Sorry for double post, but your post made me remember another point I had.
The only reason for anyone to be called cis or trans is if it is important that there be a distinction between the two. If you can’t call a man who was born with female genitalia a man without qualifying it with trans, then a man who was born with a penis needs the qualifier cis.
This is not an important distinction to me, or many others here.
It is however, a very important distinction to those who largely also fall into the category of being offended by the term cisgendered.
Salvor, up-thread, says that a woman who transitioned into a man should always keep the “trans” prefix.
As long as that is required, then the “cis” prefix will be as well.
I never said anything about discrimination. Not sure where you’re getting that from; my entire point has been that I don’t like being called cisgendered for reasons I’ve explained multiple times. I’ve never said transgender people aren’t discriminated agaginst. They are. I wish we lived in a world where they weren’t. We don’t. It has nothing to do with me not liking being called “cisgender”.
I never claimed it was an equivalance and I’m not sure why you’d think I did.
No, I wasn’t talking about blogs. Never said I was. I said "LGBTQI-friendly, female/feminist-slanted media websites - ie, mainstream (or near enough) media. Sorry if you got the impression from that I meant blogs and tumblrs; it wasn’t what I was referring to - they’re not necessarily considered “media” in this part of the world, at least in the sense many of those in the mainstream media understand it. The debate between when something transitions from a random blog to part of the “media” is probably best left for another thread, though - it would be an intersting discussion, I think.
However, an example of the sort of site I was referring to (not the most egregious offender by any stretch of the imagination, however,) would be The Guardian. Now, the Graun does some incredible Serious Journalism work in a number of fields, including LGBTQI+ issues and they deserve recognition and lauding for that.
Obviously that article isn’t about transgender issues, but it is, IMHO, an excellent example of the (sometimes unconventional) Far Left Views the paper is well-known for publishing; I’ve certainly seen articles, features and OpEds elsewhere in the Grauniad with varying degrees of “straight white cisgender men are everything that’s wrong with the world” or “ugh, non-Feminists/Social Justice/LGBTQI+ folks”.
I’m not asking for the term to go onto the List of Automatically Irredeemable Slurs; actually, what I want is for people to say “Maybe Martini Enfield has a point - this may not be the preferred nomenclature and we shouldn’t just assume everyone is cool with it being used to describe them; and perhaps it’s worth having a serious conversation to find an alternative to the word.”
It’s all about context, where the terms are being used and how. In and of itself, “Straight white man” is not an offensive slur to me because it’s true and I identify as all of those things. However, if those terms are being combined for use in a “ugh, non-LGBTQI folks” or “men are everything that’s wrong in the universe” sense then yeah, it starts becoming offensive IMHO.
In some cases, yes, I do. More specifically, I think some of them only mention the cisgender aspect when they want to virtue signal (“Look how inclusive I am!” or disparage what they see as The Man/Patriarchy/Oppressors/Majority.
In that sense, I think it’s not so much that they’d use a different term, it’s that I believe they wouldn’t mention it at all unless there was some value or politically correct points to be scored by doing so.
This, folks, is exactly what I’m talking about. “You have a non-approved opinion and are therefore an asshole.”
Nowhere have I disparaged the transgender - in fact, I’ve outright said they should be treated the same as everyone else, with the same rights and ability to lead their lives.
In essence, I’ve said “Please don’t call me this term; I don’t like it” in a rational and civilised way multiple times, and been told “Fuck you, you’re an asshole.” And once again, my disdain for political correctness becomes further entrenched as a result.
I feel like this is the crux of the matter. It sounds to me like the times you’ve found the usage bothersome or offensive, your real complaint has been that it was brought up at all in a context in which you don’t think it should have been relevant.
That is, and correct me if I’m misreading you, but people said something like “hey, check your privilege, you straight white cisgendered man”, or something like that. And you found that to be some variant of offensive political correctness. But presumably, you would have been just as offended if they’d said “hey, check your privilege, you straight white man whose gender matches his biology”. The offensiveness is not the term that was chosen, it was bringing up the topic at all, and presuming to judge you due to it. Does that sound reasonable?
