And so ignorance is unforgivable. Burn the heathens. Ironic how much you have in common with say, church patriarchs during the Crusades.
No, it's just not worth it to try and argue with people who want to make an argument out of it. Educating an ignorant person is one thing; arguing with a person that they should abandon the ignorance they willfully mantain is quite another.
Also, I missed the part where I advocated burning people for disagreeing, but don't let that get in the way of this wonderful strawman you're setting up here. Believing that a position is inane enough to not be worthy of respect is not the same as calling for a holy war to plunder their lands. I'm not asking for people to stitch the tumblr symbol onto their jackets and invade middle america. For one thing, history has shown that won't even work; we'll get kinda lost, burn down Boston and kill a bunch of people who agree with us in a hilarious case of mistaken identity, and when we do take over middle america we'll just lose it in short order and be forced to do it all over again a half a dozen times.
I think people who dislike being called cisgendered can not be bigots. For some people, it's the idea that it really sucks to have some seemingly random group of people creating a new label for you. If you are not trans, you spend your whole life just knowing what you are. You're a boy/man, or a girl/woman. It's easy. Suddenly someone comes around saying you're a cis-male, or a cis-female, and you're just like, "No, I'm just a male." Then they get really angry at you and criticize you heavily.
I think it's really understandable why such a person would take such bother with the term cisgendered. Granted, under different circumstances, they could reasonably understand what you're saying. But if you just go around saying it, I can understand getting frustrated. It really sucks having random labels applied to you, and then having people get angry/offended at your "ignorance and bigotry."
You know, it really does really suck to have labels assigned to you, and then have people get angry/offended when you dislike those labels. It sucked to all the people who were initially labeled as different from "normal", and now the suck train has come full circle.
Excuse me if I can find neither sympathy or compassion in this situation.
Saying "Cis" is fine as long as you use it correctly - which doesn't seem hard, but fucking hell, you should see some of the pseudo-academic word salad nonsense that people carry on with, that woud be the least of it - but using "Mansplaining" and other similar nonsense words, especially in sarcastic, sneering, pretentious screeds pretty much guarantees that I'm dismissing both everything you say, and the idea that you're a human being worth even the slightest scrap of attention necessary to acknowledge your presence as more than a noisy object.
Its a shame, there could be a really interesting conversation going on. Instead it will fall into the FRC shit flinging competition. Well at least its in the fail thread.
Its a shame, there could be a really interesting conversation going on. Instead it will fall into the FRC shit flinging competition. Well at least its in the fail thread.
Eh, doesn't seem to be that way so far. I don't think anyone here is the type to carry on like that.
Its a shame, there could be a really interesting conversation going on. Instead it will fall into the FRC shit flinging competition. Well at least its in the fail thread.
Eh, doesn't seem to be that way so far. I don't think anyone here is the type to carry on like that.
I think cisgendered sounds terrible. If you want to refer to someone who has the same gender identity as their physiology suggests, the prefix should mean "the same", so homo works best, just like homosexual means "same sexual". This means I'm a homogendered heterosexual. A friend of mine is a hetrogendered hetrosexual. Along the way we'll all be a good mix of hetro and homo.
Well, except that calling them Punnett squares would imply that gender identity is a primarily inherited trait...
Anyways, cisgender got coined because the cis- prefix is the antonym of trans-, so it makes sense in the context of current gender terminology. I fall slightly against Luke's suggestion, but only in the sense that it would make it easier to mix sex and gender terms when reading and writing, so it's not that serious an objection.
As for people complaining about being "labeled" cisgender, having a term for people with the common gender identity is pretty much a necessity if we want to have a useful discussion on gender identity. Not having it would be like trying to describe, say, differences between cartoons and live-action television without actually having the term "live-action". (Okay, but it's the best analogy I can come up with at the moment) It's doable, but difficult. But seriously, it's the word that describes a facet of your identity that you didn't know there was a word for before. Now you can describe yourself more accurately! What's so terrible about that?
Did other labels cause this much controversy when they were first coming into wide usage? I don't remember there being much of a brouhaha over heterosexual.
