Is there another word for cisgender?
Non-transgender.
No, I’ve met somebody who is androgen insensitive.
What’s problematic there? If people aren’t physiologically and mentally in accord with a binary gender position, they’re not cisgender, and you don’t call them so.
It’s not so much that “cis” is horrible nasty and always a pejorative. It’s that us caring and progressive people have learned that when a group tells us "Hey, please dont use that term" we now respond with *“Sure, if that’s what you want, Ok by me.” *Often with a qualifier like “Do note, we didn’t mean anything pejorative by that term, we used it without meaning offense, sorry.”
So then when we ask others to *“please dont use that term, it offends me”, *we expect everyone to be on board with it- with a qualifier, sure.
So then we are shocked when the reply is “you have no right to be offended and we’ll keep using that term whether you like it or not- and the fact that you’re offended by it means YOU are intolerant” !!
We expect to be treated like we have tried to treat others- and if you’re part of a majority group, it doesnt happen.
This just leads to more anger and intolerance.
Except that many cisgender people are fine with the term, and prefer it. Do i have to refrain from using it to describe me because you don’t like it? If so, can you propose a term that actually describes a person whose body matches their mental image of themselve regarding gender? I’d prefer a positive term, not a term describing what i an not.
What is the need for that term?
There are perfectly good substitutes as well. In public discussions I frequently use the term “non-transgender” instead of “cisgender.” The meaning is apparent without being specifically diminutive of any group. It also doesn’t carry the baggage of seeming like academese or being offensive to some.
Often the words don’t need to be used at all. When describing someone’s sexual orientation, do you really need to use “transgender” or “cisgender” as a prefix to it?
As a result, “cis” and “cisgender” should be used sparingly in public discourse. There are a limited number of circumstances in which they are necessary, appropriate, and ultimately beneficial to the community as a whole.*
But a group hasn’t done this. A few individuals may have, but when we are in the same “group”, then that’s very, very different then a minority or outside group telling us that.
Una and me, at least, have said we won’t call you cis. Is that not enough? Are we expected to stop using that word for anyone and everyone because you don’t like it? If I ask you to stop calling me “human”, would you stop using it to describe anyone?
Of course not. I’ll even address you however you prefer. I merely express my own preference with my own live-and-let-live enthusiasm. (I am curious, though; you say “many”. Have there been any polls showing which term we prefer?)
“Non-surgeon” would be a useful term if there were only two jobs in the world, and one of them were “surgeon.” But since that’s not the case, “non-surgeon” actually offers very little clarity, because it doesn’t tell us what you actually do, just one thing (on an almost infinite list) that you do not do. Which is why you’ll almost never see “non-surgeon” listed on a resume.
Which is exactly the same problem, on a much reduced scale, with “non-transgender.” While the vast majority of people are cisgendered, and a very small population are transgendered, there are other, even smaller populations that don’t fit into either category. Defining yourself as “non-transgendered” doesn’t actually tell me what you are, it’s just one thing (on an admittedly much more finite list) that you aren’t.
I do believe that more than one person asked us not to use “tranny”.
So, then, I can use “faggot”, “tranny”, and what not- except only to and when a individual asks me not to use it, then only not for them?
It’s would be ok for Gov Wallace to keep using “Nigger” - but not to the face of any specific individual who asked him not to? :dubious:
as my cite sez “The use of “cis” and “cisgender” should be carefully examined. There are people who strenuously object to these words being applied to them, even if the words come from an academic background. Just as my feelings on certain subjects should be respected, so should the feelings of people who dislike these labels…It isn’t logically or ethically consistent to tell one group of people that they need to get over a word they dislike being used to describe them while strenuously objecting to a word being applied to you, even if both words can be used in a contextually neutral way. The logic cuts both directions.”
And let’s not try to make my feelings about a word ridiculous, by comparing it to “human”. I have posted several cites that state that ‘cis’ is commonly and often used as a pejorative*. “Human” is not.
*"Even inside the LGBT community the words have a very negative connotation. When someone is referred to as a “cisgender lesbian” or “cis gay man” by a transgender person, it is often in a negative way. The addition of “cis” or “cisgender” is used to imply a certain level of contempt and a desire that they leave discussions on transgender issues. It also implies that they don’t, can’t, or won’t ever understand transgender issues…Just as no one ever called me “tranny” and meant it in a nice or affectionate way, many LGB people have never been called “cis” or “cisgender” in a way that wasn’t accusatory. Therefore we find common ground in disliking a word because its context has always been nasty and demeaning when applied to us personally."
For years, I casually used the term “tranny” as a simple shortening of the words. I meant nothing pejorative. When I was called on it- I stopped. I didnt stop just for that one person- I stopped using it altogether.
Well, yeah. But if the discussion revolves around surgeons and non-surgeons, such that it’s the relevant distinction, then I figure it’d be a useful term.
As I understand it there really are regulations barring stuff to all nonlawyers – and they don’t care what else you are in addition to being a nonlawyer; they just want to put that out there, though lo “nonlawyer” is vast and does contain multitudes.
Why are you ignoring the in-group vs out-group dynamic? My gender identity matches my biological sex. I am not gay, and I am not trans. I know what it’s like to be cis (or your preferred word). I have personal experience, as much as you or anyone, unlike with the other categories. That’s a huge difference. If a black person says something about the use of racial slurs against black people, I can’t say they’re wrong, because they have infinitely more experience with being black and having black racial slurs used against them. But when you say something about “cis”, this isn’t the case – we have the same experiences in this category.
