If you have a preference, and you clearly do, I won’t call you cisgendered unless it’s necessary to differentiate between different types of non-trangendered people. I don’t understand your objection, but that’s okay. It’s apparently simpler for you to use two prefixes, rather than one, and it’s simpler to refer to someone as a non-surgeon than to say he or she is a lawyer. I will continue to describe myself as cisgender female blond computer tech, because to me, that is worlds simpler than describing myself as a non-transgendered, non-brunette, non-male non-surgeon.
Waldo, shall we refer to you as non-cisgender? shall we assume this includes the possability that you are not cisgender? (Nothing against you if you aren’t cisgender. You may well be, but “non-transgender” doesn’t exclude the possibility that you’re not cisgendered.)
Maybe it’s the chemical engineer in me, but “cis” carries the same baggage as the numeral two. Sure, it can be used as a negative (e.g. “die cis scum”) but so can any classification (Die Bart, die).
I do wonder if there was ever any objection to heterosexual and homosexual, or if it would be simpler to refer to homosexuals as “non-heterosexual.” Yeah, that doesn’t indicate whether someone is homosexual, bisexual, asexual, or any other flavor of sexuality, but it may be simpler.
Well, sure. Look, I’m saying that, if the relevant question is “are you a lawyer or a nonlawyer”, then “nonlawyer” is a perfectly good word; and in a discussion where the lawyer-or-nonlawyer question is irrelevant, then “nonlawyer” probably isn’t going to come up…
…and I merely note that, when I’ve been in the latter situation, I haven’t typically needed a word that’s not too different from “nonlawyer”; and when I’ve been in the former situation, I’ve of course used “nonlawyer” when it was relevant.
In situations where folks treat is-this-person-a-lawyer-or-a-nonlawyer as an important and relevant question, I’d prefer not to reply with “he’s a physicist,” because (a) why imply “nonlawyer” when I can simply be accurate? And (b) why imply “nonlawyer” if he actually is both a lawyer and a physicist?
In situations where the relevant and important question is are-you-a-physicist-or-not, sure, I probably wouldn’t wind up using the word “nonlawyer”. I also probably wouldn’t use the word “lawyer”, because it’d also be irrelevant.
OK. But you said “cisgender” was “imperfect,” I believe. I’m saying, used correctly, it is an ideal term. Useful, clear, precise, and concise. If both parties in a discussion know what it means, there is no better way to convey that meaning.
Yes, used correctly it is an ideal term. I’m just saying that it can be a crutch and marginalize those who are best described as neither cisgender nor transgender.
You know, my university had a professor who had both an MD and a JD; if there’s a surgeon out there who happens to be a lawyer, the fact that you treat “lawyer” as a subset of “non-surgeon” would be problematic.
That said – I’d refer to someone as a non-surgeon if the relevant issue was whether that person was a surgeon; I wouldn’t reply that way if you asked whether that person was a lawyer. Please tell me you get that? That you’re being playful, but you of course know that “non-surgeon” and “nonlawyer” are only descriptions that come up when are-you-a-surgeon or are-you-a-lawyer are the distinctions in question?
Yes, I absolutely get that. Do you that the issue of gender isn’t so binary, in discussion or in real life? If the ONLY question is “is that guy a lawyer (yes/no)” that’s a different thing than “what is your gender identity?” If the word comes up at all, in my experience, it’s part of a fuller definition and not “transgender (yes/no).”
I am cisgendered. My perspective will be different than that of someone who is transgendered, agendered, genderrfluid, or intersex person (or anything else on the spectrum that is gender.) If I am offering my perspective, it is as a person whose biological sex matches my gender identity. That is different than just being “not transgendered.”
ETA you do get that, right? that in discussion as well as in life, the question of transgender or not-transgender is not the only information that is usually being conveyed, so cisgender is actually really useful if used correctly?
I’ve never yet been in a non-hypothetical situation that called for greater detail than asking “is this person transgender (yes/no).” Again, if I’m ever in a situation where someone wants a greater level of detail than “transgender or non-transgender”, I’ll reluctantly go along with it – again, like someone who prefers “black” but realizes we in fact need to specify “African-American” just this once – but, again, to the best of my recollection, no, that hasn’t really come up yet.
Would you also refer to someone who is straight as being “non-homosexual”? Do you think that the term adequately conveys what you want it to?
