Are people thinking they are being asked to use cisgender instead of “male”?
Because I could kind of understand the discomfort with that.
But it’s not. It’s a type of “male” or “female” that is only useful in specific conversations.
There must be a misunderstanding somewhere. I can’t imagine why people are so upset by a word that is the functional equivalent of sighted or hearing.
People are split into categories when speaking of ability to see, blind and sighted.
People are split into categories when speaking of ability to hear, deaf and hearing.
People are split into categories when speaking of gender, transgender and cisgender.
For all the fuss, you’d think we were redefining “marriage” or something.
You mean like the marriage of the transmission and differential in a transaxle?
What term would you prefer? Insert that term into an example sentence, such as this one I used in another thread on athletics.
“Is it fair to allow transgender women to compete against cisgender women?”
To me, this is a compact, information rich sentence, you’re told all the facts, and it does not imply that any of the people being described are abnormal.
I’m not sure where you are getting “hostility” from, I didn’t use one exclamation point or ALL CAPS!!!
I simply found it an interesting discussion and I was bored at work.
Besides, I don’t like “hostile”, I prefer cisfriendly.
I was wondering the same thing. It seems like people may have the impression that from now on they’re not going to be able to refer to themselves as simply “male” or “female” anymore, and TPTB (The Powers That Be, it took me a while to figure that out in an earlier post) are going to start making them check the “cisgender” box on their job applications and census form. I can’t imagine how anyone could be offended (as one poster said), or even object to its being used in a context specifically about trans issues.
Well, except for John Mace, whose opposition is more from a pedantic grammatical POV, that we probably don’t need a word for this. But that’s one that the free word market will sort out. If it’s not useful, it will die out.
“is it fair to allow transgender and non-transgender women to compete?”
Not complicated. Plus people not familiar with “cisgender” (i.e. pretty much everyone else in the world) would understand it perfectly well and all for the cost of one more syllable.
The Latin “homo” in the Vulgate Pilate’s “Ecce homo” pretty clearly means “man”, but since “hetero” is Greek then I agree Greek should be preferred in the context we are discussing, and you are correct.
That does not do anything to rescue “cis”, however.
Well, with the additional wrinkle being valid concerns that the transgenderism may be temporary and convenient, i.e. someone who would otherwise self-identify as cismale deciding to self-identify as transwoman for the duration of a single sporting event, which may require a standard other than the individual’s preference if “womens’ sport” is to maintain any meaning.
Hotshot in a white lab coat you are, huh? What percentage of the population do you think gets to the stage where it could be expected to encounter “cis” often enough to remember it? I will go with about 1% but even 10% would make the term a needlessly obscure one to employ in our context when there are terms available which 90% would understand.
As for me personally, I do not recall encountering “cis” in HS physics, chemistry and biology or college geology and zoology, and I not only paid attention in those courses, I worked my ass off (had to to pass). And that was at a private HS and a flagship state university where truly rigorous academic standards were enforced.
Fine. Change “define” to “describe”.
Yet another term I’ve never heard of and would never use. I don’t have perfect pitch serves me just fine.
Again, I can’t imagine a time when I’d need to describe (not define 
) myself as “sighted”. It may be a useful term in a limited context, but “not blind” is good enough for me.
I can see cisgendered being a useful term to use at a conference on human sexuality. But it’s not a term than the vast majority of humans need to use. I’m not sure anyone is actually asking for this to happen, but if someone wants to go on a campaign to make sure it finds its way into common usage, I’d say there are bigger windmills to tilt at out there.
But by God, you are going to rail against it anyway.
Windmills indeed.
“I don’t like it when people make up new words for things! It makes me feel stupid when someone uses a word I haven’t heard before!”
How about in an SDMB thread talking about transgender athletes and sports? It’s like your examples of “don’t have perfect pitch” and “not blind” - if you’re discussing these topics, it would get clumsy to keep saying these longer but more universally understood phrases, when there’s a word for that, and this is known to be a pretty smart group so can probably handle any slight vocabulary challenge. Isn’t that OK?
So what’s the problem then?
“…and I had no part in inventing the word in the first place!”
If I’m to guess about the roots of this objection, I see it as nothing more than people not wanting to change. Lazy, lazy people
“Man” in the sense of “human person”, not in the sense of “male human person as opposed to female human person”.
Yes, Latin “homo” is frequently used and translated to refer to a human person who happens to be male. But when specifically referring to a human male as distinguished from a human female, the correct word is “vir”, not “homo”.
There do exist other words that mean what you mistakenly thought “homosexual” meant, i.e., “attracted to males” in particular: e.g., “virisexual” or “androsexual” (from Greek “andros”, “male human, man”).
Likewise, some people use “femisexual” or “gynosexual” to mean “attracted to females”.
Well, since you seem to have successfully avoided technical discussions on human voice production and vision impairment where you would need to encounter and understand terms like “relative pitch” and “sighted”, then if you don’t want to deal with the term “cisgendered”, why don’t you just avoid technical discussions on human gender identity too?
In other words, John, to paraphrase the remark of the Doge of Genoa at the court of Louis XIV, the only real problem you have with this thread seems to be the fact that you’re participating in it.
Permission to use this as my sig?