My Catholicism is many decades in the rear-view mirror (along with my 8-track collection and a '77 Ford Bronco), but back when I was a believer I did read a lot of theology, and while I don’t know of it ever being directly addressed I suspect a Catholic theologian would hold that Jesus was a genetic male and had XY chromosomes, and that is just part of the “mysterious miracle of his presence on earth.” 
My apologies for the delay in responding to some reasonable comments but I’ve been away for a bit dealing with Real Life. Let me try to address these points and then the one made by John Mace.
I’m aware that there are different kinds of opposites. Indeed linguistics recognizes a continuum of semantic opposition that is typically classified into five or so somewhat overlapping categorical types. The arguments that some have been trying to advance here (and typified by the “black-white” example) the idea that the cisgender-transgender dichotomy is of a type that would be called a disjoint opposite, where the opposite meanings are non-overlapping but don’t cover the complete semantic domain. Yet this is clearly not the case here. I provided three different cites for cisgender meaning “not transgendered” which included an entire article quoting journalists, activists, and experts in gender studies as to how and why the new word came to have that meaning, including one who believed that the word was both redundant and counterproductive. As the cited article mentions, “The Advocate uses the word in its reporting, followed by a parenthetical explanation of “nontrans” on the first reference.” And as the Washington Post also confirmed, [Cisgender] emerged in response to growing awareness of LGBT issues, as a way to describe what transgender is not.
So taking the interpretation supported by the cites previously given, the opposite here is not of the disjoint type, but of the type called complementary, where a complementary opposite is defined as one where the pair of opposites is such that “between them they exhaustively divide the conceptual domain into two mutually exclusive compartments, so that what does not fall into one of the compartments must necessarily fall into the other”. (Cruse 1986, Lexical Semantics). And as I said before, this type of opposite can be clearly identified by asking whether putting the negation “not” in front of its antonym recreates the original meaning: quite simply, it’s a complementary opposite if “not” exactly complements the meaning. As noted in the link cited by Paranoid Randroid, the default opposite type is mutually exclusive complementarity, and this what I somewhat lazily referred to as a “linguistic opposite” – more precisely, it’s the linguistic category of a complementary opposite. The cites I gave support exactly this interpretation, as do the exactly complementary definitions given in the Oxford dictionary, as does the example in Merriam Webster which uses the phrase “cisgender (not transgendered)”, as do the explicit references in TIME and The Advocate to cisgender as “not transgendered”.
The comprehensive article in the first of my three previous links appears to disagree, in that it supports the idea that the word has become mainstream:
“In the past few years, ‘cisgender’ has gone from being a relatively specialized word to one which is commonly used in mainstream publications without any comment, and is a notable addition to the general vocabulary of English,” Martin explains to The Advocate, noting that she was a member of the [OED] editing team that finalized the additions.
Moreover, in stating that their editorial policy is to use “cisgender” in their regular articles, but appending the parenthetical “(not trans)” on the first usage, they provide unambiguous clarity about the word’s meaning.
Now if there’s ambiguity about the meaning such that different sources attribute different meanings to the word, then I’m certainly going to be wrong about what some people believe it means. But the sources I cited are implying that cisgendered is the complementary opposite of transgendered (via the “not” test), which some may choose to disagree with but it appears to be the contemporary mainstream understanding with authoritative support for it.
To be clear, I’m arguing about the mutually exclusive complementarity of two words, not about the reality of many nuances of gender identity.
Here is an article about this written by a trans sex worker. When I shared this on Twitter, another trans sex worker - living on a different continent - retweeted it saying it described her experience 100%.
Nah, it was perfectly understood; the confusion between the Immaculate Conception (which also has nothing to do with sex being sinful, it’s about Original Sin) and the Annunciation is very common, and anyway those terms aren’t biblical ones. But it’s the Dope, we seem to believe that nits do not exist until we pick them.
