The single biggest thing is that there are lots and lots of cisgendered people in this very thread (including me) who say that they are not offended by “cisgendered”. There are not (as far as I know) any trans people in this thread saying that they are not offended by “ladyboy”, at least in a non-Thai context. Although unfortunately there aren’t enough trans posters in this thread (or on the SDMB as a whole, afaik) to really get a good representative sampling.
And just for me, I’m cis, therefore I feel far more qualified to judge the “cis-is-offensive” argument than I would to say to someone “wait, you’re trans and you claim that ladyboy is offensive? Well, I know better than you…”.
One thing to keep in mind, though… none of this is black and white. I’m cis, I don’t find cis offensive… but I could be convinced otherwise. And I’m hesitant to disagree with someone from a minority group who tells me something about what terms they do or do not find offensive, but “hesitant” doesn’t mean “never”.
Then go ahead and find one, and if there’s either a sufficient consensus in it, or compelling arguments being made, then that would be evidence for your claim.
Again, go ahead and do so, and we can see whether we find that person’s argument convincing or not.
I’ve already agreed with you that the risks are higher in judging what term to use for a minority group. That’s why I don’t, I simply take the group at their word what they would like to be known as and use that
And that’s why I didn’t use “nigger” in my example, because everyone knows that its a slur, and that can easily be proven, if for whatever reason it was necessary, by referencing official standard texts, and not simply “A reddit thread”
I picked “ladyboy”, not because I want to start calling people that without restraint, but because from what I can see, there is nothing other than “This person said” as the reason why it’s offensive. If that is the case “A person said” that ‘cisgender’ is offensive, but that idea is scoffed at, ridiculed, and downright rejected as something only an “unmitigated asshole” would say, or a bigot, or some other disparaging remark as a way to avoid saying “You don’t have a right to be offended because you’ve never been oppressed”
I just find it amusing that some people are falling all over themselves in a race to distinguish themselves as accepting of all types of people, as long as those people agree with everything they say. And if they don’t, they are “unmitigated assholes who are usually bigots” :rolleyes:
And this goes right to my point. But you think it is offensive anyway, just because the few transgender people on this board say it is. But a few “cisgender” people say that “cisgender” is offensive too, but they are dismissed.
I don’t think anyplace in this thread have I said that “ladyboy” isn’t offensive, and if I did, please show it, and I will gladly acknowledge my mistake. My question is WHY is it offensive?
And I can find people who are transgender that don’t find “ladyboy” offensive, so what?
I would never use a “reddit thread” as evidence for anything.
First tell me what evidence you would accept so I know not to waste my time finding cites that you will just reject out of hand because you disagree with the very premise.
I didn’t start out with zero knowledge of whether “ladyboy” was offensive, and zero knowledge of whether “cisgender” was offensive. In particular, “ladyboy” starts out with several strikes against it:
(1) It’s a term for an oppressed minority, “cisgender” is not
(2) It’s a casual-sounding term, “cisgender” is a technical-sounding term (compare “ladyboy” to “transsexual”, for instance… there’s a higher standard of proof required to convince me that the latter is a slur than the former)
(3) It is made up of existing terms with existing meanings. I know what a lady is. I know what a boy is. I can thus guess what “ladyboy” means, and (to the extent that I know anything about the trans community) whether that’s a meaning they would find pleasing vs. offensive. “cisgender” on the other hand, is a rarely used prefix (which I admit I wouldn’t have known the meaning of before ever hearing the word) attached to a fairly neutral word
Again, none of those three is convincing on its own, but each of the three pushes me towards finding “ladyboy” offensive and “cisgender” not offensive. Then I show up in this thread, and a poster who is recognized as an authority on trans issues (Una) says that ladyboy is offensive, and no other trans people disagree; while at the same time while a few cis posters (such as you) claim they are bothered by “cisgender”, far more cis posters disagree.
So, put all of that together, and I’m happy to come to the provisional conclusion that “ladyboy” is offensive while “cisgender” is not.
