"Don't call me 'cisgender'!"

[MaxTheVool]

After some additional thought, I think this is the key test: clearly there are times that people say neutral/nice stuff about the cisgendered. And apparently there are times when people say mean things about the cisgendered (although so far a grand total of one example has been actually cited in this thread, and I’m far from certain that it wasn’t mean ironically). (And no, people talking about white heterosexual cisgendered privilege doesn’t count unless you also think that makes “white” a derogatory term).

Are people saying neutral/nice things more likely to use a term other than “cis” or “cisgendered”, while people saying mean things are more likely to use “cis” or “cisgendered”? If not, how can you argue that it’s an offensive or insulting term?
I suppose there’s one other possibility, which is that a term just outlives its relevance. For instance, “Oriental” or “Jewess”, where we all know that society used to have prejudices, and a term that seems to be from yesteryear carries the aura of those prejudices with it, even without any obvious insulting implications. But that can’t possibly apply in this case, because of course there is no historical period of past prejudicial attitudes towards the cisgendered.

[aldiboronti]

You can call me what you like; it’s not for me to tell people what words to use (nor anybody else for that matter). Just don’t expect me to use it myself, which I suspect goes for the majority of people.

[JRDelirious]

Well, sure – if someone asks me “what is your sexual and gender identity”? I’d just answer “heterosexual male” and leave it at that unless followed up further in depth. I’d be fully on board, however, with that exact same self-description also coming from another straight male who happened to be trans, if the conversation does not make it relevant to bring up. Some third party insisting in tagging everyone with cis/trans when not in discussion just for the sake of completeness would get tedious and I might :rolleyes: but that would be about it.

[wonky]

@Martini_Enfield

Saw that but not really applicable since I don’t know that person and I don’t know that group of people.

Also, since I find being referred to as “cisgendered” or “cis” as at least mildly offensive, it’s impossible for it to be used in a “neutral” context involving me, absent some sort of academic reference.

You said you find it offensive because you’ve never heard it used neutrally, and when it’s pointed out it’s being used neutrally, you say that doesn’t count because you find it offensive. So you’re saying you’ve never seen it used neutrally, because it can’t be used neutrally because it’s offensive. I’m hoping I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying.

[Kimstu]

@jsgoddess

You said you find it offensive because you’ve never heard it used neutrally, and when it’s pointed out it’s being used neutrally, you say that doesn’t count because you find it offensive. So you’re saying you’ve never seen it used neutrally, because it can’t be used neutrally because it’s offensive. I’m hoping I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying.

Well, you gotta remember that Martini Enfield is capable of finding it literally “deeply offensive” that his country of birth considered changing the design of its national flag.

Like many people who claim to hate “political correctness”, he makes exceptions for the stuff he personally happens to feel offended by.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Kimstu

Well, you gotta remember that Martini Enfield is capable of finding it literally “deeply offensive” that his country of birth considered changing the design of its national flag.

Like many people who claim to hate “political correctness”, he makes exceptions for the stuff he personally happens to feel offended by.

Doesn’t that cut both ways? If you adore political correctness in general, should you make an exception when you don’t personally feel like extending courtesy to those who simply and politely request to be described the way they prefer?

For my part, I find it entirely plausible that Martini Enfield would take either of two options placed before him: either a world without political correctness, in which his preferences about what he’s called are entitled to the same piddling amount of respect as everyone else’s; or a world where his preferences are entitled to the same impressive amount of respect as everyone else’s. Possibly he’d take the former; if he can’t, if that choice isn’t on the table, are we to bar him from the latter?

[Kimstu]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Doesn’t that cut both ways? If you adore political correctness in general, should you make an exception when you don’t personally feel like extending courtesy to those who simply and politely request to be described the way they prefer?

Sure (taking your phrase “adore political correctness” with the requisite grain of salt). And AFAICT, there have been lots of posters here who think there’s nothing wrong with the term “cisgender” who have stated their willingness to avoid using it to refer to other posters who don’t like it.

[QUOTE=The Other Waldo Pepper]
Possibly he’d take the former; if he can’t, if that choice isn’t on the table, are we to bar him from the latter?
[/QUOTE]

No, and as I noted, nobody’s trying to “bar him” from expressing a preference against the term “cisgender”. But it’s legit to point out when such preferences are inconsistent or irrational.

Personally, I think opposition to the term “cisgender” is similar to opposition to the term “niggardly”: some people have a negative psychological reaction to it that’s independent of the word’s intended meaning. (In the case of “niggardly”, that’s because it superficially sounds like a word that is universally recognized as a genuine offensive slur; whereas in the case of “cisgender”, it seems to be that the term is more vaguely associated with various “antiestablishment” or “radical” prejudices against conventional gender distinctions.)