If so, how would you feel about the word in a context in which it’s absolutely inarguably relevant? For instance, you’re signing up for a fertility study and there’s a disclaimer in the middle of a bunch of other random qualifications and stipulations that says “this study is only open to cisgender males”. Would that bother you?
Because I can definitely understand why the experiences you’ve had would be bothersome, I just don’t understand why you associate it so directly with the choice of vocabulary.
Because you’re an asshole. You’re the one making this about you. It’s been repeatedly stated nobody has a fucking problem with your fucking stupid garbage baby objection to being called cisgender. I won’t call you that if you don’t like it personally. Great. Good.
You’re being an asshole because you keep crowing about “social justice warriors” like your personal preference is actually important to the issue at hand. Which is the same nonsense baby garbage that led to this thread being started in the first place.
Max is being polite and kind to you. That’s his thing. It’s not my thing. You’re an asshole and a bigot. You’re couching your objection to this conversation as some kind of semantic thing about what “cisgender” means to you, and I’m fine couching my response in terms of that, to the extent that there’s any response that can be given to it: if I ever talk about your gender identity personally, which I won’t because this fucking isn’t about your gender identity ever, why would it be, I’ll say “this guy’s gender identity matches the sex that was assigned at birth in his case, but I can’t tell you what word we have for that.” You win! But nobody’s actually fooled that this is what brought you to this thread. You don’t want there to be a word about your gender identity because you’re not comfortable with the notion of gender identity as something that’s OK to talk about in the first place. Because you’re a bigot, and you’re an asshole.
And I mean, go ahead. Use this response as further ammunition to “disdain political correctness” further. Nobody’s fooled about where you stand when it comes to genuinely giving a shit about transgendered people. If some drunken mook on the internet calling you an asshole because you disingenuously framed an issue makes you care less about the issue, you didn’t give a shit about the issue in the first place.
Partly but not entirely, although I appreciate where you’re coming from. The fact the term only comes up when someone wants to use the “check your privilege”-type thing or virtue signal is part of the reason for me of why I’m offended by it; especially because in my experience the term is being used to disparage folks seen as part of The Majority/The System/The Patriarchy/Whatever “other” group (which, as a straight white guy, tends to include me) the writer sees as keeping them down.
Transgender issues are worthy of discussion - I don’t think anyone is denying they have to put up with some pretty unpleasant stuff. I am not for a moment trying to shut down those discussions or say they should never happen.
No, it wouldn’t - I’ve said before I’m fine with the term being used in appropriate academic (and, by extension, medical) contexts. It’s the crossover into “everyday use” which bothers me. I have no problem with the concept itself or discussion of it and I don’t believe I’ve ever said otherwise.
Like I said, pretty much the only time I encounter the word “cisgender” is in the contexts I’ve outlined earlier, hence my association with it in less than positive contexts. I’ve got no issues whatsoever with being described as “non-transgender” in the context of a civilised discussion about gender identities, for example.
It’s pretty simple to understand: there’re tuckers and choppers. If you meet a guy like that, ask him whether he’s former or latter, to gauge how far his mental disease progressed.
But’s that’s not even true - I mean, you can’t even claim it’s your experience. It’s been coming up on the SDMB, for example, in threads you’ve been involved in for years now and normally it is NOT used as a “check your privilege-type thing.” So your example is clearly wrong even within your own experience.
You also aren’t answering a prior question completely. It’s not difficult to find activists decrying men and all maleness as being the root of all evil, but you’re not offended by the word “man” because, as you put it,
So why don’t you consider the context in which cisgender is used? What makes it so fearsome that it’s free from connection to context?
