A victory for counting!
Very well done.
Now let’s see if we can have a retraction from the claim of “many many posters here” from DrDeth. Five…really, now.
And Martini…how disappointing. Watch out for those evil “social justice warriors” out there.
I think it’s a bit more complicated than that… I wouldn’t automatically and immediately take the word of a single black person that “African American” is now offensive, and thus permanently stop using it. I also have my own knowledge of language, my own common sense, etc. But “Tranny” is something that I would be suspicious of to begin with, because it’s an informal diminuitive, which is a kind of word that, in my experience, frequently ends being used insultingly… And of course I’d be heavily influenced by my own actual exposure to the word, if any. If I had a transgendered friend who, for whatever reason, was totally comfortable with “tranny”, and used it all the time non-ironically, as did his or her friends, then I’d be bit more skeptical of a single claim that it was now generally-offensive… but that doesn’t mean that I would refuse to be convinced by a preponderance of evidence or testimony.
Nothing of the sort, she gave no such reasons at all. All she said was that she should be regarded as as good of a source- which I dispute, since she is clearly biased.
Five is quite a few since not many have posted here over all.
That makes sense, and I wish I’d have included this kind of nuance in my post.
The same counter said 95 distinct names have posted. So that’s about 5%. Not insignificant, but not “quite a few”.
Hey DrDeth, you forgot to answer the question (again):
About 5% is “many many” to you? Did you not even read the posts discussing the total count?
If just about 5% is “many many”, what is 10%? An overwhelming majority?
I could at least have more respect for your argument if you would admit where you’ve messed up. Your refusal to do so really colours your entire argument and gives question to your motives.
Count me in as one whom feels “uncomfortable” with Cisgender.
It doesn’t offend me, nor would I like to see it banned or anything else - I simply feel that “male” and “female”, as the default are fine, and then everything else should be described from there.
I don’t really see the need for Cisgender for anything other than academic discussions -
What’[s really wrong with heterosexual male, straight, homosexual, transexual — whatever other descriptor is required?
It seems to me that Cisgender tries to achieve something that doesn’t need achieving…
Except that there can be transgender males and non-transgender males, and transgender females and non-transgender females.
There does have to be some way of describing the characteristic of having one’s personal gender identity correspond to one’s birth-assigned gender.
Nothing’s wrong with those terms (except I think “transgender” is considered more accurate nowadays than “transsexual”, although I’m open to correction by the better-informed).
It’s just that they don’t convey the information that the term “cisgender” conveys. For the most part, they’re talking about different characteristics. “Heterosexual”, “homosexual” and “straight” refer to sexual orientation rather than gender identity. “Male” refers to gender identity, or possibly biological/anatomical sex, but doesn’t specify whether the male subject’s gender identity and anatomical sex are the same or different. “Transgender” refers to one’s gender identity being different from one’s birth-assigned gender and/or anatomical sex.
So we need a way to refer to one’s gender identity being the same as one’s birth-assigned gender and/or anatomical sex. There are lots of possible paraphrases and synonyms that would do the job, but “cisgender” is probably the most concise and “standard” of those in common use.
I think “gender-typical” fits the bill as a way to refer to one’s gender identity being the same as one’s birth-assigned gender and/or anatomical sex.
As a gender-typical male, that is what I would prefer.
Thanks, duly noted.
I’ll work up a spreadsheet this weekend.
If I read “gender-typical,” I’d think it was describing a guy’s guy, into manly pursuits like football and hunting and drinking beer, as opposed to a guy into interior decorating and knitting. Maybe it’s because “typical” sounds like “stereotypical.” But I wouldn’t read it as referring to one’s gender matching one’s birth gender identification without context.
I like cisgender. It wasn’t until this thread that I’d heard any opposition to it at all, and I don’t think the reasons given have been very compelling to make sweeping changes.
I guess this is the part that I’m not getting - why?
Why does there need to be a way to describe that I was born a guy, I like girls, and I’m still a guy now?
If, I was born with female genitalia but in all other respects saw myself as a guy - what’s wrong with transgender (when it’s really necessary) or simply a “guy” in day to day conversations?
Likewise - if I male parts but consider myself female in all other respects - what’s wrong with a term to describe that?
I guess what I’m trying to say - what’s wrong with “Male” and “Female” as the null hypothesis and everything else modifying these positions?
Where I do see a use for “Cisgender” is if you want to collectively talk about both sexes together…or to emphasise / clarify your grouping in an academic related environment (to reduce confusion).
When it comes down to it - if I get asked I would describe myself as “Male” - not “Cisgender” - if more information is needed - people can just mind their own damn business in anything other than an academic study.
Because other people have redefined what “male” means so you can’t use it anymore to describe yourself if you are born with a penis and testicles and the brain of a man. You have to use a new word to describe yourself. I recommend “gender-typical”
Because, as much as I may be a trans ally, I am not trans. I will never be trans, and I don’t have the first hand experiences of being trans. So while I and a transgender woman are both women, when we’re working together on women’s issues, there’s a distinct difference between us, our experiences, and our privileges. Pretending we’re exactly the same is erasing a whole history that we’ve each experienced differently in ways that matter for our communicating and working effectively together. She’s a transgender woman, and I’m a _________ woman. Fill in the blank with something that isn’t insulting to her (like “real” or “normal”) and isn’t insulting to me (like, “not-transgender”) or inaccurate (like “gender typical”).
This may not ever be useful for you if you don’t work with transgender people. In which case, it’s pretty unlikely that anyone will need to refer to you personally as anything other than “male”. But for me, cisgender is a useful word.
Can you explain why you think gender-typical is inaccurate?
I did, in post 815.