I can recognize the illogical aspects of considering either of those words intrinsically offensive, but I still try to be careful not to use them around people who dislike them. (“Niggardly”, in fact, has by this point attained the status of a deliberately provocative just-barely-non-slur in the “I’m not touching you” sense, so I’ve pretty much abandoned it entirely.)

[Martini_Enfield]

@jsgoddess

You said you find it offensive because you’ve never heard it used neutrally, and when it’s pointed out it’s being used neutrally, you say that doesn’t count because you find it offensive. So you’re saying you’ve never seen it used neutrally, because it can’t be used neutrally because it’s offensive. I’m hoping I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying.

Yes, you are. Up until this thread, I’d never heard the term used neutrally - only in a negative context by “well of course you’d think that, you’re a white heterosexual male oppressor who has all the privilege”-type folks on the progressive side of things.

So sure, a couple of people in this thread have given examples of a neutral use of the word - I accept there are times it might be used neutrally elsewhere - but even outside this thread, online, pretty much the only times I see the term used are in a negative context in articles written by progressive types going on about how awful people who aren’t progressive enough or are the wrong sort of progressive are.

One thread - even on a discussion board full of people I generally respect - isn’t going to outweigh years and years of hearing a term used in a different and invariably negative context, I’m afraid.

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Doesn’t that cut both ways? If you adore political correctness in general, should you make an exception when you don’t personally feel like extending courtesy to those who simply and politely request to be described the way they prefer?

For my part, I find it entirely plausible that Martini Enfield would take either of two options placed before him: either a world without political correctness, in which his preferences about what he’s called are entitled to the same piddling amount of respect as everyone else’s; or a world where his preferences are entitled to the same impressive amount of respect as everyone else’s. Possibly he’d take the former; if he can’t, if that choice isn’t on the table, are we to bar him from the latter?

Exactly. Thank you. We live in the latter world and that’s one of the many issues I have with political correctness - it doesn’t cut both ways. I feel it only applies to people with “approved” minority/social statuses.

There’s no excuse to go out of one’s way to be deliberately shitty to members of a minority group and they all deserve a fair go same as everyone else. Racism/Homophobia is bad, M’kay?

But when members of the queer community say (for example) “don’t call us poofs, we don’t like that term, it’s not nice”, most people (including me) rightly say “Sure, not a problem. Duly noted” - not “Why not? It’s a perfectly cromulent word that isn’t inherently offensive. Why should we stop calling you that? Huh? PROVE THE REASONS FOR YOUR DISLIKE OF THAT WORD AND WE WILL DECIDE IF THEY ARE WORTHY!”

Why is that courtesy (avoiding the use a disliked term, without demanding an exhaustively proved thesis into its perceived disparaging connotations) not being extended to people like myself saying “please don’t use the term cisgender to describe me?”

[Peremensoe]

@Martini_Enfield

Up until this thread, I’d never heard the term used neutrally - only in a negative context by “well of course you’d think that, you’re a white heterosexual male oppressor who has all the privilege”-type folks on the progressive side of things.

Do you interpret the words “white,” “heterosexual,” and “male” as slurs?

[Una_Persson]

@Martini_Enfield

But when members of the queer community say (for example) “don’t call us poofs, we don’t like that term, it’s not nice”, most people (including me) rightly say “Sure, not a problem. Duly noted” - not “Why not? It’s a perfectly cromulent word that isn’t inherently offensive. Why should we stop calling you that? Huh? PROVE THE REASONS FOR YOUR DISLIKE OF THAT WORD AND WE WILL DECIDE IF THEY ARE WORTHY!”

What a strange example. I’m unaware of any etymology or origin of “poof” which was meant to be complimentary or neutral towards homosexuals. Nor any evidence that LGB communities are trying to reclaim the word “poof” like they and the trans communities are doing with “queer.”

Seriously though, this thread has gone down the rabbit hole far enough that I don’t see what I can add other than this. No one who inherently hates the word “cisgender” is likely to change based on any facts or opinion presented, and those who think it’s a good word are not going to change as well.

[Kimstu]

@Martini_Enfield

But when members of the queer community say (for example) “don’t call us poofs, we don’t like that term, it’s not nice”, most people (including me) rightly say “Sure, not a problem. Duly noted” - not “Why not? It’s a perfectly cromulent word that isn’t inherently offensive. Why should we stop calling you that? Huh? PROVE THE REASONS FOR YOUR DISLIKE OF THAT WORD AND WE WILL DECIDE IF THEY ARE WORTHY!”

Okay, are you seriously saying that you don’t realize that the term “poof” is commonly used and universally recognized as an anti-gay slur?