Most of the time I have encountered the word it has been as SELF identification - in that I want to convey specifically that my biological sex and gender identity are not in conflict. I have NEVER been in a situation where I was asked to identify as transgender or non-transgender. The whole thread started with “don’t call me cisgender!” Well, that’s what i am, go ahead and call me that. I have also never been a situation where I was asked to identify someone ELSE as “transgender or not transgender.” It has been volunteered to me, but I have never been asked to specify someone else’s gender identity.
This is all a pretty hypothetical discussion. These aren’t words that get used very often.
Waldo, i have no beef with you. You have a preferred descriptor, I’ll try to use it for you.
If they told me that’s what they’d prefer.
Well, if you for some reason asked a guy “are you homosexual?” and drew the reply, “no, I’m not” – then, yeah, I guess he’d have conveyed an adequate response to your question, just as he would’ve if he’d replied “no, I’m straight.” If that’s what you want to ask him, I’d say his answer suffices.
Uh, okay. And if someone else says “don’t call me cisgender”, I won’t.
Much obliged. And right back atcha.
I will echo this Waldo. I may be coming across as antagonistic, but if you don’t want to be called that, I will try to remember that.
Well, shucks, I sure don’t want to seem antagonistic either; you’re aces in my book.
Awesome - I don’t think I have ever been aces in anyone’s book.
Now I feel all warm and fuzzy:D
:dubious: This is perhaps not the best way to persuade people that objections to the perfectly cromulent and non-pejorative term “cisgender” are founded on anything more than frivolous obstructionism.
But having noted that you personally don’t like the term “cisgender” for whatever reason, I’ll do my best to remember not to call you that.
I’m not sure I completely agree, to be honest. I don’t think people should be expected to go out of their way to specially acknowledge or accommodate a statistically insignificant minority (Note the use of the word statistically there. It’s very important) that in a general setting they are unlikely to be interacting with.
As I said before, the number of transgender people I’ve met in my life numbers less than a dozen. If I’m addressing a crowd of people and begin with “Ladies and Gentlemen…” then I respectfully suggest the onus is on the perhaps literally one person in that room doesn’t identify as male or female (and stastically, there won’t be anyone in that room who doesn’t) to understand no offence was intended by not saying “and those of no fixed gender” as well. Unless I was adressing an audience at an LGBT+ event or something like that, obviously. Context is important.
Let me be absolutely and unequivocally clear: I do not think there is anything wrong at all with being homosexual or transgender.
I work in the communications field. There’s a lot of socially progressive people there who like being offended on behalf of other people. Often other people they don’t know or have anything meaningful to do with, IMO.
I live in the real world. I am bothered by the term “Cisgender”. I’m not religious. I am not anti-transgender. I am not anti-homosexual. I don’t condone the deliberate oppression of transgender and/or homosexual people. But at the same time, I’m not going to go around constantly second guessing myself in case I offend someone by omission or having an outlook that isn’t considered progressive enough by people on the social justice spectrum.
If someone is transgender and wants me to refer to them as a whatever gender they identify as, then that’s fine and I’m happy to oblige. If they want to use the restroom which matches their self-identified gender - again fine. I can’t see why that would be an issue for anyone, to be honest. Ditto wanting to dress as a member of their self-identified gender, and basically live their life as whatever gender makes them happy.
What I don’t like is the way the whole thing has been politicised. If someone is transgender, then that’s their thing. Let them live their life and be happy. I’m sorry there are so many fuckwits out there who use a two-millenia old book to justify being deliberately and actively shitty to them.
In an academic context the word is fine - it has a legitimate, recognised and sometimes necessary use. In a general context, however, the only time I’ve heard the word used is by people going about “white, cisgender heteronormative privilege” and similar stuff. Which is why I don’t like it.
Thank you, i understand where you are coming from, now. I think it is unfortunate, because “cis” is a useful, convenient word.
I come from a technical field, and while sometimes someone will edit a memo to remove the implication that the person referenced is a guy, that’s about as much “offense on behalf of others” as i normally run into. In my personal life, i hang out with enough trans people that the topic comes up, however. And in that context, typically no one is offended, no one is looking for trouble, and many in the room want an easy tag for those of us whose gender and biology match comfortably enough. “Cis” does the job. It is usually used in the context of describing an “ally”. It might be used to describe the events at a trans convention that are targeted at the cis partners of trans people, many of whom attend. It’s still not a word that comes up that often. After all, it’s the default, you don’t usually have to say anything. But it’s a useful word, and one i am comfortable with to describe me.
Do you deny that you are thusly privileged, or you just don’t want to talk about it?