The exchange below outlines an example of why it can be misleading, at best.
Also, as stated before, what information to you believe you’re imparting with using the prefix “cis” that you are not imparting by using the word “man” or “male” alone. What confusion do you hope to avoid that the “trans” prefix can’t clear up under the same circumstance?
No, that’s agender. Non-binary is supposed to mean having elements of both genders. Which I thought everyone did anyway, but whatever. Anyone know what māhū means?
My brain rebukes this.
I know. Mine does too. But I am trying not to be an old school robot. People can call themselves Nehi Soda for all I care. I only care when people think their special snowflake labels entitle them to something extra from me and the rest of society.
Yes, sometimes it can be confusing, and maybe even misleading. I don’t understand all the various permutations of agender/nonbinary/etc.
But sometimes it’s very clear. I’m a cis man. That means that I’m a man whose gender identity matches my biological sex/sex assigned at birth. That’s very clear. Just saying that I’m a man doesn’t necessarily convey that information, and for this discussion, that’s often relevant.
As I said above, “cis” clarifies my gender identity as it relates to my biological sex/sex assigned at birth. Just saying that I’m a man doesn’t convey this information, when it’s relevant (as it has been many times in this thread).
I think cis can be useful sometimes. It’s the ‘gender identity’ part that’s problematic. If you tell kids they are supposed to have a gender identity and identify with a bunch of stereotypes that really fit nobody perfectly, then what you get is all this non-binary, agender, demi-girl and demi-guy mess. If you just define cis as not-trans, and only use it when really relevant, it’s not a problem.
According to Wikipedia, non-binary means:
Non-binary people may identify as having two or more genders (being bigender or trigender );[5][6] having no gender (agender, nongendered, genderless, genderfree or neutrois); moving between genders or having a fluctuating gender identity (genderfluid);[7]being third gender or other-gendered (a category that includes those who do not place a name to their gender).[8]
So the good news is that we’re both right.
The bad news is that it still makes “non-binary ciswoman” a term that would fry an android’s circuits.
I say we fry everyone’s circuits and propose that all women adopt the “nonbinary ciswoman” label. If feminine males get to escape toxic masculinity by co-opting “woman”, why shouldn’t women try to escape sexism and toxic femininity by co-opting “nonbinary”.
I’m only halfway joking here.
Cos it would work about as well as you self identifying as white.
I was talking to my nice, friendly neighbour yesterday. He said back when he was hiring he would never employ a woman of childbearing age, and complained that you can’t ask any questions nowadays.
I agree. And the problem, from a communication standpoint, is that these two interpretations of “cis” are very different from one another. The former interpretation implies a person belongs in the category of “woman” or “man” only because they identify with the gender stereotypes specific to those groups. It renders biology as an irrelevant criterion. The second interpretation is merely a redundant but innocuous way of saying you’re not trans…but there’s no way to know what interpretation someone is using because context rarely enables this discernment. So we’re left to only our assumptions as to what someone really means.
The purpose of language is to communicate ideas to other people without having to rely on assumptions. There is no way I’m calling myself “cis” if it means some people will think I consider myself a woman because of the way I act or feel.
Yep.
Which is why I roll my eyes at the obviously male-centric notion of gender identity. When a suit-wearing volumptuous, long-haired estrogen-oozing female gets treated like a man (rather than a tryhard), maybe I’ll buy this gender identity stuff. I’ll never accept a bearded dude-looking male as a woman until women who put in the same level of non-effort are treated as men.
I’m not aware of this usage. The only one I’m aware of is this one: “a term for people whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth”.
Sure, except that “cis-” has made its way into more common use outside of the subject of this thread. Sometimes it’s used not to define gender identity but to make a political or social statement. In doing so, intentionally or not, people add baggage to a conversation that is often unnecessary.
Look, I’ve used it myself in this thread as well. It feels silly, tbh. So I ask again, what are you trying to convey by using the term “cis” that you could not convey by using the term “trans” if it was applicable? I guess what I’m wondering is when did the words “man” and “woman” become such vague terms that the “trans-” prefix alone fails to further clarify as needed? The overwhelming majority of people we meet are biologically in line with the gender they appear to be. We have the language to allow for the exceptions. Why introduce new terminology for the 99.5% that doesn’t need it, was never confused by conventional use of it, and isn’t asking for it?
It’s not necessary for most conversations. But for discussions, such as this one, specifically about gender identity and in particular the language of gender identity, it’s critical. The vast majority of trans people and trans allies do not see “man” or “woman” as conveying any information about gender identity. Thus, it’s necessary to add “cis” or “trans” if the gender identity of the person/persons being discussed is meant to be conveyed.
If you’re not interested in making sure your ideas about these issues are understood by trans people or trans allies, then I guess you don’t have to use “cis” at all. But I am, so I do.
The “usage” is inferred when you examine the precepts upon with “cisgender” is based.
“Ciswoman” is another way of staying female woman. This means transwomen are male women. What makes both of these types of people “women”? Their gender.
What is gender? According to WHO it is
Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.
Stereotypes, in other words.
What @YWTF is saying is that she doesn’t appreciate a definition that presumes she has something she doesn’t think she has. That something being “gender identity”.
Which a couple of months ago I would have shrugged off. But now I totally get. People are using “gender identity” to essentially mean “I act like women do” or “I act like men do”. Back before nonbinary folks confused the game, I assumed gender identity meant “I feel comfortable in my biological sex” or “I feel like I’m in the opposite biological sex than the one I’ve been assigned”.
If I say I’m “ciswoman”, I’m implicitly saying I act feminine. That I’m “binary”. But I reject both notions because they are untrue. I am comfortable in my female body. But anyone who knows me knows that the number of female stereotypes that I fulfill are quite limited in number. I fail to see why society should even recognize this, though. It’s not only meaningless information, but it’s stupid information, IMHO. Girls who go around bragging they aren’t like other girls are stupid. We shouldn’t be validating these kind of people. We should be telling them to STFU.
I think you’ve got that the wrong way around. ‘Man’ and ‘woman’ are only supposed to convey information about gender identity, and the cis and trans prefixes are there to tell you about biological sex.
But without stereotypes, gender and gender identity don’t have any meaning, so I’m not seeing much difference between YWTF’s definition and Wikipedia’s.
I’m sorry but, no. I don’t buy it and neither should you.
I credit trans people with as much intellectual capacity as anyone else. They absolutely know what the terms “man” or “woman” mean and they have known it since birth. That they identify with a gender other than their birth gender tells us that they absolutely understand the terms and their wider implication. The term “trans” is used to identify their gender identities as being something other than what their biology indicates. For those that do not identify as “trans”, the term “cis” does not add anything meaningful outside a very narrow context.
I’m a trans ally, and this is how I see it. Pretty much all the trans people and allies I’ve spoken to see it like this. Maybe if I know that someone is hostile to the concept of using “cis” and doesn’t believe that trans women are women, then I know what they’re trying to say if they say “man” or “woman”. But if I don’t know, then they could be just like me – and therefore “cis” or “trans” is necessary to convey information.
Of course, if you just believe that I’m dishonest or otherwise malevolent, then this probably won’t be convincing. But if you believe that I’m honest and that there are lots of trans allies like me, then “cis” is a useful and necessary term in many contexts.
Very few, if any, of the trans people and trans allies I’m familiar with use “gender identity” in the way your first sentence describes. Rather, they use it as your second sentence describes, which is how I use it.
We disagree and I believe that you are mistaken. That does not mean that I believe you to be malevolent.