I think cisgendered sounds terrible. If you want to refer to someone who has the same gender identity as their physiology suggests, the prefix should mean "the same", so homo works best, just like homosexual means "same sexual". This means I'm a homogendered heterosexual. A friend of mine is a hetrogendered hetrosexual. Along the way we'll all be a good mix of hetro and homo.
That is actually what "Cis" means. It's a latin prefix meaning "on the same side of", and is used as the antonym to "trans" in chemistry.
Also, you really think more people are going to be okay with "homogendered" over "cisgendered"? Really?
Did other labels cause this much controversy when they were first coming into wide usage? I don't remember there being much of a brouhaha over heterosexual.
There's been a lot of brouhaha over homosexual integration into modern culture. I'm sure there was a lot of anger about terminology. It's an older struggle, so it's had time to calm down.
I do see some imprecision in the use of "cis" that I have a hard time figuring out. Sometimes I see it used to mean "umodified biological sex," sometimes I see "biological sex maps to typical gender roles," sometimes it's "I identify as my biological sex," and sometimes (rarely) I see it as a pejorative ("Shut up cis scum!" and so on) or a way of "othering" people who aren't "in the know." And sometimes it's a prefix, and sometimes it's a standalone word.
But whatever. I used to think it was superfluous terminology, but someone (maybe on these forums?) said something to the effect of "Well, we have 'gay' and 'straight.' How is this any different?"
The terms are generally clear enough that the next phase should be routine implementation. People will freak out for a while, and then they'll get over it.
Forgive me for saying so, but I think that a lot of it may be resentment at the idea that a majority group needs an identifying label. We don't go around calling people "non-Muslim" or whatever. It's the outlier group that gets the identifier because it's logical that the smaller the subset, the more identifiers. It's like taxonomy.
And of course there are political and social consequences of seeing it that way and of course people are going to feel ostracized as part of that outlier group, but the problem really has more to do with people being emotional and angry than much else. It's almost resentful "Oh yeah? Well I'll qualify YOU, pal!" Which is sort of dumb.
Call me old and out of touch, but I think you pick your battles when you want to get anywhere.
Forgive me for saying so, but I think that a lot of it may be resentment at the idea that a majority group needs an identifying label. We don't go around calling people "non-Muslim" or whatever. It's the outlier group that gets the identifier because it's logical that the smaller the subset, the more identifiers. It's like taxonomy.
That's... not a very good example. We don't call people "non-Muslim", we call them Christian, or Jewish, or Atheist, etc - you're drawing from a group where there's a host of other labels. And taxonomy does generally give different identifiers for different groups - it's not that the smaller the subset, the more identifiers, but the more specific the subset. If I wanted to specify the category of people who have gender identities matching their sex, you'd better fucking believe I'd want a word for that category.
It's almost resentful "Oh yeah? Well I'll qualify YOU, pal!" Which is sort of dumb.
It's not; it's a practicality thing, because when you're trying to discuss how the experiences of transgender people differ from others', it's a lot more irritating to have to call them something like "not trans" all the time than coming up with a word for that category.
Call me old and out of touch, but I think you pick your battles when you want to get anywhere.
Unfortunately, the only people who actually get to pick battles are us white dudes, who don't have to deal on a daily basis with bullying, shaming, and people acting like non-cis gender identities don't exist.
Especially in the case of social issues, being right is poor armor. You'll win eventually almost certainly, but I think you can affect the timescale with an acknowledgement of the situation on the ground.
Forgive me for saying so, but I think that a lot of it may be resentment at the idea that a majority group needs an identifying label. We don't go around calling people "non-Muslim" or whatever. It's the outlier group that gets the identifier because it's logical that the smaller the subset, the more identifiers. It's like taxonomy.
Well, actually, a proper taxonomy is 1) hierarchical and 2) gives unique identifiers for everything. That's a really poor example.
And again, I point to 'gay' and 'straight.' 'Straight' is the majority orientation, but most people have few issues identifying as 'straight' or 'gay' or 'bi' or what have you. And your sexual orientation is possibly harder to alter than your biological sex - or at least the physical manifestation of certain secondary sex characteristics. Primary sex characteristics are pretty much impossible to alter, or at least alter and maintain reproductive ability.
So it appears that certain aspects of biological sex should be considered more flexible than sexual orientation, and yet our language stubbornly refuses to acknowledge that.
