I think it’s more than that. A lot of people are uncomfortable being described by some strange term invented by gender studies weirdos.
Personally I think the term doesn’t come up too often IRL anyway and seems like a pretty neutral and inoffensive descriptor when it does, and as long as everyone understands what it means and it helps keep things clear I’m all for it. But my guess is that the discomfort is as above.
Well…I’m not sure about that. As Miller said, lacking that term, folks might tie themselves in knots trying to avoid offensive language. “Non-transgender” kind of works, except it defines cisgender by the absence of transgender, which is a little unusual, like defining right-handed people as non-lefthanded or defining folks who like eating wheat as non-gluten-intolerant. It’s nice having a term that defines folks for what they are rather than for what they aren’t.
Actually it is more like a term being created to describe not being a time traveler.
If one is heavily involved in this area, cisgender as a term makes a lot of sense. However most people are not, and they find themselves being defined in contrast to things they have no part of. If we need a term, and I agree normal does not work, how about “static” to show a lack of movement/transition?
However in cases where the transition is not important to the discussion, a self-identified gender might be adequate. In a truly accepting world, where one is is more important than how one got there.
So your advice to someone who is offended being called by a certain name is ‘just get over it’?
I prefer the term “non-gay,” and I’m not the only one. This phone booth can get damn crowded (not a bad thing, depending).
Interesting. Are they similarly pissed-off by other technical terms?
“Goddamn it, don’t you go calling me ‘lactose-intolerant’, you weirdo! I’m a tolerant person! I just don’t like cheese! Don’t you go applying your strange, made-up labels to me!”
It seems like the more equivalent example would be Lactose-intolerant people inventing a new word for Lactose tolerant people, like “Milkies” or “cislactose” or something.
No, my advice to people offended by being called “cisgender” is to “just get over it.” My response to people being offended by being called other names is dependent on what that other name is.
Sorry, born female, never had to have surgery or chemicals to change, so I am a normal female. Anybody else is not a normal female, they can be anything they want - but not normal, regular, original … sucks to be you guys, but thems the breaks. I don’t care, I will be happy to consider you female if that is how you self identify, but you will never be ‘normal female’. You just popped into the wrong body and needed some medical correction.
So you don’t take other peoples’ feelings about being called certain words into consideration when you determine if they should or should not just “get over it”, only your own personal beliefs on what they should be offended about?
Like “lactose tolerant”? That seems like a good parallel.
“What do you mean I’m ‘lactose tolerant’? Why do you have a special word for it! Why don’t you just say I’m ‘normal’?”
It seems a weird thing to get worked up about.
There have been times when I’ve described myself as “cis”. There are times that I’ve described myself as “hetero”. There are times that I’ve described myself as “Oklahoman”. Sometimes making these sorts of distinctions is important, sometimes it’s not. It’s not like every situation requires you to explain every aspect of your background.
That’s sort of my point. Lactose intolerant people DIDN’T invent a new term for Lactose tolerant people, it’s just the default. I’ve never heard anyone describe themselves or anyone else for that matter as “Lactose Tolerant” If you are lactose tolerant, you are just normal. Only when you are Lactose intolerant does a distinction need to be made.
It’s not a common term, but it’s certainly used. (I’ve used it jokingly myself.) The point is, it’s used in situations where making the distinction is important. What word should be used instead? “Normal”? But in most of the world, lactose intolerance IS the norm.
If you’re at a conference with a fairly large number of trans people, (as I was last week) then referring to yourself as “cisgendered” in conversation might be a useful distinction to make. Certainly better than referring yourself as “normal”. It’s a technical term (like “heterosexual”) that’s primarily useful in situations where there’s a particular distinction you’re trying to make.
Well I wouldn’t call myself that, and would be offended if someone called me that. But according to some in this thread I should “just get over it” and not be offended because that’s what other people decided I should be called. THAT’S what I disagree with.
I grant it’s useful to have terms for discussing gender issues. IME that’s an extremely limited usage for me, but it’s useful to have formal terms that are clear and not value laden. I like Una’s defining it in discussions where she knows the audience doesn’t know the definition. That’s just good communication when you are discussing any specifically defined term of limited or differing definitions. An economist shouldn’t discuss profit with a roomful of accountants without stopping to clarify that their professions have different definitions of the word.
The term grates though. To some extent it’s because it’s used to label me based on external things which seems counter to the idea behind the terms. More importantly the whole discussion feels like it’s exclusive of me. I don’t feel any sense of internal gender identity. I don’t even get the conversation at anything other than a hypothetical level. It’s like discussing a painting that all looks like it’s the same color to my eye with people that can see the infrared. Agender, in some definitions, applies but in others not so much. At best it feels like a catch all label so that I have a label.
No, I think it’s because it’s a term almost solely created by one group that doesn’t really serve a great function, and shifts the framework of understanding towards one side for no particular reason. It’s not too different from when republicans started using “democrat” instead of “democratic” or when celebrities “consciously uncouple” instead of divorce.
Cisgendered is not a common term, and is going to confuse more people than it helps. It’s clinical and largely not that helpful.
Transgender people are like .3% of the population. The reality is that language in common parlance should not serve to characterize the overwhelming majority as a alternative to the characterization of the minority. It would be as if wheelchair bound people continually referred to walking people as ambulatory. Or if people without body dysmorphia were described as “body eumorphic”. Would really make sense to ask for an omnivore menu at a restaurant, or to make a point to mention I’m lactose tolerant?
I think many people reject the term because it reinforces the notion that language should attach and imply privilege to things that are largely not a matter of choice, and are overwhelmingly common place. As if the lack of any and every condition extends privilege which must be acknowledged linguistically.
It’s kinda bothersome because this type of jargon is slowly creeping into superficial conversations in which such specificity isn’t necessary or illuminating. For example, Facebook apparently has something like 70 gender options. How is that actually helpful to the majority of people?
All that said, it doesn’t bother me to the point I would waste much time thinking about how annoying the term is.
That’s because it, and most other non “cis” sexualities, make up a very small part of the human spectrum, and while I have complete acceptance of individuals with alternative sexualities and gender identifications, I find, in this case as in all similar ones that a special term to refer to the 99%* is a bit absurdist.
My reaction, on hearing it, is “uh-huh” and a pause to see if the conversation continues on mutually meaningful grounds or is a disguised attack on “normality.”
I can see confused, but why offended? It has no historically bad connotations, it wasn’t created as(or used as) a slur-what is offensive about the word?
You’d be offended if someone called you “lactose tolerant”? :dubious:
If you were in a situation where you were talking with someone who was transgendered and you wanted to make a point about your experiences as someone who isn’t transgendered, how would you refer to yourself?
“As a ______ male, here’s my opinion.”
What would you put in that blank?
Add +1 to OP.
I was born male.
Others were born female.
Still others have changed - do we debate if they changed sex, or just gender* - whatever it is, it has changed in some cases.
Gender is like religion - if you say you’re this, then I’ll treat you as this.
But don’t tell me that your being this somehow changes what I am.