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

[Politrukk]

Huh I've noticed a trend of people saying they think it's an isult using examples of it being paired with an actual insult, but then saying it's the "cis" part that's insulting. For example, "cis scum".

Pretty sure it's the "scum" part that's the insult there. You can say "trans scum, "black scum", "straight scum". Pretty sure you wouldn't say it's the trans, black or straight part that's the insulting part, so I don't get why cis is viewed differently in this context.

Well, as broached in this thread, how many people do you think know what cis actually means without it being specifically explained to them? I know it took me a while to understand what it was supposed to mean. So if you have someone utilizing a phrase constructed as , is it really that odd that they'd infer that the unknown word is also a negative?

In actuality, of course, cis on it's own isn't insulting, but if you see a word you don't know used in an obviously negative context, your perceptions of the word are likely to associate it to the insult.

Are we really going to define the scope of our vocabulary by the limits of the average vocabulary? I have to tell you, that's going to make talking about anything like games and tech a bit awkward...

...Or are we going to accept that as with every word, this is easily solved by the following exchange.

"Hey, I'm not a girl!"
"No no, not "Sis" as in "sister", Cis" as in "Cis and Trans"."
"Huh"
"Two prefixes in chem and bio meaning "this side" and "that side". Opposite of transgender is cisgender."
"Oh, that seems awkward."
"Yeah, but it works."
"Hey, did you see the game last night?"

What a fucking BURDEN!

Seeing the majority vote in the polls and to take it that on a gamerforum you're probably going to find a more understanding part of society just by the looks of it.....

Do you really think it would be that easy?

More understanding on a gamer forum? lol... That's good... I mean... you need to get offline more, but that's good.

No, actually offline where people have personal and professional states based on their use of language, that 36% "No need" turns around in a hurry.

Now, lets hear about how the internet and gaming forums are a mecca for diverse opinions, and not just about whichever groups are shouting the loudest lately.

Not saying it's mecca here but it does draw more intelligent people than most other places.


You go tell your high-school bully he's a cishet and I bet you'll find out THE REAL WORLD isn't as understanding as you thought it was.

The biggest fallacy in your argument was making it personal here

The one who should get outside more is you, the average person is not that tolerant messiah you obviously so innocently believe him to be.


People are still shitting themselves over Gay-Marriage do you really think they're going to be more understanding when some pansy in a judging manner is going to call them Cis-whatevers and that they should be more tolerant and accepting?

I don't think they'll be "oh okay next subject" if anything in their polite way they might go "oh okay next subject -to themselves : what a loon".

 

[Lightknight]

Spoiler: My Post, click to view

The problem is that non-transgendered and non-transgender and any permutations there of are kind of othering terms and can be seen as insulting by either side. By that I mean non-transgender can be exclusionary language.

If you are cisgender then it's because you're not transgender. All labels are axiomatically exclusionary. You are being labeled as "this" because you're not "that". That people are insulted by labels isn't surprising, but they're there for classification. So they need to exist but they don't have to be offensive.

Consider this from my perspective, the words of yours that I'm reading, are words that I'm seeing as justification for the perpetuation of something that is now seen as a slur. I have seen truly offensive people using the same rhetoric to defend the most god-awful slurs mankind has produced. Though, you are absolutely not an offensive person and this word certainly hasn't reached anything close to that level. But it is entirely unnecessary to defend a slur unless the point is that you want the slur to exist. From what I've seen, there is a bit of smug self satisfaction coming out of enforcing the label against non-transgendered people who don't like it. As though enforcing the label is putting actual hateful people in their place whereas it's really just a slur against the benevolent and hateful alike.

Besides that cisgender is easier to say, and type. Plus cisgender is actually better in a comparative context when brought up than any similar terms and words once people know what it means.

"Fag" is easier to say than homosexual and "retard" is easier to say than mentally disabled. So what's your point?

Cis is not a better term because it has a language barrier. You acknowledging that it is not a known word is acknowledging that it does not easily convey the message. "Non" is a universally accepted term and readily understood. That's the entire point of language, to convey a point or message accurately and succinctly.

