Poll: How do you personally feel about the term cisgender?

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Self-esteem issues or not, trans are abnormal.

They're a significant minority and to classify their condition as anything other than a disorder is to ignore the suffering their predicament can cause.

There are few other ailments where an individual feels the need to modify their body on a surgical/hormonal level to feel comfortable with themselves emotionally and/or socially.

And that's an elephant in the room that's not going anywhere, no matter how uncomfortable it may make people feel.

Self-esteem issues are part of what drive so many of ours to suicide. So some sensitivity is helpful with a group that is constantly damaged from outside outside sources, for no good reason. Besides that the brain is a chemical computer cis and trans are both chemistry terms too, in fact cis bled over to transgender topics from chemistry.

Also It's not to feel comfortable socially or emotionally only, it's also just to feel comfortable in our own bodies.

 

[Abomination]

What's so bad about having a mental disorder?

Apart from it being an incorrect diagnosis for the most part? Plenty of cultures around the planet have divergent gender identitiies and expressions. A lot of them are welcomed or celebrated, or otherwise seen as belonging to a normative state of being.

As cultures evolve, the relations of people evolve in different ways. Which is why they dropped homosexuality from the DSM as well, and in much the same way they are now dropping GID.

Yes, apart from it - hypothetically - being an incorrect diagnosis.

Telling someone they're wrong is not having a jab. If you like, I can show you some fairly nice discourses showing lists of reasons why they are dropping the word 'disorder'.

Dropping =/= dropped. There is contention, not consensus.

That someone feels they're born in the wrong body is not a disorder (something out of order) of some kind is laughable.

 

[Abomination]

Self-esteem issues are part of what drive so many of ours to suicide. So some sensitivity is helpful with a group that is constantly damaged from outside outside sources, for no good reason.

I do not coddle, sorry.

Besides that the brain is a chemical computer cis and trans are both chemistry terms too, in fact cis bled over to transgender topics from chemistry.

So it's a chemical imbalance/disorder?

Also It's not to feel comfortable socially or emotionally only, it's also just to feel comfortable in our own bodies.

Okay, THREE reasons to feel compelled to surgically/chemically modify one's body... the reasons for feeling compelled to do so isn't the issue. It's the fact that one feels compelled to do so that's the issue.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I do not coddle, sorry.

So it's a chemical imbalance/disorder?

Okay, THREE reasons to feel compelled to surgically/chemically modify one's body... the reasons for feeling compelled to do so isn't the issue. It's the fact that one feels compelled to do so that's the issue.

So no reason is good enough to be polite to people who may be suffering?

More like the fact that the brain is a chemical computer gives a chemical term credence.

Many people modify their bodies for a whole lot less of a reason.

 

[Silvanus]

Uhrm, yes, that's why those terms were employed. Because the PREVIOUS term was adopted as a slur... so a new one was conceived that became common vernacular and quickly became a slur again.

"Handicapped" is a great one. I believe that is what the bathrooms and parking spots were called a good 10 or so years ago. I think the appropriate term now is "disabled" because "handi" was adopted as a slur for someone who is incapable. A sort of ironic term "He's pretty handi with that microphone" to imply someone speaks like they talk like an idiot. Was clever, in a sadistic way.

"Special" was another one that was adopted to make those with issues not feel as offended... and it rightly came off as coddling.

Point being, any term used to describe someone with disadvantages in physical, emotional, or mental faculties will quickly find itself being used as a slur due to the very nature of what it describes.

Words are often co-opted by bigots, yes. This doesn't mean we should choose the most harmful one we can.

You would be choosing a term you know to be hurtful, intentionally, merely in order to make a cheap point.

 

[DerangedHobo]

As cultures evolve, the relations of people evolve in different ways. Which is why they dropped homosexuality from the DSM as well, and in much the same way they are now dropping GID.

Not to come in out of nowhere lacking the proper context but me liking to dress up as a woman and have deranged sex orgies with consenting adults of the same sex is one thing, me feeling completely out of my own skin (which, from what I've seen at least, can lead to self-destructive behaviors and depression) is different. That should probably be treated as a disorder.

 

[Abomination]

I do not coddle, sorry.

So it's a chemical imbalance/disorder?

Okay, THREE reasons to feel compelled to surgically/chemically modify one's body... the reasons for feeling compelled to do so isn't the issue. It's the fact that one feels compelled to do so that's the issue.

So no reason is good enough to be polite to people who may be suffering?

This isn't a funeral. It's a message board. We're here to have a discussion, which YOU invited. If some statements/arguments are disallowed then it's not much of a discussion.

More like the fact that the brain is a chemical computer gives a chemical term credence.