And whether you like it or not, cisgender is a scientific word which, by your own self-description, describes your own gender identity. So your second point is refuted; it is a true statement. The final point, which is whether you identify as one of “those things”…shrug. It would be like you saying "I may have an Australian birth certificate, Australian passport, have lived in Australia all my life - but don’t call me Australian, because I heard some Kiwis refer to us as ‘fucking Aussies.’ "
I find the word “Caucasian” troublesome, because while I am for the most part whiter than sour cream, my heritage is a mixed one of strongly different ethnicities - Ukrainian, Italian, and Irish. I object very mildly to the word “Caucasian” because I think it sells my ethnicity short. But I also know that it’s also a shorthand for “person primarily of European ancestry who is not African-American, Asian, Native American, etc.” so I accept that as a shorthand and just move on.
Your entire argument, as I can boil it down over reading your posts on this subject for a long time (and the fact that you often post on this subject indicates that this is somewhat important to you) is that you went on a feminist “social justice warrior” site which you’ve never posted a link to (not that you need to; I can Google and find a site or two out there where some stupid kid or dumb bunny slurs cisgender people), some stupid people ranted about “evil cisgender scum” or words to that effect, and it made you feel hurt.
You profess that you got nothin’ against us transgender people, and I have no reason to disbelieve you. But I’ve only ever seen you post on the subject regarding how you are unhappy and even offended by the word “cisgender”. Not that you or anyone is required to make exactly 0.25 pro-trans posts per month or else be subjected to having to watch the entire first season of the simply dreadful “I am Cait,” but when the only thing you really have to say about my people is to complain about how some SJW’s hurt you once…well?
You’ve made your point, and it’s clear no one is going to convince you of any other way of looking at it. As for myself, I don’t think anyone can find a single post on the SDMB where I’ve referred to a poster as “cisgender” directly, and if I did once, certainly never in a negative context, nor after they would have asked me to stop. There’s one troll who keeps posting and even IMing me telling me off for even typing the word on the SDMB, but I’m not going to stop doing that in threads where the primary subject matter is or contains gender issues.
Wait, then, what are we disagreeing about? How is your position any different from mine?
The term should not be used as an insult, but (like most terms) could be. But if it’s used in a neutral setting it’s fine.
I must be missing something, because it sounds like you’re describing, basically, every word ever.
OK, here’s another example: you’re at a friend’s dinner party, and it turns out that at this party are a bunch of women, and two transmen, and you. And everyone’s very nice. But the topic turns to some weighty topic about sexuality and gender issues, with a bunch of people weighing in about their own personal experiences. And at one point, the hostess (who invited you in the first place and thus definitely knows that you’re cis) turns to you and says “Martini, as the only cisgendered man here, what do you think of X”?
Yes, “cisgender” is a scientific term, with a clear (if specialized, and rare for most people) application. I have not heard any objections to it, here or elsewhere, that I can interpret as honest, rational, and unbigoted.
A “casual-sounding” term? What that does even mean? We should judge offensiveness by how a word “sounds”?
“African American” is made up of existing terms with existing meanings. So?
I count ONE transgender person saying it “might” be offensive, and several gender-typical persons saying that “cisgender” is offensive. Not sure where your math skills were learned.
The point being the evidence you accept is easily fabricated because it’s based on anonymous posters on this board and on Reddit. That alone should be enough.
Anybody can find large numbers of people on Reddit that support anything.
Please link to the studies that say that “large numbers of trans people” find “ladyboy” offensive.
MOST trans people in the US say it is? Really? Did you ask MOST trans people? How do you know that MOST trans people in the US say it is? I say MOST trans people in Thailand don’t say it is offensive? Are you going to dismiss their opinion? Is YOUR opinion as a gender-typical person more important than theirs?
My position basically is I don’t think the term should be generally used outside a medical/academic context.
The first time I’d call it a faux pas or a gaffe; I’m not going throw my napkin down and sputter HOW VERY DARE YOU! or anything, but I’d still be mildly put out.