Note, by the way, that it’s a “provisional” opinion. I don’t consider the issue settled… but then, it likely won’t be, because it’s not like I’m a profsssional linguist or someone who has a responsibility for setting style rules for a national newspaper, or some other position where it’s actively important for me to come up with a well-defined and defensible position.
People in US culture? Who not just say that they don’t mind it personally, but that they don’t believe it’s a slur? OK, find them. That would be evidence for your claim. But just saying “I could find…” isn’t evidence of anything.
Why not? If one starts with the premise that a word’s offensive is very closely linked to how many people find it offensive, then why isn’t asking large groups of interested people their opinion gathering evidence? Isn’t that basically what reddit is? (And note that I only linked to it because it was the top search results when I googled “is ladyboy offensive”).
What evidence I would accept, or what evidence I would find so conclusive that it would change my mind? Because the two main kinds of evidence I can imagine are:
(a) surveys of large numbers of cis people in which significant numbers of them claim that they find the word offensive (although the phrasing of the question is crucial… there’s a huge difference between “do you mind being called X” and “do you find X offensive” and “do you believe X is a slur”).
(b) evidence of extensive use of cisgendered in a clearly insulting or derogatory fashion, and, ideally, evidence that there are significant number of people who, when choosing between the word “cisgendered” and some other construction (“non-transgendered”, “gender-typical”) choose “cisgendered” when saying negative or insulting things, and choose the other construction when saying positive things.
That most trans people in the US say it is, and most cis people do not say that “cisgendered” is offensive. I don’t have proof of this (it’s based on my own experience), but I’m very comfortable acting as if this is so based on my experience and because I am cis. If I was not cis, I would not be so comfortable making this conclusion at this point, though I’d still be inclined to believe that cisgendered is less likely to be considered offensive by most cis people than ladyboy is by most trans people in the US.
Cisgendered may be offensive to some small number of cis people, and for those, when I know about it, I will use another term.
That’s the problem. There isn’t one. The ones offered on this board have all have negative connotations towards trans people.
The problem is that people don’t just not like the word. They don’t like the concept. That’s why there’s all the complaints about “why not just call us normal?”
Personally, I don’t think “if I say it’s offensive, it is offensive” is a viable standard. I say we look at the words that have been eliminated and find the common problem between them. And what is that? That they were historically used in a discriminatory manner.
Cisgender just hasn’t. Even “cracker” and “whitey” have, even though any white person knows those aren’t really all that offensive. But “Cisgender” or “cis” don’t work like that. Those terms alone have not been used that way.
The only way I can not use the term “cis” or “cisgender” around someone who doesn’t like the term is to never discuss cis/trans gender stuff. And I don’t think that’s right.
I do find it ironic that it’s the people who usually freak out over censorship that want the word “cisgender” to be censored. You’d think they’d want the criteria to be higher than “some people find it offensive.”
Of course I didn’t and you know that perfectly well. Don’t be obtuse.
When it’s a mainstream media website and not someone’s tumblr, then it’s certainly heading in that direction.
And I stand by my earlier observation that the number of transsexual folks I’ve met in my entire life has been tiny. I have treated them the same as I treat everyone else, and think they deserve the same rights as everyone else, and IRL I don’t know many people (who aren’t Very Religious) who feel differently.
What in fuck’s name are you talking about?
In an ideal universe that should be how it works - but here’s the real situation in a nutshell:
[Social Justice-type folks use the word “Cisgender” to describe the majority of the population]
Some members of said majority: “Could you please not use that word to describe us? We don’t like it; especially as some of the people using it are doing so in a derogatory or unpleasant way.”
Social justice types: “FUCK YOU, YOU HETERONORMATIVE WHITE PATRIARCHAL OPPRESSORS! WE’LL DECIDE WHAT WORDS ARE AND AREN’T ACCEPTABLE, NOT YOU.”
