I don’t really care what you prefer.
If we’re talking about popular usage, though, negative-construction “non-” terms tend not to catch on when there’s a synonymous positive-construction term. For example, the term “non-homosexual” was never anywhere near as popular as “heterosexual” (moreover, its use seems to have peaked in the 1960s).
You’re missing the point. Let’s say that, against all reason and logic, “straight” is adopted to refer to people who aren’t transgendered. All the people you claim are using “cisgendered” as an insult? They’re just going to use “straight” in exactly the same manner. So, how has your objection to the word “cisgender” improved anything?
I thought you said earlier that “straight” meant “not transgender”.
::shrugs:: I’m a polite and obliging sort, who – when told by people that they’d sure prefer I use a different term in place of the one I’d found acceptable – have routinely and graciously switched to their preferred term, because, hey, if they’re unobjectionable and so is their term of choice, why wouldn’t I care what they prefer?
It seems that your approach is – different.
My approach is that as a cisgendered person, I prefer cisgendered and am mature enough not to complain about nomenclature for no other reason than to get to be the one who complains.
Interesting.
You know, I’ve met people who say “I prefer to be referred to as ‘African-American’ instead of ‘black’.” And I’ve met people who say “I prefer to be referred to as ‘black’ instead of ‘African-American’.” I’ve never dismissed either with a quick “I don’t care what you think,” nor have I accused either of complaining for no other reason than to get to be the one who complains. And if I ever meet someone who genuinely prefers yet another term, why, I’d shrug at that too.
After all, it beats casting aspersions, IMHO.
I guess I just do unto others as I’d have 'em do unto me. Do you?
If I were black, I might.
You had the opportunity to explain why non-transgendered should be the preferred term and you have so far failed to do that. Why should I ascribe any weight to the opinion of someone who doesn’t even know why his preference should be preferred?
You’re missing the point. Let’s say that, against all reason and logic, “black” is adopted instead of “nigger”. All the people you claim are using “nigger” as an insult? They’re just going to use “black” in exactly the same manner. So, how has your objection to the word “nigger” improved anything?
You’re leaping from “have so far failed” to “doesn’t even know”, which seems dubious. You’re also missing that I’ve posted my reason earlier in this thread, which makes both halves of your claim dubious. Maybe you should ask questions instead of making flat statements? You might be better with questions than flat statements.
That said, while I of course don’t recall asking anyone to justify their reasonable preferences when it comes to what they’re called – because, again, I’m polite and obliging and recommend it – I guess I’d be polite and obliging enough to repeat the reasons you claim I never yet mentioned.
Tell you what: if you’re polite and obliging enough to switch from claiming I haven’t given a reason to simply requesting one, I’ll politely oblige. I mean, it’s only fair.
(It’s a little weird – I don’t recall ever having to explain a personal preference, instead of just expressing it – but, hey, ask and ye shall receive.)
I am cisgender, and i don’t like non-transgender. That defines me by what i am not, rather than what i am. If describing myself i would not say “non brunette” or “non black”. so why wotld i say non-transgender when there is a simpler phrase?
So you seem to be best by hordes of as you describe them “social justice warriors,” who have somehow soured you on the word. And all of them must be transgender too, or else they’re Self-Hating Cisgender Social Justice Warriors.
Oddly, in the real world I work in with my community, my experience is pretty much the opposite. Among the people who will say to my face they don’t like the term “cisgender,” 100% of them have been anti-transgender people who were looking for some wedge issue. I’m not saying this has any bearing on yourself; just that the people who tend to feel most strongly about it in the public fora where I debate and lecture tend to be the one who are also campaigning actively against me and my people.
YMMV.
I feel sometimes that these endless discussions and circling about over a valid, scientific term, which does not have a pejorative history, and aside from a few cases of web comics and semi-anonymous commentators on social media (“die cis scum”), are deliberately meant to distract from the real issues facing a very heavily marginalized and discriminated against minority.
I stand by what I said in response to Martini, and it is not a comment on his opinions per se. In the real world, the only people who I meet who are bothered or “upset” about the term cisgender are the same people who are standing up and proposing or supporting legislation, policies, guidelines, or practices to discriminate against and further marginalize people like myself. They are the WBC folks who come to town, the Catholic groups (some of whom, locally, can put the WBC to shame in terms of hate speech), the “compassionate conservatives” of my state who just recently are trying to make it illegal for me to use the proper public restroom at my own freaking University(!), and so forth. That may be that they’re just the only ones angry enough to speak out, and when they do all their anti-transgender Festivus erupts in one fell swoop, but I don’t know.
I won’t call an individual cisgender personally if they ask me not to, and I don’t ask why. It’s not my business why. That doesn’t mean I will stop using a valid, scientific term. If someone says “don’t call me a human being because it’s offensive” (as one otherkin person (a Kitsune) did to me), then I don’t call them a human being. But that doesn’t mean that I stop all use of the words “human being.”