A Catholic theologian would point out that Jesus could have had any chromosomes He felt like having, but also and since we don’t have a sample, we can’t tell which ones they happened to be. If the theologian also had some knowledge of biology, they might indicate that if He didn’t fiddle the conception beyond making an unfertilized egg start dividing into a new baby, then He would have only one of each chromosome. It’s God, He can do whatever the heck He wants.
wolfpup, I worked with a person recently who described themself as “genderqueer.” Looking at this person without knowing the label, you’d describe them as a woman, no question. But they didn’t want to be called male or female.
Was this person cisgender, or was this person transgender? Please cite the definition you use to support your conclusion.
Ok, thank you.
Of course it makes sense, those who gave the idea even the slightest of thought understood the question … you should try that sometime, think before you post.
Homosexuality is the death penalty under the 1st Covenant. Strictly speaking Christianity’s 2nd Covenant didn’t come into existence until three days after Christ died. Therefore Christ was a Jew, not a Roman, so the morays and practices of His time and place would preclude Him being sexually active with other men.
I’m sticking to Jesus getting His Y-chromosome from Joseph, although Una’s post #159 was simply hilarious; well played, dear, well played indeed. I firmly believe the Christian message “Love your brother as you love yourself” works just as well if Jesus’ conception was normal and mundane. Today, the dogma of virgin birth just chases people away from Christian understanding. The hardest part about being a Christian is having to admit we’re wrong, and having to admit we’re wrong is a daily experience.
~=~=~=~
When one group of people select a label for another group of people without permission, I think you’ll find that this label is inherently offensive. I’ll leave finding examples of this to the readers’ imagination, they are truly abundant. If the *trans-*gendered don’t want their offensive labels, I suggest you not spew them out. I know, who am I to assert my individual right to be offended at the *cis-*gender label, because this issue has nothing to do with tolerance and acceptance of other people’s will.
Just beware, that third gender identity is coming to a courtroom near you in 20 or 30 years …
ETA: My brother was a guy’s guy in every way except he was quite fond of wearing a skirt, keep him out of jail on a few occasions … we just don’t throw a man into the drunk tank when he’s wearing a skirt.
We often refer to them nowadays as either “genderqueer” or “non-binary transgender.” “Non-binary transgender” seems to be taking hold on college campuses and among the youth, but I confess I hear “genderqueer” the majority of the time.
FTR, “binary transgender” has started to become a dismissive comment towards transgender people like me, who very strongly binary. The line of thought is “gender is meaningless, thus trying to fit a binary gender role means you’ve drank the Kool-Aid.” I’ve even been called a “tool of the oligarchy” by fitting a binary femme gender role in my life. :rolleyes:
From my reading and experience, this kind of thing seems very common with every social movement – some folks, for some reason, take it to a point of intolerance of even non-oppressive and non-discriminatory trappings of “normal”/accepted behavior.
Let’s start with the two definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary of “cisgender” and “transgender”, respectively:
Denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex.
Denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex.
Which category does she fall into? I presume whichever one she feels is appropriate.
Note that the two definitions are clear opposites of the mutually exclusive complementary kind. The relationship between the terms is like defining “X” to mean “black” and “Y” to mean “not black”. It’s quite clear what “X” is; it’s explicit and categorical – it states what something is – so it becomes the normative condition against which its complement “not X” acquires its meaning. Any instance of “Y” might be any of many different shades and colors, defined by its own lexicon of subtypes, all of which are “not X”.
So there need not be a binary distinction in gender identity, because by definition (blame the OED!) anything that differs from the normative condition (I use the word in the formal sense of “relating to a standard or benchmark by which other things are measured”) would fall into the broad “transgender” category with its own lexicon of subtypes. I am certainly no expert on gender issues but this notion appears to be well supported in the literature:
Transgender is also an umbrella term: in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women), it may include people who are not exclusively masculine or feminine (people who are genderqueer, e.g. bigender, pangender, genderfluid, or agender). Other definitions of transgender also include people who belong to a third gender, or conceptualize transgender people as a third gender.
I’ll say again that “cisgender” as the mutually exclusive complementary opposite of “transgender” may not have been its original intended meaning as advanced by some LGBT advocates, but it appears to be the meaning that’s emerged in the mainstream understanding. At this point even the advocacy group GLAAD states that “transgender” is an umbrella term and that “people under the transgender umbrella may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms”.