I’d tell them I don’t like being referred to as cisgender as the term carries a lot of negative connotations for me, but as a gender-typical man [whatever my response to the issue is].
If they keep using the term after that, then I’d be offended.
To put the shoe on the other foot, I’d never refer to someone in a social setting as “cisgender” unless I heard them self-identify as such, and even then I’d still likely go for something neutral like “gender-typical” or “non-transgender” depending on how the conversation is going etc.
I’ve said before the SDMB is pretty much the only place (outside academic or medical contexts) where I haven’t encountered the term in a “check your privilege”-type/Social Justice Virtue Signalling context.
I don’t post on the issue particularly often; I’ve been on the boards for nearly a decade now and the overwhelming majority of my posts are on, well, not this subject. I can only recall participating in two or three threads on the subject in the time I’ve been here; I believe I’ve made more posts on the subject of my opposition to tipping, for example.
And I’ve avoided linking to the sites which irk me for two reasons: because they’re mainstream media sites and I don’t want to give them the traffic, and because the amount of time I’d have to invest going through the stories again to find ones to link to would be most unpleasant for me, and they still wouldn’t be considered good enough by people here who keep telling me I’m not allowed to be have an opinion they don’t like on the matter.
The issue isn’t spectacularly important to me but I find the discussions around gender identity quite interesting, which is why I participate in them from time to time. The SDMB is pretty much the only place I get to have them, as I don’t know any transgender people IRL at present and many of the social justice folks I know aren’t given to rational discussions on issues like that either.
It’s more than once; and the thing is, I don’t go around saying “Yay transgender folks!” because I’ve always taken it as read that as I’m someone who’s not a fuckwit, they’re entitled to the same fair treatment as anyone else. I’ve never said anything against them as far as I can recall. My objection is to being described as “cisgender” in a general context; I’ve made my objection to it known, mostly been told to go fuck myself (either explicitly or implicitly), and I’m not really sure what else there is to say on the matter now.
Why “gender typical” and not “gender identity typical”? Most trans people have a “typical” gender: male or female. It’s their gender identity that is other than typical.
Well, it seems a bit odd that you wouldn’t blink at the term being used in a technical/medical sense, but object to it in a social setting. For instance, most people use “straight” in a day-to-day sense, while “heterosexual” is used in more precise and technical contexts, but no one (as far as I know) finds “heterosexual” to be offensive. There are certainly some technical words which would be awkward if used in a social setting, but I can’t think of one off the top of my head that is still in current use in technical contexts but is considered offensive.
That said, I think we might have just reached the root of the disagreement. If you find it offensive in a social setting, then you do.
THAT said, however, I suggest that you keep an open ear and an open mind. If “cisgender” does become the standard way going forward to refer to people-whose-gender-identity-matches-their-birth-identity then you’re going to hear it more and more in casual conversation, in many different contexts. It’s certainly possible that in a few years, the number of times you’ve heard it used in a clearly-not-intended-to-be-offensive context will vastly outnumber the number of times it was used offensively.
I don’t know what courtroom you think we’re arguing in in which you think that you’re impressing anyone by demanding a bizarrely irrelevant standard of proof. But I will take a deep breath and attempt to make my point one more time:
Suppose you heard of two different newly coined words or phrases that meant “gay man”. One was “autoandrophile”, and one was “pillow muncher”.
Would you just think to yourself “well, that’s interesting, but until some recognized authority publishes a dictionary entry and specifies ‘offensive’ or not, then it’s just unknowable to me whether either of those terms is offensive”? Or would you use common sense and your experience with how language works and assume that “autoandrophile” is inoffensive while “pillow muncher” is offensive?
Of course, that assumption could be changed later… maybe “pillow muncher” is being reclaimed the way “queer” was, and is now a term of pride, one that it’s even OK for outsiders to use. Maybe “autoandrophile” was coined by some douchey ultra-conservative pseudo-scientist for some twisted reason. That’s fine, keep an open mind.