I’ve said it before on the boards and I’ll say it again: The problem with political correctness is it doesn’t go both ways. I say “Sure, I won’t call transgender folks [terms which are offensive] because I’m not a complete asshole and no-one likes being called hurtful things unnecessarily; please don’t call me “cisgendered” because I think it’s offensive” and the response is “Fuck you, prove it’s offensive” - not “Fair enough, that’s a reasonable state of affairs for civilised people to conduct themselves under.”
Here’s the thing. I am white. If fellow white person said to me “Don’t call me white! It offends me!” I would shrug and try to remember that that guy over there finds the racial label of white offensive. But I would almost certainly try to probe to find out why, because I am also white and just don’t see the offense. Maybe he can convince me. The only way I will know is if I probe and question. If that causes him offense as well- well, I dunno. Please, explain to me why you are offended. Because it sounds like whine? Sorry, I say as a white person, that is not convincing. Because most people are white so why do we need a special word? Well, there are more than just white and black people out there, don’t you think it’s useful to be able to differentiate? Some people spit the word “white” like it’s the lowest thing ever! And that doesn’t bother me at all, it’s a child’s game of insults.
So if you tell me cis is offensive, I will do my best not to refer to you as such. But I am also gonna ask questions. Because I am cis, and I don’t find it remotely offensive.
It’s a perfectly reasonable question to ask “Why do you find it offensive?” The problem is when the answer isn’t on the Approved List. In my case, it’s because - outside this messageboard and a handful of academic contexts - I’ve only ever heard the term used in a disparaging way, usually as yet another adjective to level against people who aren’t in the Super Cool Social Justice Club.
Now, the thing is, if people said “Fair enough, thanks for the explanation, that makes sense” that’d be fine. But that’s not what happens. It’s “WHERE DID YOU SEE IT USED IN A WAY YOU DON’T LIKE?”
I don’t go around looking to be outraged and I don’t keep a running tally of every single incidence of me seeing the word “cisgender” being used in the “ugh, not-Social Justice/LGBTQI+ folks, amirite?” or “priviliged white dude!” context. But it’s enough for me to associate the term, in general use, with people who think that I, as a heterosexual white male, am part of everything that’s wrong with the universe.
Let’s suppose for a moment that I had a rigorously maintained Offence Log, whereby I noted every use of the term in a way I don’t like, and was able to provide links and definitive proof. It still wouldn’t be good enough. It’d be “YOU’RE TAKING THAT OUT OF CONTEXT” or “THAT’S NOT WHAT THE AUTHOR MEANT” or “THAT’S ONLY ONE ARTICLE OUT OF MILLIONS ON THE INTERNETS” or “WELL, THAT’S JUST, LIKE, YOUR OPINION, MAN!”
It boils down to other people telling me what I am and am not allowed to be offended by - yet, were the tables turned and I was going around telling members of an “politically correct approved” group that too bad, they don’t get to be offended by the name I’ve decided to call them, not inconsiderable numbers of people here would be howling with outrage and telling me I was an even more horrible person than they’d already decided I was.
I’m willing not to use for people who don’t like it, but I’m not willing to say your explanation makes sense when it doesn’t. Of course it matters if your reasons are acceptable. Just as it matters with every other possible thing in the whole history of the world, when you are trying to get other people to change their actions or opinions. There’s nothing special about this that makes it unique. Of course you have to prove it and of course it has to be reasonable to your listeners and of course you can’t come off as a bigot or an asshole. Of course that’s true.
Consider that perhaps you’re actually disparaged because you’re an asshole, and part of the problem, and that just because the paint landed on your own personal ass doesn’t mean the brush was all that broad to begin with.
So did they call you a “straight white cisgender man”? If so, are the words “straight, white and man” also now offensive slurs in your opinion?
Do you believe that these people use “cisgender” when the context calls for insults and derision, and use some other phrasing in other contexts? That is, would they say “my mother has been just as supportive of me as she has of my two non-transgendered siblings” but also say “boy, cisgendered people are clueless idiots”?
Because if not, I don’t see how you can argue that it’s a slur at all.