And in this circumstance there's a chemical normality and a chemical abnormality.

Many people modify their bodies for a whole lot less of a reason.

And we don't have a term for those who do not feel the need/desire to do so.

 

[Abomination]

Words are often co-opted by bigots, yes. This doesn't mean we should choose the most harmful one we can.

You would be choosing a term you know to be hurtful, intentionally, merely in order to make a cheap point.

They become harmful BECAUSE they are co-opted by bigots. The word itself is not harmful in the slightest when taken by its literal definition.

We are talking about employing a scientific, chemical term to describe a situation while avoiding offence but with the VERY SAME BREATH are decrying the literal definition of another word because it causes offence.

It gets a little absurd. The word "abnormal"'s offence is purely subjective to the person hearing it. I prefer to employ it used literally to dispel the notion that being abnormal is necessarily a bad thing.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

This isn't a funeral. It's a message board. We're here to have a discussion, which YOU invited. If some statements/arguments are disallowed then it's not much of a discussion.

And in this circumstance there's a chemical normality and a chemical abnormality.

And we don't have a term for those who do not feel the need/desire to do so.

Didn't say their was either. Was just trying to get some empathy shown. Apparently that's not going to happen, so I'm sorry I bothered.

Except that in this case the cause actually proven in neurology that transgender people have the neural patterns of the sex they identify as. In which case it's a more neuron/synapse set up situation which makes it a physiological brain setup thing. Weather or not it's from birth, you know nature, or nurture, or a combination is up for debate. But for identity it's normal by the terms of the target sex generally speaking.

No but we also don't have sweeping discussions that can change law based on their body modification either, we do for transgender issues.

Edit:

Go ahead and use it for pragmatic reason, my only problem is when people start using their sexuality or gender as some sort of defining trait to take pride in. That's just plain fucking stupid.

Except that the journey for acceptance, and in the case of transgender people, transition makes it a defining trait inside that person. Having pride for what makes you different isn't stupid, by the way, as it's a normal human thing to do, in regards to building solidarity with a group of similar people.

As cultures evolve, the relations of people evolve in different ways. Which is why they dropped homosexuality from the DSM as well, and in much the same way they are now dropping GID.

Not to come in out of nowhere lacking the proper context but me liking to dress up as a woman and have deranged sex orgies with consenting adults of the same sex is one thing, me feeling completely out of my own skin (which, from what I've seen at least, can lead to self-destructive behaviors and depression) is different. That should probably be treated as a disorder.

Not necessarily, the largest part of disorders that are involved with transgender issues are externally caused by societal pressure and lack of acceptance. Having a mismatched gender identity isn't in itself a disorder so much as a dysphoria. Anyone who has a dysphoric feeling about something would naturally seek to change it.

 

[The Lunatic]

Except that in this case the cause actually proven in neurology that transgender people have the neural patterns of the sex they identify as.

Not quite.

The study you're thinking of shows that areas in the brain light up in a way that vaguely resembles the way typical members of the gender they identify with does.

It's still very distinctly the sex of the person, however, it bares a slight resemblance to the opposite sex.

The study is still very early on, and we know so little of the matter and so it's very difficult to draw much conclusion from it.

Unfortunately, click-bait and sloppy journalism has lead to a number of people getting the wrong impression about it, but, with more research we might find a number of outcomes.

 

[Silvanus]

They become harmful BECAUSE they are co-opted by bigots. The word itself is not harmful in the slightest when taken by its literal definition.

We are talking about employing a scientific, chemical term to describe a situation while avoiding offence but with the VERY SAME BREATH are decrying the literal definition of another word because it causes offence.

That's the nature of connotation. We can't ignore it; half the meaning in language is in connotation.

It gets a little absurd. The word "abnormal"'s offence is purely subjective to the person hearing it. I prefer to employ it used literally to dispel the notion that being abnormal is necessarily a bad thing.

You'll have to do a lot of explaining yourself, then, or you're just going to be giving the impression that you want to be hurtful.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Except that in this case the cause actually proven in neurology that transgender people have the neural patterns of the sex they identify as.

Not quite.

The study you're thinking of shows that areas in the brain light up in a way that vaguely resembles the way typical members of the gender they identify with does.

It's still very distinctly the sex of the person, however, it bares a slight resemblance to the opposite sex.

The study is still very early on, and we know so little of the matter and so it's very difficult to draw much conclusion from it.

Unfortunately, click-bait and sloppy journalism has lead to a number of people getting the wrong impression about it, but, with more research we might find a number of outcomes.