It's probably because the process of transitioning is more jarring than any sort of "coming out." Alterations in orientation just involves changing the person you're fucking - but alterations in biology are visually dramatic and thus harder for people to accept.
It might get better as the medical technology does. I think that's a huge hurdle not only physically and emotionally (for the sufferer) but also emotionally for society. If one day you can walk into a surgical suite after your preparatory therapy and walk out a nearly anatomically perfect member of your chosen gender, a lot of this would vanish as a consequence.
Also, TWS, I shied away from saying "hierarchical" because I didn't want someone to misconstrue that and start a whole new fight about that. :P
But still, I don't think you're really contradicting me. Hierarchical means that the deeper you go (the smaller the subset), the more qualifying identifiers, with the top level (majority) really just having one name, which is unique, sure, but certainly not an antonym or other similarly related qualifier to an underlying level.
It might get better as the medical technology does.
I'm not too sure about that. It might get easier as more people do it, but humans have a fairly pronounced sexual dimorphism - so most of us will have to adjust to seeing someone change sex no matter what. It tends to be a radical difference.
I mean, fuck, some people really notice when you cut your hair, or shave, or lose weight. That's comparatively minor.
What I'm really interested in seeing is primary sexual organ transplant technology. That would be fascinating. What will society be like when you can be born as one sex, and then have a surgery to move your entire appearance and reproductive function?
EDIT: RE: "taxonomy:" Yes, but you also said that you apply terms to distinguish the minority groups from the "normal." That's not how taxonomic systems work - you apply terms to describe all groups, whether or not they're the "norm." Typically, normalcy is indicated by the specific epithet applied to an organism. Hordeum vulgare means "common Hordeum," better known as "barley." Whether or not that's the majority type, we don't know. Doesn't matter. It's just the name.
The most important feature of a taxonomy is that it is a form of systematic description. Sometimes, I see conflation between description and prescription.
Well, call me a bigot I guess, but I think that post-op transgendered people, particularly male-to-female, as a whole, tend to look pretty odd. The blending of masculine and feminine characteristics is not flattering. And sure, there's a subset of the population that finds a huge burly trans-female really alluring, but I'm pretty confident it's a small minority. Aesthetics are a factor whether we like it or not.
Now, of course, intellectually I know it's not a fair judgment or prejudice and that these people are just people trying to get along like anybody else, albeit with a very visible burden complicating things for them, but the fact remains that, dude, you look weird. It's something that other people, however enlightened they may be, have to overcome. It's visceral. I certainly think that if aesthetic and anatomic issues like that can be addressed, the hill will be less steep (whether for good or for bad reasons.)
I'm lucky that all of my broken bits are invisible (until I have to run to the bathroom suddenly at an impolitic time, or, more disastrously, shit my pants.)
I wasn't trying to say that there shouldn't be a word that means what "cis" does, just that it should be something more accessible. Obviously there should be a term for it, but no one knows cis because they never use that prefix anywhere else (unlike homo and hetero). Hell, I took four years of Latin and didn't encounter it until hearing it in this context. It's obtuse, is all.
Comments
Also, I missed the part where I advocated burning people for disagreeing, but don't let that get in the way of this wonderful strawman you're setting up here. Believing that a position is inane enough to not be worthy of respect is not the same as calling for a holy war to plunder their lands. I'm not asking for people to stitch the tumblr symbol onto their jackets and invade middle america. For one thing, history has shown that won't even work; we'll get kinda lost, burn down Boston and kill a bunch of people who agree with us in a hilarious case of mistaken identity, and when we do take over middle america we'll just lose it in short order and be forced to do it all over again a half a dozen times.
I think it's really understandable why such a person would take such bother with the term cisgendered. Granted, under different circumstances, they could reasonably understand what you're saying. But if you just go around saying it, I can understand getting frustrated. It really sucks having random labels applied to you, and then having people get angry/offended at your "ignorance and bigotry."
Excuse me if I can find neither sympathy or compassion in this situation.
100% joking, Sketch isn't like that anymore. And even when he was, he wasn't THAT bad.
Anyways, cisgender got coined because the cis- prefix is the antonym of trans-, so it makes sense in the context of current gender terminology. I fall slightly against Luke's suggestion, but only in the sense that it would make it easier to mix sex and gender terms when reading and writing, so it's not that serious an objection.