I suppose you could still personally find it offensive, but I hope you can recognize that “someone called me a stupid white man, now I find the terms ‘white’ and ‘man’ offensive” is not a very compelling argument.
I think there are two key issues:
(1) A fair number, in fact nearly all, of the people arguing with you about how offensive “cisgender” is, including me, are ourselves cisgender.
(2) While I agree that this can kind of be used as a catch-all response to just about anything, I do think it’s important to note the difference between someone in an oppressed minority talking about labels used by the majority, and someone in the majority talking about labels used by the oppressed minority. In one of those two cases, that label has likely been associated with hate crimes and actual physical violence. In one, it hasn’t. I have no problem with treating those two situations substantially differently.
If you, as a white person, want to use a term based in science for your own group, I think the “howls” will be somewhat subdued. If tomorrow you start referring to * your own group* as melanin deficient or something, I really don’t care. That’s where I am coming from, and many of the participants I have noticed in these threads. I am cisgender- I am not using the word to disparage some other group. I’m not using it to disparage my own group. I’m using it to identify my own group. So it’s wholly different from someone deciding some “politically correct approved” group doesn’t like how you refer to THEM. this isn’t a “them” situation.
A few additional thoughts about cisgender-is-offensive…
(1) Cisgender is, basically, a word with no synonyms. Think of any well-accepted slur for any group. If you use it, someone else can say “that’s offensive, say X instead”. There is no such X for cisgender, at least not that’s a single word. “Say person-whose-birth-gender-matches-their-gender-identity instead”?
(2) Cisgender is a more or less scientific term… it’s a scientific-y prefix stuck on a value-neutral descriptor. I’m trying to think of any generally accepted slur that is not a casual nickname or diminuitive (or outright insult), but is instead a scientific term. There are some such terms that are viewed as obsolete (transsexual), and after some thought, I guess you could argue that some of the insulting words for the learning disabled started out as scientific terms (“retard” is a shortening of a scientific term, but “moron” started out as a technical descriptor I believe). But in general, scientific/academic descriptors are not slurs.
Again, none of that is proof, but it informs why it is that I’m so resistant to people’s cisgender-is-a-slur arguments.
I was pointing out that there was no discrimination of cisgendereds while using the term cisgendered. Your post disagreed, which would indicate that you do believe that there is discrimination of cisgendereds while being called cisgendered.
You “cited” a few websites that you claimed made an equivalence. I ask if you really think that there is an equivalence. That’s not being obtuse, that’s asking you to back up your own claims.
Okay, you were talking about blogs, now you are talking about “mainstream media websites”, can you give me an example of what you are talking about here?
That’s nice of you. That I am aware of, I have never met a transsexual in real life. I may very well have, and not known, and if I had known, I wouldn’t have really cared, unless for some reason, they thought it was important that I know.
I know quite a number of people IRL, however, that do not think that trans gendered people should have rights, and should be discriminated against because of their “abominable natures”. Some of those are religious, which is a weak excuse for hate, but some are just haters who like to hate.
BTW, these are people I know, not people I am happy to be aquanted with.
The fact that the actual effects of discrimination really only goes one way. Cisgendered people are not being shut out of anything, or have their safety threatened because they are cis. Trans people do.
But here’s the thing, you aren’t asking for permission to be offended. If you are, have at. I give you persmiision to be as offended as you like, but you really don’t need it. You can be offended by he sun rising in the east, if that’s what makes you happy, doesn’t bother me.
But what you are asking is for us to JOIN you in being offended. You don’t want to just not be called cisgendered yourself, you don’t want to see the word at all. You want us to rise up, and say that we all find it offensive, and therefore it can’t be used anymore.
Most of us fellow cisgendereds aren’t going to agree to that.
If you go looking for offense, you are going to find it. It’s not that hard.
If you go on some feminist websites, I am sure you will find examples of the words “man”, “men”, and “male” used disparagingly. Do you get offended when someone calls you a man? If not, how consistent do you think your argument is?