As of this year I’m now a paid researcher in the field of transgender studies, professionally this word works very well to simply replace “non-transgender.” I try to avoid it in casual conversation and among mixed audiences, but really when you are lecturing and teaching and giving testimony on the subject of transgender, it’s just a very convenient and useful word.
Where “cisgender” is problematic is when one is dealing with transgender versus agender, bigender, demi-gender, or other gender-non-binary persons. In that case calling them “cisgender” is not accurate, but then it’s also not entirely accurate to call them “non-transgender,” since many definitions of the word “transgender” include anyone who is not in a strict gender binary in terms of identity and expression which aligns body and mind (and then, there is the issue of intersex…). Cisgender isn’t a perfect word. For that matter, neither is transgender, which is one reason I still refer to myself as “transsexual” in many venues.
And again I wonder, is this the real battleground for civil rights here?
Um, really? You want to be defined in reference to being transgendered? Um, okay. I prefer cisgendered. because:
I will try to remember to call you “non-transgendered” if you will do me the same courtesy, and try to remember to call me cisgendered, should it ever be relevant.
But of course the point is, “what is the best default word if you don’t know the preferences of the person you are describing?” For an individual you know, it’s always okay to use whatever they prefer to be called. You can call your friend a nigger if you know he likes to be referred to that way. You only need general rules for other people.
It had never really occurred to me that cisgendered might offend anyone before I read this thread. I suppose it doesn’t actually come up very often, so it’s unlikely to be a serious problem for me. So far, I don’t see a consensus that I should avoid “cisgender”, and as a member of that group, I think I get a vote. So for now, I will stick with it.
And I am non-transgender, and prefer it over cisgender.
I don’t mind being defined by what I’m not rather than what I happen to be. Much like an atheist – who, if asked whether he’s a theist, replies “no, I’m an atheist” – I don’t mind describing myself in such terms. (Of course, I’m not an atheist, but I’ve attended nondenominational services; does that count? How do non-practicing Jews fit in?)
I’m a nongolfer. I’m a nonphysician. I’m a non-vegetarian. There may be other ways to express those concepts, but I like those words just fine – which brings me to this:
I think the phrase “a simpler phrase” is oversimplifying it.
I don’t know if there’s another word for, say, ‘non-surgeon’’ – and I don’t need to know, because ‘non-surgeon’ already works just fine.
There was a time when I knew what ‘transgender’ meant, and had never heard the word ‘cisgender’ – and even then I knew what ‘non-transgender’ meant, despite never having heard the word ‘non-transgender’ either. At that point, I would’ve preferred the word I knew over the one I didn’t; and, for simplicity’s sake, I’d now still prefer the one with an immediately obvious meaning over the one that’s going to call for an explanation as folks stare at me blankly and wonder what “cisgender” means.
AFAICT, saying “non-transgender” increases simplicity and clarity.
I prefer simplicity and clarity.
::shrugs::
(Is there another word for non-surgeon? So long as a great many people don’t know it, but instantly grasp the meaning of ‘non-surgeon’, it doesn’t actually matter, because I’d prefer to shoot for, y’know, simplicity and clarity.)
“Humble.”
No, I’ve met lawyers.
Interesting OP … the thread is TL;DR …
I consider myself something of an expert at making up words as I go along, and I honestly think this new word cisgender leaves much to be desired. The prefix cis- is opposite just one of the many many definitions of the prefix trans-, and with these definitions we have to have a solid impenetrable wall between … we’re cisgender when we are on one side of the wall, transgender when were on both sides of the wall … which doesn’t make any sense, either we’re on one side or the other, so we’re all cisgender.
Better to tear down the wall, if it’s equality we want then maybe inventing new and improved labels just divides us further. As an example in the USA, we’re all Americans, doesn’t matter how many adjectives we add, deep inside we’re all just plain old everyday Americans.
The chromosomal prejudice in this country is horrific, let’s solve that issue first.
This exchange is a good example of why cisgender is generally (but not always) preferable to non-trandgender. It’s something puzzlegal hit on the head in post 614. Cisgender defines what somebody is, and non-trandgener defines what they are not.
I’m not Asian. It’s true. Does that give you an idea of what my ethnicity is? Only marginally. It’s much more useful to define what I am, unless we are talking specifically about something where an Asian background is relevant.
The same thing goes for trans and cisgender. It’s generally more useful to define what a person is rather than what they are not. As Una alluded to, gender is not strictly binary. By defining a person as non-transgender, you are grouping them with cisgender people when they in fact may not be.
I don’t see it. The whole point – wrapped in a joke, of course, but I figure there’s a point inside – is that “non-surgeon” means non-surgeon, just like “nonlawyer” means nonlawyer. And that some other word might introduce disputes, but “non-surgeon” and “nonlawyer” just do what they showed up to do, with all-kidding-aside clarity.