I suppose that's a fair enough point. We really won't know enough until someone who is trans who had their body donated to science has their brain examined in detail... An idea which is interesting, and morbid in all the ways that sends a deep shiver down my spine.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Yes, apart from it - hypothetically - being an incorrect diagnosis.

And yet, you have evidence to show me why it should be entertained as fact? If there is no clinical problems of mental health during and after transition, why then would someone be considered disordered? If they are socially functioning at normal levels, if they are not showing distress or depression, if they are participating in the social fabric ... then how is it a disorder?

I have schizophrenia. That is a disorder. Because it's one that will perpetuate until I die. My relation to my gender identities is not a dysphoric nor disordered state, however. I do not feel unease in my body anymore. Which is why gender incongruence serves as a better conditional standpoint. I am not ill, and there is no irrationality ... in the same way homosexuals can get over the dysphoria of being gay once they learn to accept their homosexuality.

Dropping =/= dropped. There is contention, not consensus.

Yeah, it is ... the DSM 5 has already been published as of two years renamed GID as Gender Dysphoria. And even then, it is only relevant to the feelings of dissatisfaction. Not post-transition. Also, France, for example, no longer sees transsexuality as a mental disorder ... and the DSM are (slowly) following suit.

The reasons why range from petty prejudices, money making, to good will. Some psychopathologists, psychologists and psychiatrists want to keep it as a disorder because they do not believe in transgender identity, some want it because it's a way to drum up unnecessary business, and others want it so that, depending on where they live, it gives grounds for trans people to seek immediate help and guidance towards transitioning.

That someone feels they're born in the wrong body is not a disorder (something out of order) of some kind is laughable.

If there is distress, it is a dysphoric state. What I find 'laughable' is the fact that you have yet to prove why someone who feels no distress, who is happy, and participates well in society should be seen as 'disordered'. Otherwise I'll keep pointing out the old rhetoric of people who used to say gays were sick in the head, and deserving to be also listed in the DSM due to their obvious mental illness of wanting to fuck the same sex.

 

[DerangedHobo]

Having pride for what makes you different isn't stupid, by the way, as it's a normal human thing to do

Did... did you just make the claim that its alright because it is a 'normal human thing to do'? I'm pretty sure humans are xenophobic, selfish and impulsive by their natures as well. And going back to the original point, yes, it is stupid. Having pride in anything that you cannot control is stupid. If you want to take pride in going through the transitional process between x and y sex, then yes, take pride in your own personal work and achievements but taking pride in something "just cuz" is the most counter-intuitive piece of shit that society has ever been forced down my throat (Well, it is kinda tied with 'privilege' but if I ever have to hear or think about that concept again I'm going cringe so hard I shit out my internal organs).

Anyone who has a dysphoric feeling about something would naturally seek to change it.

I can respect that statement and if it is purely through societal pressures that the aforementioned self-destructive behaviors come about then I'd be all for declassifying GID as a disorder.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

As cultures evolve, the relations of people evolve in different ways. Which is why they dropped homosexuality from the DSM as well, and in much the same way they are now dropping GID.

Not to come in out of nowhere lacking the proper context but me liking to dress up as a woman and have deranged sex orgies with consenting adults of the same sex is one thing, me feeling completely out of my own skin (which, from what I've seen at least, can lead to self-destructive behaviors and depression) is different. That should probably be treated as a disorder.

Only if distress is present. Which is why gender dysphoria was being put forward. It still allowed trans people a therapeutical frameworks for transition, which lead to a state beyond dysphoria with one's body. I had dysphora in terms of my body, I transitioned, I no longer feel dysphoria. Not all trans people suffer dysphoria ... and a LOT of trans people are happy with the bodies that they have once they proceed to a certain point of their transition.

There is no guarantee of a persistence of dysphoria, which means it;s utterly unnecessary to consider trans people as, by dint of merely being trans, perpetually disordered persons. In the same way we no longer look at homosexuals as disordered persons, even though it can cause a lot of the self-harm that you talk about here.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Did... did you just make the claim that its alright because it is a 'normal human thing to do'? I'm pretty sure humans are xenophobic, selfish and impulsive by their natures as well. And going back to the original point, yes, it is stupid. Having pride in anything that you cannot control is stupid. If you want to take pride in going through the transitional process between x and y sex, then yes, take pride in your own personal work and achievements but taking pride in something "just cuz" is the most counter-intuitive piece of shit that society has ever been forced down my throat (Well, it is kinda tied with 'privilege' but if I ever have to hear or think about that concept again I'm going cringe so hard I shit out my internal organs).