Nobody here is requiring anybody to “prove their reasons” in order to comply with their request not to be called “cisgender”. But there is most assuredly a qualitative difference between a term like “cisgender” and a term like “poof”.

Your analogy would be more on-point if it were about a gay person asking not to be called “homosexual”. Sure, if somebody asked me, I would try to remember not to call them that—but I would definitely also be asking them why that seemed to them like an offensive term.

[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]

Why is that courtesy (avoiding the use a disliked term, without demanding an exhaustively proved thesis into its perceived disparaging connotations) not being extended to people like myself saying “please don’t use the term cisgender to describe me?”
[/QUOTE]

The courtesy of not being called a term you dislike is being extended to you.

But saying “don’t call me cisgender”, like saying, e.g., “don’t call me homosexual” or “don’t call me Hispanic”, is significantly different from saying “don’t call me a poof” or “don’t call me a wetback”.
When you ask not to be called by a word that’s typically and obviously a derogatory insult, nobody wonders why you don’t like it. But when you ask not to be called by a word that’s a recognized technical term considered by very many people to be just a neutral descriptor, people are going to ask what you think is wrong with that word.

@Martini Enfield

but even outside this thread, online, pretty much the only times I see the term used are in a negative context in articles written by progressive types going on about how awful people who aren’t progressive enough or are the wrong sort of progressive are.

Could you provide links to some of those articles so we can get a sense of why you feel the word “cisgender” itself is a derogatory insult? Because while I can see why you might be insulted by a writer claiming that white heterosexual male cisgender folks aren’t progressive enough, I can’t see why the term “cisgender” itself (or, as Peremensoe notes, “white”, “male” or “heterosexual” either) strikes you as insulting.

[Martini_Enfield]

@Kimstu

Could you provide links to some of those articles so we can get a sense of why you feel the word “cisgender” itself is a derogatory insult? Because while I can see why you might be insulted by a writer claiming that white heterosexual male cisgender folks aren’t progressive enough, I can’t see why the term “cisgender” itself (or, as Peremensoe notes, “white”, “male” or “heterosexual” either) strikes you as insulting.

If I thought it would acheive anything, perhaps. But since it won’t - I’m not really sure I see the point. Let’s be fair here - let’s say I go and find some links to opinion articles on relatively or actual mainstream media websites here - are any of you honestly going to slap your foreheads and say “He was absolutely right! It is used with negative connotations! We’d best stop using it immediately.” Of course not. Be honest here - just as I’m not going to accept a handful of anecdotes in this thread as evidence it’s entirely a neutral term, you’re not going to accept a couple of articles I might dig up as evidence it isn’t a neutral term. And if you don’t like what I did up, or decide it’s not non-neutral, well, we’re right back where we started.

Why can’t you just accept the usage of the term I have encountered over the years has been mostly negative?

Here’s all I want out of this: People here to say “We realise now the term “cisgender” is offensive or strongly disliked to some people, including you, and we won’t use it in mixed company or around people who don’t self-identify as such.”

I really don’t think that’s an unreasonable thing to ask.

[puzzlegal]

I dunno, when Microsoft Word told me that “Jew” might be offensive and i shouldn’t use it, i was angry with Microsoft and took to using the word more often to reclaim it. I am a Jew, and i don’t want to lose that word. I’m less attached to “cis”, but unless someone can suggest an alternative, i feel i an stuck with it. “not trans” really doesn’t cut it, as it’s just a “not”. I want a positive word.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@puzzlegal

I dunno, when Microsoft Word told me that “Jew” might be offensive and i shouldn’t use it, i was angry with Microsoft and took to using the word more often to reclaim it. I am a Jew, and i don’t want to lose that word. I’m less attached to “cis”, but unless someone can suggest an alternative, i feel i an stuck with it. “not trans” really doesn’t cut it, as it’s just a “not”. I want a positive word.

Huh. If I mentioned that I work for a nonprofit – what, would you raise an eyebrow and figure I must long for a positive word? If I added that my work involves tirelessly championing the inalienable rights of noncombatants, would such strange terms cause you to interrupt and ask how I can stand it? If I replied that, no, really, I feel terrific about working for such a great NGO, would you assume the first letter of that acronym must put the lie to my words?

I don’t recall ever recoiling from a “not” term; I guess I could’ve craved a positive word when I was out of work, but “unemployed” fit so I didn’t object to it. I’ve used nonlethal force when I couldn’t come up with a nonviolent solution, and I didn’t cry out for a more positive way to put it. Instead, I often strive to be nonpartisan, or impartial – sure as my father happens to be an atheist, and my favorite member of the Fantastic Four has always, always, been the Invisible Woman. And so on.