What's interesting is that people in the Trans community and specifically proponents of studies for the cause agree with me here. They think non-trans is more readily understood:

"Krista Scott-Dixon wrote in 2009: "I prefer the term non-trans to other options such as cissexual/cisgendered."[19] She holds this view because she believes the term "non-trans" is clearer to average people and will help normalize transgender individuals." (Wikipedia on Cisgender)

You do make some good points,

I really appreciate you taking the time to even listen to me. From the way our discussion started off in this thread it certainly seemed like we weren't going to be able to have a real discussion.

but I still don't buy that cisgender is a slur, not yet at least.

I understand that. But a lot of people used this same argument for any number of slurs back in the day. Terms they thought were perfectly fine but others took offense to. The use of the term isn't all that common today. I far more hear it as part of a general insult than in its appropriate form. So it may never reach a critical mass where larger public outrage is concerned unless the people using the term as an insult continue increasing like they have recently. Take "Negro" for example. This wasn't an offensive term. Neither was... the more insulting word (not sure why I can't even bring myself to type it). It was the context in which they were used in America that made the words slurs here.

Remember that as an insulting term cis and cisgender are never used by themselves, they're used in terms with a word designed to cause insult and offense. Like say "scum" "asshole" and such.

Usually yes, I agree. But sometimes they're just used alongside terms like "White" and "Male" in a way that is meant to contextually invalidate the opinion of someone in a discussion just because they're not a minority. The term has become insulting because of how frequently it is used for this purpose. It's also a word that is really enjoyable to say with a sneer. I'm kinda joking on that and kinda not. "Cis Scum" sounds really insulting and if it were something that should be insulted like neo-Nazis or whatever then I know I'd enjoy saying it. Perhaps because Cis is so close to "Cyst" as to sound putrid and disgusting? Not sure what the apparent appeal of saying it is except that it is. Maybe it's because it can be said sneeringly.

Also ******, fag, and retard were never not offensive slurs to start with. Cisgender on the other hand is being branded as a slur because of improper usage, there's a difference there.

There's a difference in etymology, yes, but not a difference in function. But there are plenty of words that didn't start off as slurs and then became slurs. There are also plenty of words that started off as slurs but aren't.

But I see from your interactions with others above that you've already recognized this. It doesn't matter how a word started. Linguistic drift teaches us that what's important is what a word is now and that this can change in the future.

Non-trans works in a general sense but as a categorical cisgender can often work better.

Except for being shorter, then no, it doesn't really seem to work better categorically. The uncommonness of the prefix is a major issue with classification as the transgender expert I cited in the previous post pointed out.

Besides, if categorizing was always about succinctness of terms then I wouldn't have had to memorize terms like pseudo-stratified columnar epithelium in pre-med when learning about tissue. Yet I like that term as an example of something that says what it is rather than being an unknown term you have to memorize. "Pseudo-stratified"? Means it looks like it has layers but actually doesn't. "Columnar"? Means the cells line up in columns. "Epithelium" that just tells us that it's a type of tissue.

Categorizing's form and function is primarily to classify and convey said classification in a coherent manner. To close, Non-transgendered serves the purpose of classification just as well while doing so in a more coherent manner.

I don't generally log in after work, so I'll happily look for any response from you first thing in the morning. Thank you for your time.

 

[Morti]

It serves its purpose well when used in the context for which it is intended (discussion relating to gender identity).

The term is tainted in everyday language for the same reason that most terms become unnnacceptible even if there use is perfectly "logical" reason to use them: the vocal idiots who ruin it for us moderates.

 

[Naeo]

Sure, let's throw my two cents into this terribly thorny subject.

I don't have particularly strong opinions about the term, but I lean towards "it's perfectly fine". It stands as a counterpart to the term "transgendered," and at least in my own experience, I've never seen it used as an insult. I don't have any connotations attached to it from my own experiences, and especially when talking about questions of gender identity it's nice to have a more concise way of saying "someone who identifies as the gender corresponding to their biological sex".

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Categorizing's form and function is primarily to classify and convey said classification in a coherent manner. To close, Non-transgendered serves the purpose of classification just as well while doing so in a more coherent manner.

I don't generally log in after work, so I'll happily look for any response from you first thing in the morning. Thank you for your time.

Only that it doesn't. The problem I have about 'non-trans' is that it lacks the definitions necessary in comparison to cisgendered.