I can understand the point of "just cuz" being a terrible reason to group together. But for a lot of transpeople, the only support they can find often times is from other trans people. Plus being part of a community like the trans one is interesting, because I see more openness towards outsiders and patience than with most any other community. So that's to my mind a large part of where the pride part comes in, it may sound stupid, but so long as humanity is a fractured stupid mess like it is, you gotta find your support where it's available... Instead of expecting everyone to be supportive of everyone else, because we humans don't work that way, not yet at least, and maybe never.

I can respect that statement and if it is purely through societal pressures that the aforementioned self-destructive behaviors come about then I'd be all for declassifying GID as a disorder.

It is more than that in many ways, gender dysphoria goes deep. But the societal pressures, mixed with a hefty helping of stereotyping by sex, and attitudes of disapproval and lack of acceptance are driving factors for sure. If we had a society more open to gender diversity, then it might not be a problem that absolutely requires physically addressing. In cultures where such things are accepted as far as I can see there is far less in the way of need for full surgical and hormonal transition.

 

[Abomination]

This isn't a funeral. It's a message board. We're here to have a discussion, which YOU invited. If some statements/arguments are disallowed then it's not much of a discussion.

And in this circumstance there's a chemical normality and a chemical abnormality.

And we don't have a term for those who do not feel the need/desire to do so.

Didn't say their was either. Was just trying to get some empathy shown. Apparently that's not going to happen, so I'm sorry I bothered.

I understand why you are upset but you are upset over something that is only tangentially related to the topic. My words and opinion are not causing the horrors experienced by trans people.

Except that in this case the cause actually proven in neurology that transgender people have the neural patterns of the sex they identify as. In which case it's a more neuron/synapse set up situation which makes it a physiological brain setup thing. Weather or not it's from birth, you know nature, or nurture, or a combination is up for debate. But for identity it's normal by the terms of the target sex generally speaking.

Unfortunately the jury is still out on this hypothesis. But one thing is true, either the brain is wrong for the body or the body is wrong for the brain. It's a biological abnormality of the brain OR of the body. Either way, something went wrong.

No but we also don't have sweeping discussions that can change law based on their body modification either, we do for transgender issues.

No, we don't have sweeping discussions that change law. This is a message board. This is a discussion. I am not part of some conspiracy or hate group to see all trans people suffer.

They become harmful BECAUSE they are co-opted by bigots. The word itself is not harmful in the slightest when taken by its literal definition.

We are talking about employing a scientific, chemical term to describe a situation while avoiding offence but with the VERY SAME BREATH are decrying the literal definition of another word because it causes offence.

That's the nature of connotation. We can't ignore it; half the meaning in language is in connotation.

Then the opinions of people who are offended/insulted by the word "cis" are just as valid as those who are offended/insulted by the use of "normal".

It gets a little absurd. The word "abnormal"'s offence is purely subjective to the person hearing it. I prefer to employ it used literally to dispel the notion that being abnormal is necessarily a bad thing.

You'll have to do a lot of explaining yourself, then, or you're just going to be giving the impression that you want to be hurtful.

A lot of explaining? Here's my explaining.

I'm not attempting to be hurtful. I'm being as literal as possible. Any negative connotation one infers from my language is theirs alone and is a misconception.

Yes, apart from it - hypothetically - being an incorrect diagnosis.

And yet, you have evidence to show me why it should be entertained as fact?[snip]

HYPOTHETICALLY, assume I am agreeing with you for that particular question. Why is a mental disorder a bad thing? Why would a trans person not want to be associated with someone who has autism?

Yeah, it is ... the DSM 5 has already been published as of two years renamed GID as Gender Dysphoria. And even then, it is only relevant to the feelings of dissatisfaction. Not post-transition. Also, France, for example, no longer sees transsexuality as a mental disorder ... and the DSM are (slowly) following suit.

The reasons why range from petty prejudices, money making, to good will. Some psychopathologists, psychologists and psychiatrists want to keep it as a disorder because they do not believe in transgender identity, some want it because it's a way to drum up unnecessary business, and others want it so that, depending on where they live, it gives grounds for trans people to seek immediate help and guidance towards transitioning.

Again, there is no consensus. One country is listed.

That someone feels they're born in the wrong body is not a disorder (something out of order) of some kind is laughable.

If there is distress, it is a dysphoric state. What I find 'laughable' is the fact that you have yet to prove why someone who feels no distress, who is happy, and participates well in society should be seen as 'disordered'. Otherwise I'll keep pointing out the old rhetoric of people who used to say gays were sick in the head, and deserving to be also listed in the DSM due to their obvious mental illness of wanting to fuck the same sex.

Sex and identity are not the same thing. In this case one believes their body to be incorrect. Functioning or not, it's still an issue they have to deal with that someone without the ailment doesn't have to deal with.