But if we can’t ever use a new word until we have rock-solid unimpeachable indisputable evidence that demonstrates in a fashion that can stand up to adversarial challenge whether or not this word is inoffensive, well, then, we’ll never get to learn new words.
All of that said, why the hell would someone fabricate a reddit thread to falsely demonstrate that “ladyboy” either was or was not offensive? What an odd thing to say…
I can see that argument, and when I use it (here on the SDMB or outside in the real world) it’s in a medical/academic context. I would never use it at work, for example - when I talk to HR staff I use “non-transgender.” And I’m not certain I’ve ever said to someone “well, as a cisgender person, what would you…” or words to that effect, except in the context of a discussion at my University or my clinic where I work.
I hope I haven’t given you that impression. I don’t want you to feel that I’m saying that. I guess all I was trying to do was convince you that it wasn’t really a negative word. But your experience is not mine and I’m not you.
So, you would like us to join you in agreeing that it is offensive and should not be used in any context that you find unacceptable.
You can find whatever you like to be offensive, you don’t need proof, or even a good argument. You don’t like it, then you don’t like it. We can respect that, and try to remember not to use that word to refer to you, that’s not a problem, that’s a reasonable accommodation.
What you are asking, though, is that we agree that it is offensive enough to curtail it’s use in any situation that you do not find acceptable.
For that, you do need some sort of evidence that it is harmful, or at least a consistent argument on why it could be.
So far, your only cite has been an op ed about how we should re-examine the assumed roles that gender and race that the author saw prevalent in this “Thomas the Tank” show (I have never seen this show, and am only vaguely aware of it’s existence, so I cannot agree or disagree), that was in no way offensive, and also in no way used the word cisgender, or transgender for that matter.
This is not going to convince me to join your side.
If you were not the only man born with a penis there, and the host turned to the other one, and said,“As a cisgendered male, what do you think?”, and he replied, “Well as a cisgendered male, I think…”, would you still find that offensive? You were not referred to using that word, but it was used within your earshot. Would you ask them to stop, even when not talking to or about you?
Both of those are more ambiguous than transgender, but if that is what they prefer to be called, then that’s great. What if they don’t like those terms, and prefer to be referred to as cisgender? Would you accede their request?
What places are you looking at? You originally said feminist LGBTQI slanted media, which while you did use the word media, the feminist lgbtqi part did not make me think “mainstream”, and that is why I thought you were talking about blogs. Huffington post and slate calls themselves media, I think of them as blogs.
You did bring up the gaurdian article, which is a paper of record, so is a good cite, but you cited an op ed that had nothing to do with the subject at hand.
You have not given a single example. Not one. If you had given one, and we dismissed it, and another and so on, where you have scads of cites that had been unfairly dismissed, that would be one thing, but you have not given one single example, we just have to take your word that somewhere out there, the word is being used to harm you.
How are the social justice folks not given to having a rational discussion? Do they not give examples? Do they not use logic? Or do you just disagree with them, and object to them not changing their opinion to match yours?
Can you give an example of anyone in this thread telling you to “go fuck yourself”? I certainly don’t see any explicit examples of it, and if you see any, you should report that, because that’s against the rules even in the pit. I do not see any example of it being referred to implicitly either, unless you consider people not immediately agreeing with your assertions the same as telling you to “go fuck yourself”.
Tell you what, I have some pull with the Queen of May of the Social Justice Warriors League. I’ll call in a favor to change the word that refers to a person born with the genitals that they are comfortable with to whatever it is that you would like. What is your suggestion?
Once this new word is in use, of course, will you then object to it’s use, because it may be used in disparaging ways in some corners of the internet? If we go with “birth-gendered”, for instance, and some Austrialian feminist LGBTQI leaning media website uses it in a way that you find disparaging, will this new term now be off limits?
In other words (heh), is it the word, or the discussion that you are objecting to here?