Really? They were using eels to enforce prohibitions against homosexuality?
Dude… it really didn’t. A person’s gender has absolutely no relation to whether they’ve had sex before they died or not. There’s no way to parse that comment into any kind of sense.
Lots and lots and lots of people have gay sex in times and places where it’s extremely illegal. Including first century Jews. Also, “mores.” “Morays” are a kind of eel.
I think you’ll find that you’re incorrect on a number of points, here. The first being that out-group designations are inherently offensive. Yeah, slurs are offensive, but a term doesn’t become a slur simply because it’s bestowed on a group by someone not of that group. I can offer plenty of examples, but for the ones that are most relevant to this situation, I’ll offer the terms, “gay,” “homosexual,” and “transsexual.” Also, as described upthread, “straight.” Are you offended by being called “straight?” Because that’s a term that gay people made up to describe folks like you. If you’re not offended by that, can you describe the material difference between that term, and “cisgender,” that makes the latter unacceptable?
The second misconception you have here is that you get to dictate terms for the entirety of the cisgender population. I’m also cisgender, and I fully support the term.
The third misconception is that anybody gives a shit if your offended by “cisgender.” Not all offense is equally valid. Just as we can safely disregard a person who thinks “niggardly” is a racist term, we can also safely disregard people like yourself, who have decided to be offended by the term “cisgender,” for reasons that fall apart at the barest scrutiny.
No. DUH! Try actually reading what he wrote: it was the eels themselves that were against homosexuality! And nobody wanted to argue with them, because of the biting.
Really, the most important social change of the last fifty years - and the one that, more than anything, brought about widespread acceptance of gay rights - was a move away from Anguilliforme-based jurisprudence.
I think, think, that he might have been trying to reference Galatians 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. but really, I still got nothin’.
'Course if one really cares about their ideas being understood they try to explain them. Someone should try that sometime, think before they post.
CMC fnord!
No, the morays of the time were pro-gay:
Moray eels or Muraenidae are a family of cosmopolitan eels.
As cosmopolitan eels, one presumes the morays congregated in large urban cosmopolitan centers of sinful depravity like Sodom and Gomorrah with Greek and French eels, where they incited homosexualty and so were an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.
So calling someone ‘gay’ isn’t a slur?
If you are a member of a majority, then you are not allowed to be offended by anything, got it! :rolleyes:
Can I similarly dismiss the claims of offense by a black guy who hates being called “black” and insists on being called “African American”?
I am sick and tired of seeing this thread title.
I don’t have any real objection to folks asking ignorant questions about trans stuff, but do you have to do it where I have to read your annoying thread title every damn time I hit “New Posts”? Can’t you do that transphobic shit in private or something?
What you’re not saying again is that your position here is that some dark cabal within the transgender community invented the word “cisgender” as a slur, which truth is borne out by the fact that “non-trans” would connote exactly the same meaning, only absent the hateful overtones.
Your argument has not been that transgender and cisgender are diametrically opposed in a meaningful way. It has been that cisgender is entirely unnecessary, except as a slur.
And yet each of your cites – let’s use the Wikipedia this time – makes some additional qualification along the lines of:
Which means that it is patently obvious that cisgender is a word that connotes an additional meaning beyond “non-transgender,” whether or not the binary construction is sufficient in some cases.
Do you want to know why this is a stupid conversation, and you’re wasting everyone’s time, and we’re all stupid for letting you? You aren’t even really contradicting the above. You’re tacitly acknowledging that yes, certainly there are definitions that real people use of “cisgender” and “transgender” that make “cisgender” a functionally significant word as compared to “not transgender.” And as long as that’s true, everything else you’re saying is a waste of everyone’s time. You’re not arguing for economy of language. You’re making a claim to a conspiracy of hatred that requires something to be true that you can’t even assert is true.
Well, in all fairness, I’m feeling some hatred for the conversation about now and I would be willing to join a cabal, conspiracy, or other wicked but stylish group to put an end to it.
are you threatening me