Well, to be fair most agender people I know (and non-binary people) identify as “trans” as an umbrella term. My NB friends distinguish between “binary transpeople” (transmen and transwomen) and “nonbinary transpeople” (which is an area where the lingo seems really in flux, at least I don’t have it down). Likewise, my couple agender friends call themselves trans, though I think that’s largely because “trans” is sort of an umbrella of convenience for “atypical gender identity” folk. There can be some friction in the community; there’s always that non-binary zealot who says binary transpeople are Upholding The Patriarchy By Enforcing Gender Roles™, or that binary transperson who says the agender person is “just confused”*, but largely it’s a pretty unifying umbrella. As long as you find the right group of people at least.
Generally speaking, I’d assume “trans” or “trangender” means pretty much anything that’s “not cis”, including agender, unless further clarified by context. “Transsexual” is much more narrow, and generally refers to binary transpeople (including intersex people) who transition to a binary gender identity. Though “transsexual” still rubs me the wrong way for reasons I can’t put my finger on (I think it has to do with the fact that “transsexual” tends to precede really awkward depictions in film and TV whereas “transgender” is comparatively rarer and used primarily in media made by/for queer folk).
This might be different if you were at a gender identity-focused or queer-focused conference or event, where things might have a little more granularity in definition, but out in the vast unknown wilds that’s what I’d assume in the general case.
To be fair, most agender people I’ve met eventually became some flavor of binary trans. When people are coming out it can be scary, so a lot of times they dip their toes in as genderfluid or agender and select “they” pronouns until they settle into their actual gender identity. Some people really are these things, though!
There are three genders … masculine, feminine and neuter … is there a label for those who set aside their sexuality? Would that be (E)-gender or (Z)-gender?
I assume you live in a 1st World Democracy. Ifso, you are far more privileged than the inhabitants of such 3rd or 4th World places as Bangladesh or the Sudan that the comparison becomes ridiculous. Check *your *privilege.
And for all you baffled people, there really aren’t many terms that are used to describe 99+ % of humanity (the only one that comes to mind is heterosexual), so when people come up with a new label that describes 99+% of humanity people will naturally object to it.
My own personal issue with it, is that for me it IS pejorative as I have only ever heard it used offensively from the “check your privilege” regressive asshole community. I have never even met anyone outside of that community who knows what the word even means - which is another reason I won’t use it since it just confuses most people.
If I talk about my gender I would say I’m female. If I need to clarify further I will say that I was born female as well. very simple stuff. If that’s not enough info for you then… good luck in life.
If someone else who was not born female, identifies as female just like me - that is perfectly fine. We can both be female. I am very sympathetic to the trans community but this is not the battle that needs to be fought, imho.
I apologize for my point being lost in that. My point was that if you think of a new label to define 99+% of humanity people will generally oppose it. If some people, for example, decided that people who are not vertically challenged should be called cisdwarves (I apologize for my lack of creativity there) that will be met with objection by people who are not used to that label nor see a use for it. Natural. If anyone finds that surprising, I suggest socializing more with other people.
I don’t think this is generally true, nor do I see why it should be. Not, in the list I provided in my last post, the general lack of outrage by the vast majority of humanity at being saddled with terms like “gentile.” Or, from your one example, “heterosexual.” In fact, while it’s easy to think of terms that apply to the majority of humans, I’m having trouble coming up with any that are objected to by the majority of humanity. Nobody seems particularly perturbed (other than a handful of bigots) at being defined as “gentiles” by the tiny population of Jews in the world. It’s just “cisgender” that gets people’s dander up.
I already explained why, but I guess you’re willfully ignoring what I wrote? Those terms are not NEW and slapped onto people recently. The few that apply (mammal doesn’t fyi) have been used since the existence of civilization so we’re used to them by now.
Getting people to accept a new unnecessary term is what we’re talking about. A new, unnecessary term that many people haven’t even heard of and half of those that have head of it, find it pejorative. A little clearer?
I assume you do go around making sure not to offend people in general, since that’s a requirement of getting along with people. Unless you have absolutely no mental filter–and I see no sign of that–then you regularly “second guess” what you want to say before you say it. Why should you do it less for trans people?
Seeing as you haven’t even chosen to even try to understand it enough to know that “ladies and gentlemen” isn’t offensive to trans people, and are just making up things that they are offended about so you can dismiss them, it sure doesn’t seem like you hold trans people in any high regard. You can’t be bothered to actually look up a real trans issue. Or learn that you actually have seen a lot more trans people than you know.
Then why are you politicizing it by declaring what you admit to be a scientific word to be offensive? Why are you choosing to get politically involved?
So, because people say it in the context of a content you disagree with, you think you have the right to declare it as offensive. They aren’t using it incorrectly, and they aren’t using it as slur. They are talking about a legitimate concept that you happen to disagree with.