You aren’t trans – you, wisely, took the opinion (which was relatively united) of trans people about that word.
I am cis. My gender identity matches my biological sex. Further, cis people are not anything close to united about this word.
It’s not at all comparable – I’m a member of the group, and the group is not anything close to unified in calling this word offensive. I know what it’s like to be a member of this group, and can use this experience as part of my judgment on the word “cis” (something I can’t do for “fag”, “trans”, or various racial slurs that don’t apply to my ethnicity).
That’s why it’s different. So I won’t call you “cis”, or anyone else who doesn’t want to be called “cis”, but unless I have some indication that most people whose gender identity matches their biological sex are offended by it (and your article is just the opinion of one writer), then I’m going to continue to use the word in applicable discussions (which are pretty damn rare) in general.
Black people know more about being called racial slurs for black people than I do – I take their word for it. Gay people know more about being called anti-gay slurs than I do. Same goes for trans people.
But not for you. You don’t know any more about being called any possible slur for matching-gender-identity-to-biological-sex people than I do. You have no more or better experience than me. So your preference applies to you, but it’s no more likely to apply to the larger group than my preference is. In fact, in my experience, people like me whose gender matches their biological sex mostly have no problem with “cis”.
So why would I stop using a word which applies to my group, and for which I have no indication that most members of the group are offended by, just because you, a few others, and a writer don’t like the word, except when referring to you and those others personally?
Sez who?
What you’re saying here that for a bigot or a caring progressive person to stop using a word- they have to take a vote.
You say “trans people” are “relatively united” about “tranny” being unacceptable, but according to who? ( I know some of that community who have no issue at all with using “tranny”. They even use it for their group. )
And, who sez the group has to be “united”? How about just a reasonable number?
Do we take a vote? At what % do we stop using it?
How about if it is just acknowledged in cites to be* too often* used as a slur?
That should be good enough. “Cis” has been shown, definitely, to be used “too often” as a slur. Caring, compassionate persons should thus stop using it. No need for votes, no need to keep a list in your head of who has or has not asked you to stop. Just stop. It’s so very easy.
So would you refer to a lawyer as a “non-surgeon?”
I’m not going to tell gay people the proper way to use language about gay people. I’m not going to tell trans people the proper way to use language about trans people.
And yet you are willing to tell a person whose gender identity matches their biological sex how to use language about people whose gender identity matches their biological sex.
Bullshit, I say. You don’t know more than me about this group. Cis has not been shown to be a slur anything close to definitively. And I can say this because I am part of this group. I can’t say this about words for groups I’m not a part of.
It’s not about percentages - it’s about not telling people what language they should or shouldn’t use regarding their own group, at least not with overwhelming evidence at the very least.
Well, if said lawyer wasn’t a surgeon – and somebody asked me why I didn’t let that surgeon in – then I guess I’d reply that he’s a non-surgeon. Or whatever; if it’s true and relevant, I’d say that he’s a non-surgeon – and I wouldn’t mention whether he’s unmarried, or an atheist, or whatever. Unless they asked, and then I’d say so.
If a boxer happens to be the undefeated heavyweight champion, and you ask me whether that boxer happens to be the undefeated heavyweight champion, I guess I’d mention that, too – regardless of whether he also happens to be a lawyer.
On a board full of pedants and people who love to be precise in language, the determination to keep people from using specific words that mean specific things is pretty funny.
I am on my phone and the conversation is moving faster than i am. If someone mentioned that they had gotten in trouble with the law, for instance, would you say " i know a great non - surgeon who can help you"? Would you define a lawyer in connection to what skills or attributes he lacks in that respect?
For the record, I’m not trying to keep people from using specific words; I’m merely stating my preference. I’d likewise express a preference if someone wanted to refer to me as “a Hebrew” – and not because they’d be incorrect.
No, but if someone got in trouble with the law and said “Do you think I should hire Gary? I hear Gary represented himself in court, and got all the charges dropped; would Gary be a good choice?” – then I may well say “uh, Gary’s a nonlawyer.”
So, no, I wouldn’t mention someone being a non-surgeon unless it was relevant; and, likewise, I wouldn’t mention someone being a nonlawyer unless it was relevant. But if it’s relevant, then, yeah, I’d presumably say it.
In discussions about gender issues, sometimes I need a word to describe people whose gender identity matches their biological sex.
As mentioned above, “non-transgendered” doesn’t really do the job, since there are intersex people and people who don’t feel comfortable with the gender binary. I want a word that specifically refers to those people who have a sell defined sex, and a matching gender.
It’s not like this is a word that comes up very often. But it does sometimes come up. And I don’t think the idea I am trying to convey is intrinsically offensive. It’s not as if I am looking for a word for “those nasty sexist people who aren’t trans”. I want a simple descriptive word for a common condition. What word do you want me to use?
I challenge your “definitively” and “too often”. But if I grant that, I still need a word. Suggest something that others will understand.
Okay. I don’t like to be called “a Hebrew”, either.
Clearly, there are some people who are offended by “cis”. I will be more careful of how I use it going forward. But I can’t see purging it from my vocabulary until I have some other word. 