 

[DerangedHobo]

But for a lot of transpeople, the only support they can find often times is from other trans people.

I completely understand that, for me, there's a distinction between "like-minded" people and actively taking pride in something. To me, pride in things like nationality or belief structure just leads to assholes and prejudice.

Instead of expecting everyone to be supportive of everyone else, because we humans don't work that way, not yet at least, and maybe never

Only thing worse than the lack of acceptance is the cherry picking of 'valid' groups. Apparently it can never just be one or the other.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I understand why you are upset but you are upset over something that is only tangentially related to the topic. My words and opinion are not causing the horrors experienced by trans people.

No, we don't have sweeping discussions that change law. This is a message board. This is a discussion. I am not part of some conspiracy or hate group to see all trans people suffer.

Fair enough on that first part. Just remember that they might not be helping in some situations either.

On the second, no we're not changing law here. We're discussing the term cisgender, so to get back on topic. In terms of it being used as a transgender topic term, it's very easy to define, most people don't know it, so they don't have a bad opinion about it. When talking transgender subjects it's generally with a transgender person, so using cisgender as a terminology here helps keep us from feeling left out or alienated. As a classification it really only matters in specific regards to transgender/cisgender topics, if neither are coming up it's unneeded. But as someone with lots of trans and cis friends in person the situations come up where it is a handy term, and it puts everyone on a level playing field. In larger discussions, like legal ones, it can help to prevent discriminatory language one way, or the other.

Edit:

But for a lot of transpeople, the only support they can find often times is from other trans people.

I completely understand that, for me, there's a distinction between "like-minded" people and actively taking pride in something. To me, pride in things like nationality or belief structure just leads to assholes and prejudice.

Instead of expecting everyone to be supportive of everyone else, because we humans don't work that way, not yet at least, and maybe never

Only thing worse than the lack of acceptance is the cherry picking of 'valid' groups. Apparently it can never just be one or the other.

Agreed on that matter, but the limits we live with aren't something we can readily change either. As terrible as it is, humans aren't perfect, and as social animals we're not exactly welcoming to those we consider outsiders.

On the matter of pride. Well there is pride, like being proud for being your self, then there is pride like being prideful of one's positions. I believe that the trans, gay, intersex, and etc... pride movements are more about the former, along with being about visibility to help at least with tolerance, and understanding. The latter in my humble opinion is the one that leads to assholes and prejudice

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Otherwise I'll keep pointing out the old rhetoric of people who used to say gays were sick in the head, and deserving to be also listed in the DSM due to their obvious mental illness of wanting to fuck the same sex.

Not that I necessarily agree with mister Abom, but this is a bit dumb.

Being wrong about something doesn't preclude one from being right about something else.

And here's where I go "ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" and wiggle my outstretched hand, palm down, in an indecisive manner- I may not really 'agree' with Abom's approach to this, but I can't bring myself to disagree with the core argument, since it's essentially a semantic one.

By definition, trans and gay folks are abnormal and suffer from some sort of 'disorder,' in that both are, again by definition, not the norm. It isn't an inherently negative thing and I don't subscribe to the idea that either are bad in any sense of the term.

Unless they're specifically asking me to refer to them as bad and, depending on their inflection and the context, I may oblige them. Snap snap. Grin grin. Wink wink. Say no more. Say no more.

The words can be viewed as negative or simply as a descriptor. Kinda like 'Cis,' imo.

Well, hell, exactly like 'Cis.'

Personally, 'Abnormal' just makes me think of this:

They become harmful BECAUSE they are co-opted by bigots. The word itself is not harmful in the slightest when taken by its literal definition.

We are talking about employing a scientific, chemical term to describe a situation while avoiding offence but with the VERY SAME BREATH are decrying the literal definition of another word because it causes offence.

That's the nature of connotation. We can't ignore it; half the meaning in language is in connotation.

See, I agree with Abom on this bit though.

It's just a cyclical bit of word fappery that doesn't really address the issue and, frankly, can't. Changing the politically correct term doesn't alter the behavior of the people seeking to use the underlying meaning to cause harm. They will simply use the new one or whichever is more expedient for projecting their intent.

And you're right, Silv. Half of language is connotation and to ignore that fact is folly, yet it seems like you're doing just that... from the opposite perspective of Abom.

He's going "IT'S THE LITERAL DEFINITION" and you're going "IT HAS NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS," both of which are completely true, and it doesn't seem like there can really be a meeting point here since these aren't mutually exclusive ideas.

Or, alternatively, I'm completely misinterpreting errything and not forming my thoughts well due to lack of sleep.

I'm willing to err on the side of the "ahmconfoosed" argument.