in your world?
Thanks for the input, I guess.
If you’ve lived all your life as a hexadactyl and you have a stick up your ass about people regarding five fingers on a hand as “normal”, then I’m not really sure what to say to your comfort.
Except, don’t kill any swordsmiths, or some guy will turn up years later, tell you his name, and expect you to be prepared to die.
I became bored with responding to this thread, so I didn’t see this posting. I reject your claim that I am “on record” as being transphobic, as I can confidently say you can point to nothing other than me disagreeing with you over a word used to describe non-transgendered people, that would cause you to say that I am “on record” as being transphobic.
You, Sir, are a liar.
#1 I’m sorry I missed this thread til now. I’ll try not to let it happen again. I have not read the other pages of this thread. I don’t have the energy at the moment.
#2 I’m cisgendered and I’m happy with that. I see nothing wrong with the word “cisgendered”
#3 Personally, I usually say “standard model woman” when I mean a woman who is cisgendered. To me the scientific evidence has shown, over and over again, that intersexed and transgendered woman are just as much real and authentic women. They are simply not the standard model.
You, sir or madam, are in violation of the rules of this forum.
Do not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]
Unless your name is Linda Perry.
Resurrecting this to continue a discussion I was having with DrDeth in an IMHO thread hijack:
Maybe, maybe not. But I’ve spoken to many people whose gender identity matched their biological sex about the word “cis”, and none of them were offended by it. And much more significantly, I am cis. If a trans person tells me about a word, or a gay person, then I have no experience to fall on – I can only take their word for it (and the word of other trans and gay people). But I am cis, and I have personal experience being cis, and it hasn’t been explained to my satisfaction how it’s offensive to people, like me, whose gender ID matches their biological sex. That means it will take a whole lot more than a single person, or two people, or one article, for me to stop using cis to describe people (except for those individuals, like yourself, who prefer not to be).
That’s fine. Does that mean if I tell you “don’t use human any more”, you’ll stop? Or “don’t use American any more”? Or because you’re human, and American (presumably – if not, substitute your own nationality), do you actually have experience in those categories and are able to evaluate whether those words are offensive?
It’s different when you’re not a member of that group. I take black people’s word for what slurs are offensive to them. Same goes for gay people and trans people. But for people whose gender matches their biological sex? I don’t have to take their word – I have personal experience, as much as any other person in this group. So I won’t use the word for you, or others who have expressed their offense at “cis”, but unless I have some indication that most cis people object to being called cis, then I’ll continue to use it in broader discussions about gender identity as a way to distinguish people whose gender identity matches their biological sex.
Obviously, we need to make a concerted effort to change the names, (even if it requires re-writing history), of Cisalpine Gaul and the Cisalpine Republic. We need to demand that the various groups attempting to encourage Earth orbit space exploration abandon the use of cislunar in their names. Someone, somewhere, is liable to confuse these places as being examples of references to cysts, (despite the difference in spelling), and we cannot allow that.
I have problems with some of the language around social justice movements, but this ain’t one of them. It’s a useful word to describe a thing that, until fairly recently, did not need description.
And it’s not even a made-up word, it’s a logical extension of the use of a word that’s been in the dictionary for decades. A word I learned 35 years ago, and understood what was meant when I saw it applied to sexuality.
(Also a cis person who doesn’t object to being called “cis”.)
I still don’t like “cisgender” for the reason I cited way back when this thread was young: it’s a hissing sound attached to “gender,” an aural expression of disapproval, in short, a perjorative by nature, and very often used that way. I’m not worried though: I don’t see any sign that the term is catching on in the mainstream.
I have problems with a lot of the language around social justice movements and this is one of them.
I don’t like being described as “cisgendered” for several reasons, one of which is I have never heard the term used in any real-life context except with a degree of contempt attached - usually from the sort of social justice warriors (another loaded term, but one I think actually sums up a certain cultural subgroup pretty well) who tell straight white people to “check their privilege” and take the view heterosexual white men are just irredeemably awful and responsible for literally everything that is wrong with the world.
Maybe I have nicer trans friends than you do? I’ve only heard the term spoken in neutral, descriptive way. And the only person I’ve known to use it in writing in a negative way was a men’s-rights activist guy who was intentionally being a jerk and casting aspersions on the non-heteronormative crowd.