“Normal.”
Even ignoring the extent to which this stigmatizes and insults those who are not “normal”, this won’t work at all, for a very obvious reason: it’s totally nonspecific. You can’t say to someone “as a normal man…” and have it be clear that you are referring to their gender identity, as opposed to, say, their taste in food.
But of course that’s been stated about four times already this thread, so I find it hard to take your suggestion very seriously…
Doesn’t matter, if the word was “Normal,” then all it would take is some op/ed piece that disparages “normal” people, and that word would be considered offensive too.
e.g. “Yeah, all you ‘normals’ are all the same…” or any similar such construction.
I get the feeling that the objection is not the word, but the conversation. They not only want to censor the words that are used in conversations that don’t even involve them, they want to censor the conversations themselves.
I think you’re conflating various opinions… there’s no reason to think that whatever motivates Martini Enfield is the same as whatever motivates Chihuahua. Martini, for instance, seems like he’d be OK with “gender typical”.
But most trans people have typical genders (male or female). It’s their gender identity, not their gender, that is different.
If I am “gender typcial”, then what is the opposite of that? “Gender atypical”? Not only does that not make any sense (unless their gender identity is something other than male or female), it’s at least mildly offensive to the “atypcials.”
If that is the word that we decide to use, so be it. If that is the word that Martini would like to be referred to as, then that’s fine.
I am not a huge fan though, and it would not be the word that I recommend.
I don’t know what your point is here. How would I hear these words? There has to be some context, right? I would use that context. Most importantly, I would listen to people who would actually be described by those words and find out how they feel about them.
The opposite of “gender-typical” is “transgender”. “Typical” is not indicative of “not normal” it just means “most prevalent”
Like I asked before, what is the term for someone who isn’t bisexual? What is the word you would use to describe that person?
I don’t think so. Cisgender boys can still be effeminate or androgynous. Few people would call that “gender typical.”
True, but up to a few years ago, few people would call ‘marriage’ anything else than “Union between a man and a woman”. Words change.
Certainly not “typical,” since that’d be vague and confusing. If it becomes an important enough idea to need a word for it, someone will create a word for it. That’s how language works. As long as the word isn’t “half-junk” or something else deliberately insulting, I’ll happily use whatever word they come up with.
Complaining about the sound of the word is pretty silly IMO.
That’s right, there is no need for a word that means the opposite of “bisexual”. Just like there is no need for a word that means the opposite of “transgender”. That’s sort of the point.
What is the opposite of “Australian”?
There is no direct opposite of bisexuality. In most contexts you’d specify the actual orientation(s) you were talking about, or you’d say “non-bisexual” if you really needed to refer to the mixed set of everything else.
Really? You ever heard of anyone saying “I’m non-bisexual”??
Not once ever.
Exactly. So why do we need something to mean “non-transgender”? We don’t have a word that means “non-bisexual” and we’ve made it just fine.
I would say heterosexual, homosexual, asexual or whatever they. There are already words that specifically define what type of “not-bisexual” someone is. Just as I would not say “not transgender,” I would say cisgender, agender, gender-fluid or whatever the answer is. Because there are words that specify what the gender identity is of an individual beyond just “not transgender.”
Are you now arguing that cisgender IS a necessary term?
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
Because cisgender is a specific thing.
And what “specific thing” does it mean?
Not transgender, not non-binary, not genderfluid, and not agender. Some of these are more or less fuzzily “transgender” depending on the context at hand, especially since trans organizations, support groups, and safe spaces tend to represent the interests of all of those identities to some degree, but cisgender is much more specific than “non-transgender” in areas where the distinction matters.