[JRDelirious]

@Martini_Enfield

Here’s all I want out of this: People here to say “We realise now the term “cisgender” is offensive or strongly disliked to some people, including you, and we won’t use it in mixed company or around people who don’t self-identify as such.”

I really don’t think that’s an unreasonable thing to ask.

Since I normally do not refer to “cisgender” except when there is actual discussion of gender identity (or of the word usage ad in this thread) involved, wherein it is a relevant and valid term, I must refuse the request to abstain from using it in some generic “mixed company”; as there may be no way of knowing who is listening or reading at any given point, that would require never using a word that, in proper context, is a legitimate descriptor and not hate speech.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

Interestingly, I found this on GLAAD’s Media Reference Guide, explaining Cisgender: “A term used by some to describe people who are not transgender. ‘Cis-’ is a Latin prefix meaning ‘on the same side as’ and is therefore an antonym of ‘trans-’. A more widely understood way to describe people who are not transgender is simply to say non-transgender people.”

[MaxTheVool]

@Martini_Enfield

Here’s all I want out of this: People here to say “We realise now the term “cisgender” is offensive or strongly disliked to some people, including you, and we won’t use it in mixed company or around people who don’t self-identify as such.”

I really don’t think that’s an unreasonable thing to ask.

The question, however, is one of percentage. People didn’t stop saying “poof” or “faggot” because one or two gay men objected, they did it because a preponderance of gays, or at least a significant number percentage of gays, objected.

Given the pushback you’re getting in this thread, mostly from people who (like me) are cisgendered (and hey, look, there’s another neutral use of the term, unless you think I’m insulting myself) that does not appear to be the case.

So if a situation were to come up in my life in which I would use the term cisgender “in the wild”, and I’m not sure it ever has, should I avoid using it because a small number of people in this thread object to it?
On a related topic, how would you feel if you heard the term used, but not aimed specifically at you. That is, you’re discussing, say, tattoos, and someone says “it’s interesting, I’ve noticed that tattoos of tigers are more common among transgendered than among cisgendered”. This person may or may not know which of those groups you fall in, but they are certainly not specifically singling you out. Would that make you bristle and feel insulted?

[Kimstu]

@Martini_Enfield

If I thought it would acheive anything, perhaps. But since it won’t - I’m not really sure I see the point. […]

Why can’t you just accept the usage of the term I have encountered over the years has been mostly negative?

Sorry, are you seriously saying “I won’t provide any cites for my claim, why can’t you just accept what I’m claiming without a cite to back it up?”

And you’ve hung out around these parts for how long?!

No, nobody’s disputing your sincerity in saying that “cisgender” has appeared to you to be a negative term in all the contexts where you’ve encountered it.

We’d just like to get a sense of what those contexts typically might look like to somebody who is, um, not you.

[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]

Here’s all I want out of this: People here to say “We realise now the term “cisgender” is offensive or strongly disliked to some people, including you, and we won’t use it in mixed company or around people who don’t self-identify as such.”

I really don’t think that’s an unreasonable thing to ask.
[/QUOTE]

As MaxTheVool noted, there’s a difference in how reframing usage works for terms that are widely or generally considered offensive or insulting, versus how it works for terms that are considered offensive or insulting only by a comparatively small group of, shall we say, outlier opinions.

For example, there are a number of people who consider the term “woman” to be “offensive or strongly disliked” because of its appearing to be a derivative of “man”, and they use alternative terms such as “womyn” instead. Do you take care not to use the standard term “woman” when you’re “in mixed company”, on the off-chance that one of your hearers might not “self-identify as such” and thus would find the term objectionable?
People who are offended by terms that are generally considered standard or neutral on average will have to put up with being offended more than people who are only offended by terms that are generally considered insults or slurs.

Notice that I’m not objecting to your request that you personally not be called cisgender now that I know you happen to dislike it. I’d just like to get a notion, from cites of representative material that you consider offensive, whether your offensensitivity level on this issue is more similar to that of gay people objecting to the term “poof” or that of radfems objecting to the term “woman”.

[DrDeth]

@MaxTheVool

On a related topic, how would you feel if you heard the term used, but not aimed specifically at you. That is, you’re discussing, say, tattoos, and someone says “it’s interesting, I’ve noticed that tattoos of tigers are more common among transgendered than among cisgendered”. This person may or may not know which of those groups you fall in, but they are certainly not specifically singling you out. Would that make you bristle and feel insulted?

Why would you care and why would that be interesting?

[Kimstu]

@DrDeth

Why would you care and why would that be interesting?

I think MaxTheVool was asking MartiniEnfield whether he would object to the use of the term “cisgendered” in that context.

I have no idea why the hypothetical conversationalist imagined by MaxTheVool as talking to MartiniEnfield considers the demographic distribution of tiger tattoos to be interesting.