That’s…kinda what I was saying? They may not be transgender as the best descriptor either.
*"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?"
*
Not usually, no. In some circumstances, perhaps. Since I’m a member of that group (and thus able to use personal experience as an input, unlike with potential pejoratives for gay and trans people), and since I’ve seen no evidence that it’s used in a pejorative way more than extremely rarely, and because it’s specific and much more useful than vagueries like “non-transgender”, I may sometimes continue to use the word, except to describe people who have asserted their preference to not have the word used for them.
Sure, but discussions about gender identity do not necessarily break down into a simple cis/trans binary. There are other groups that are not represented by those two designations, which means that a label that simply excludes one designation is not sufficiently informative for those purposes. Saying that someone is “non-trans” includes the possibility that they are cisgendered, agendered, genderqueer, or so forth.
On a related note, I wonder – are the folks who object to the use of “cisgender” to describe them aware of those categories mentioned by Miller and Una, do they know what they are, and do they accept that they are real things?
Well, sure – but I gotta tell ya, it’s a bit weird that you make that point by describing some folks as “agendered”. Because of course you describe them that way: defining them in terms of what they aren’t, as if grabbing a perfectly good word and slapping the relevant prefix on it. Why wouldn’t you? It’s practical!
(You can tell, because, it weren’t practical, I’d call it impractical!)
If you need to distinguish me from an agendered person, there’s a word for me; and if you need to distinguish both of us from someone who happens to be transgender, well, there’s a word for that, too; word-plus-or-minus-prefix as needed!
Well to describe people with my orientation, “sex god” would do just fine. Make it so!
And, as ever, I wonder whether you’ve engaged in that sort of musing about, oh, say, anyone else who’s expressed a preference for one term over another.
That said – would it really make a difference? Should my use of the term ‘nonlawyer’ hinge on my ability to describe all other jobs and my acceptance of each?
(For the record, yes, I’m aware of the terms; and, yes, I’m happy to accept them; and I don’t see the relevance, because if someone who happens to be non-transgender states a preference, I’ll say ‘okay’ instead of asking for bona fides.)
Sex god works just fine.
Nothing remotely weird about it. “Agendered” is “without gender.” It’s not the same thing as, “not male,” or “not female,” in pretty much exactly the way that “atheist” isn’t the same as “not Catholic.” There’s lots and lots of people who are not Catholic. Not all of them are atheists. Likewise, there’s lots and lots of people who are not transgendered. Not all of them are cisgendered. While you can certainly construct hypotheticals where “not transgendered” is all the information you need to convey, it’s equally easy to construct hypotheticals where “not transgendered” does not convey nearly enough information. For those situations, it’s very helpful to have a word like “cisgender.”
Oh, granted; in a hypothetical situation where you absolutely have to refer to me as “cisgender” instead of “non-transgender” because you have to subdivide the latter even further, then I of course can’t prefer the latter over the former. Likewise, if it’s a situation where you need to specify which type of “not Catholic” I am.
But if you’re for some reason just distinguishing me from folks who happen to be transgender, and don’t need to subdivide further, then I request that you shrug.
I have had to go through this thread twice, (due to various Reports and not a major interest in the topic), but I have yet to see a clear explanation as to why “cisgender” is supposed to be insulting. I am not arguing that anyone should be “forced” to accept the term, (how often does the topic arise in daily conversation, anyway), but the claim that it is insulting appears to be either an invention or an ideolectic bugaboo. What is the point of claiming a neutral word with technical implications is insulting?
Yes, i read that. My post was a response to that.
Now, I grant that often I don’t need a word at all. But occasionally I do. Non-transgendered doesn’t cut it, the meaning is wrong. (Not to mention that’s it’s too long to use in casual conversation, where I say “cis” to describe myself.) So I specifically asked you for a word I can use. What do you suggest?
Alas, i can’t claim that title. 
So does that mean you’re withdrawing your objection to the prefix cis-? It’s practical! Using two prefixes (both non- and trans) seems impractical to me. Especially since it really doesn’t convey that much information (as non-brunette doesn’t tell you what actual hair color ois s being discussed).
It’s not that they think the term is insulting, it’s the idea that they’re being asked to adopt an entirely new label for themselves (rather than “normal”). These people want their normal to be the default, and they want transgendered people to be “other”. They’re not accepting the idea that cisgender people are no more “normal” or “abnormal” than transgender or intersex, and dislike being called anything other than “the way things are supposed to be.”
Not in general, no.
Seems fine to me.
Miller pointed out that, in some hypothetical scenario, non-transgender may not be sufficiently precise; in a situation like that, where it has to be subdivided further, I won’t object. But in every situation where “non-transgender” does suffice – which, in my experience thus far, has been all of 'em – my preference remains.
Imagine someone tells us she’d prefer not to be described as African-American; she prefers black. I’d of course oblige her, instead of asking her to justify her choice, but that’s neither here nor there. But as we’re doing hypotheticals, imagine that we’re eventually in a situation where “black” isn’t sufficiently precise; say you explicitly don’t want to discuss Kenyans or Nigerians, but only – well, African-Americans.
I understand why, when one absolutely must subdivide the imprecise term, one would reluctantly override her general preference. But I’d still default to using her general preference when that’s not the case, because polite respect and basic decency.
Well, look, I can easily think of times when all that needs to be conveyed is whether someone (a) is a brunette or not; or whether someone (b) is transgender or not. I’ve of course been in many discussions where the only relevant distinction was whether someone happens to be X or not.
I’m willing to grant that, in a hypothetical situation where “transgender or not” isn’t detailed enough, there doesn’t seem to be an alternate term; I merely note that, in situations where “transgender or not” is the question du jour, the term I generally prefer would be clear (and AFAICT clearer) and accurate (and AFAICT more accurate).
I think you’re imagining I’m trying to make a much more abstract point than I’m making. The answer to your questions is yes. If someone said to me “don’t call me a physicist, call me a non-lawyer,” I would wonder whether they realize that there’s shades of meaning there, and whether they think it’s productive to eradicate those shades of meaning, if sometimes I personally found it important to indicate information about people pertaining to their vocation other than whether they were lawyers.
And yes, your use of the term ‘nonlawyer,’ if you’re going to assert that it’s important and we’re going to have a conversation about which preference makes more sense, should hinge upon whether you realize that physicist implies nonlawyer and also connotes additional, sometimes important, information.
You think that explains why I prefer “non-transgender”? How strange; that’s not me declaring myself “normal” or “the default”; rather, it’s “an entirely new label” – which is, of course, defined in terms of the other label! – that would seem to run afoul of your “dislike being called anything other than” rule.
As far as I can tell, it’s the exact opposite of what you said. Like, in every detail.
So you’re saying that transgender people cannot be sex gods?