The point is, you have no legitimate reason to call the word offensive. It’s used by people you disagree with–that’s all you have. It’s not used as a slur–hence why you have to add “scum” to the end. It wasn’t developed in a context to say something mean. And it was coined by cisgender people, so you can’t claim it’s someone else giving you a name. And it’s not as if you’ve proposed an alternative.
If something is unoffensive enough to be used in a scientific context, it isn’t an offensive term. You are merely choosing to be offended. You are trying to take away a useful word for trans-cis relations.
It’s like getting offended by “white,” “heterosexual,” and “male” for the term “white heterosexual male privilege.”
And note: I am on record of not really liking the word “privilege.” It’s not an invalid concept, but the word implies to me something that is earned, and that the majority should be brought down to the minority instead of the minority being brought up.
*When these words are used in focus groups that look at messaging on transgender issues, the responses are nearly universally negative. The conclusion of many organizations is that you should not use either “cisgender” or “cis” in any sort of public narrative.
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.
In some cases it is appropriate to call someone on their unexamined privilege. However, using the word “cis” or “cisgender” is not necessary to do so. 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.
*
Makes it clear the word is commonly used as a slur. And that it is only acceptable in a scientific context.
The word/term “Negroid” is still acceptable in a scientific context, but not in polite discourse outside of that specific and limited context. Several other terms are similar.
It so happens I know Brynn, and you are misrepresenting her article, especially the part at the end where she merely says (in her opinion) that: “As a result, “cis” and “cisgender” should be used sparingly in public discourse.”
She did not say it could only be used in a “scientific context” as you say in a later post in this thread; the words “scientific context” do not even appear in the article, nor does the string “scie*”.
Brynn ALSO did not say it was universally nor always nor even mostly pejorative, merely that it could be. So could any word, given context. “Die human scum,” for example. Look, “human” is now pejorative!
And Brynn’s opinions on many subjects are by no means universally accepted. Why do you choose her opinions over innumerable other transgender people who post on blogs and broad-brush sites like HuffPo? She didn’t write a research article, she didn’t do any polling, not even on an informal level. What made her opinion more valuable than mine, for example?
Ah, so the important delta here is that it’s a new term, not that it’s a term that describes too broad a group of people? You could perhaps have made that clearer, but fine. Let’s go with new.
Of all the new terms that are invented to describe people on an almost daily basis (I can provide another list, if it helps), why is this the one - the one that happens to be used in conjunction with discussing the rights of an extremely disadvantaged group, mind - that so many people choke on?
Where are you meeting all these people who say “white, cisgender heteronormative privilege” in everyday life? I work at a fairly liberal University and I don’t run into people like that but rarely.
If we break this down as a thought experiment…why isn’t “white” equally problematic in that example? I mean, “white” isn’t an accurate descriptor at all of the innumerable ethnicities which make up those who are generally described as “Caucasian.” Let alone the actual colors of skin. And it is used as part of pejorative speech (“white trash”). It lumps together the backgrounds and cultural and racial heritage of billions into one, single, poor word. Granted “white” has a much longer run in the English language, as well as being much more common, but fundamentally speaking it’s not a very good word either. But few Caucasian people would likely object to being described as “white.” It’s even on my tax return, I think.
I guess if you encounter people frequently who are in the habit of berating you over “white, cisgender heteronormative privilege,” then your opinions would be impacted by that.
And yet I keep repeating myself. It is, and I repeat:
Not necessary for most people because we have the words male/female and ‘not a transgender person’ if someone would need clarification
Seen as pejorative by some, including but certainly not limited to myself
Not understood by the general populace. In addition, the fact that I live in a third-world country the term is understood by probably less than 0.001% of the population here
Use it for yourself I don’t mind. Show how progressive you are. I am female, that is my gender if I were to ever talk about it.
Do you also object to being called heterosexual? Because the academic neologisms “heterosexual” and “homosexual” were coined around the turn of the 20th century and were pretty rarely used until the 1940’s. “Heterosexual” in particular didn’t really take off until the 1970’s, well within living memory; yet I don’t recall ever seeing anything indicating that the general population objected to these “new unnecessary terms”.
*When these words are used in focus groups that look at messaging on transgender issues, the responses are nearly universally negative. The conclusion of many organizations is that you should not use either “cisgender” or “cis” in any sort of public narrative…“Cis” and “cisgender” certainly have a proper place in academia and are likely to be used there for a long time, given how their use has steadily increased. They are also increasingly used in non-LGBT progressive circles as part of policy and sociology discussions. Outside these contexts, however, neither word does us much good. They are usually off-putting at best, and at worst move people to a point of anger.
*
Well, she used 'academia" not "scientific" but …
You are also ignoring this "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."
She said it was “…often in a negative way…” I suppose “often” is not “universally nor always” but I didnt use those words either. OK, lets agree to “often” instead of “usually”.
Why is her opinion better than yours? You are defending your own usage of this pejorative term. That makes you biased.