As for people complaining about being "labeled" cisgender, having a term for people with the common gender identity is pretty much a necessity if we want to have a useful discussion on gender identity. Not having it would be like trying to describe, say, differences between cartoons and live-action television without actually having the term "live-action". (Okay, but it's the best analogy I can come up with at the moment) It's doable, but difficult.
But seriously, it's the word that describes a facet of your identity that you didn't know there was a word for before. Now you can describe yourself more accurately! What's so terrible about that?
Also, you really think more people are going to be okay with "homogendered" over "cisgendered"? Really?
I do see some imprecision in the use of "cis" that I have a hard time figuring out. Sometimes I see it used to mean "umodified biological sex," sometimes I see "biological sex maps to typical gender roles," sometimes it's "I identify as my biological sex," and sometimes (rarely) I see it as a pejorative ("Shut up cis scum!" and so on) or a way of "othering" people who aren't "in the know." And sometimes it's a prefix, and sometimes it's a standalone word.
But whatever. I used to think it was superfluous terminology, but someone (maybe on these forums?) said something to the effect of "Well, we have 'gay' and 'straight.' How is this any different?"
The terms are generally clear enough that the next phase should be routine implementation. People will freak out for a while, and then they'll get over it.
And of course there are political and social consequences of seeing it that way and of course people are going to feel ostracized as part of that outlier group, but the problem really has more to do with people being emotional and angry than much else. It's almost resentful "Oh yeah? Well I'll qualify YOU, pal!" Which is sort of dumb.
Call me old and out of touch, but I think you pick your battles when you want to get anywhere.
And again, I point to 'gay' and 'straight.' 'Straight' is the majority orientation, but most people have few issues identifying as 'straight' or 'gay' or 'bi' or what have you. And your sexual orientation is possibly harder to alter than your biological sex - or at least the physical manifestation of certain secondary sex characteristics. Primary sex characteristics are pretty much impossible to alter, or at least alter and maintain reproductive ability.
So it appears that certain aspects of biological sex should be considered more flexible than sexual orientation, and yet our language stubbornly refuses to acknowledge that.
It's probably because the process of transitioning is more jarring than any sort of "coming out." Alterations in orientation just involves changing the person you're fucking - but alterations in biology are visually dramatic and thus harder for people to accept.
But still, I don't think you're really contradicting me. Hierarchical means that the deeper you go (the smaller the subset), the more qualifying identifiers, with the top level (majority) really just having one name, which is unique, sure, but certainly not an antonym or other similarly related qualifier to an underlying level.
I mean, fuck, some people really notice when you cut your hair, or shave, or lose weight. That's comparatively minor.
What I'm really interested in seeing is primary sexual organ transplant technology. That would be fascinating. What will society be like when you can be born as one sex, and then have a surgery to move your entire appearance and reproductive function?
EDIT: RE: "taxonomy:" Yes, but you also said that you apply terms to distinguish the minority groups from the "normal." That's not how taxonomic systems work - you apply terms to describe all groups, whether or not they're the "norm." Typically, normalcy is indicated by the specific epithet applied to an organism. Hordeum vulgare means "common Hordeum," better known as "barley." Whether or not that's the majority type, we don't know. Doesn't matter. It's just the name.
The most important feature of a taxonomy is that it is a form of systematic description. Sometimes, I see conflation between description and prescription.
Now, of course, intellectually I know it's not a fair judgment or prejudice and that these people are just people trying to get along like anybody else, albeit with a very visible burden complicating things for them, but the fact remains that, dude, you look weird. It's something that other people, however enlightened they may be, have to overcome. It's visceral. I certainly think that if aesthetic and anatomic issues like that can be addressed, the hill will be less steep (whether for good or for bad reasons.)
I'm lucky that all of my broken bits are invisible (until I have to run to the bathroom suddenly at an impolitic time, or, more disastrously, shit my pants.)
I wasn't trying to say that there shouldn't be a word that means what "cis" does, just that it should be something more accessible. Obviously there should be a term for it, but no one knows cis because they never use that prefix anywhere else (unlike homo and hetero). Hell, I took four years of Latin and didn't encounter it until hearing it in this context. It's obtuse, is all.