That's the thing. Non-trans is not (just) cisgender. Certain genderqueer designation, as well as numerous culturally specific situations. Making 'cis' far more effective a tool of examination and detailing a cisgender person. The fact is that more people than not think the term is either fine, or unnecessary. Not insulting. So when you want to talk about a cisgender person, cisgender works better than anything else.

No mental gymnastics necessary.

 

[Politrukk]

Huh I've noticed a trend of people saying they think it's an isult using examples of it being paired with an actual insult, but then saying it's the "cis" part that's insulting. For example, "cis scum".

Pretty sure it's the "scum" part that's the insult there. You can say "trans scum, "black scum", "straight scum". Pretty sure you wouldn't say it's the trans, black or straight part that's the insulting part, so I don't get why cis is viewed differently in this context.

Well, as broached in this thread, how many people do you think know what cis actually means without it being specifically explained to them? I know it took me a while to understand what it was supposed to mean. So if you have someone utilizing a phrase constructed as , is it really that odd that they'd infer that the unknown word is also a negative?

In actuality, of course, cis on it's own isn't insulting, but if you see a word you don't know used in an obviously negative context, your perceptions of the word are likely to associate it to the insult.

Are we really going to define the scope of our vocabulary by the limits of the average vocabulary? I have to tell you, that's going to make talking about anything like games and tech a bit awkward...

...Or are we going to accept that as with every word, this is easily solved by the following exchange.

"Hey, I'm not a girl!"
"No no, not "Sis" as in "sister", Cis" as in "Cis and Trans"."
"Huh"
"Two prefixes in chem and bio meaning "this side" and "that side". Opposite of transgender is cisgender."
"Oh, that seems awkward."
"Yeah, but it works."
"Hey, did you see the game last night?"

What a fucking BURDEN!

Seeing the majority vote in the polls and to take it that on a gamerforum you're probably going to find a more understanding part of society just by the looks of it.....

Do you really think it would be that easy?

More understanding on a gamer forum? lol... That's good... I mean... you need to get offline more, but that's good.

No, actually offline where people have personal and professional states based on their use of language, that 36% "No need" turns around in a hurry.

Now, lets hear about how the internet and gaming forums are a mecca for diverse opinions, and not just about whichever groups are shouting the loudest lately.

Not saying it's mecca here but it does draw more intelligent people than most other places.


You go tell your high-school bully he's a cishet and I bet you'll find out THE REAL WORLD isn't as understanding as you thought it was.

The biggest fallacy in your argument was making it personal here

The one who should get outside more is you, the average person is not that tolerant messiah you obviously so innocently believe him to be.


People are still shitting themselves over Gay-Marriage do you really think they're going to be more understanding when some pansy in a judging manner is going to call them Cis-whatevers and that they should be more tolerant and accepting?

I don't think they'll be "oh okay next subject" if anything in their polite way they might go "oh okay next subject -to themselves : what a loon".

I realize that this may come as a shock, but... high school is NOT the "real world". A bunch of baby-sociopaths looked after by adults day in, day out, on their parents' dime? Yeah... not even close to real. You know what they call a high school bully in REAL life? "The Defendant". Still, I guess if your reference point for reality is high school, then yeah I get how a website is paradise.

It was just a comparison.

I'm going to stop talking to you though, your way of arguing is way too childish and offensive.
I mean I stooped to your level in my last reply, not going to do it again.

 

[Lightknight]

Categorizing's form and function is primarily to classify and convey said classification in a coherent manner. To close, Non-transgendered serves the purpose of classification just as well while doing so in a more coherent manner.

I don't generally log in after work, so I'll happily look for any response from you first thing in the morning. Thank you for your time.

Only that it doesn't. The problem I have about 'non-trans' is that it lacks the definitions necessary in comparison to cisgendered.

That's the thing. Non-trans is not cisgender. Genderqueer, agender, as well as numerous culturally specific situations. Making 'cis' far more effective a tool of examination and detailing a cisgender person. The fact is that more people than not think the term is either fine, or unnecessary. Not insulting. So when you want to talk about a cisgender person, cisgender works better than amything else.

No mental gymnastics necessary.

If someone says "Non-trans" do you not assume the meaning to be the standard gender association with sex?

Are you telling me that you believe people will get non-trans confused with agender? That seems unlikely. Especially since non-trans is exclusively used for cisgender whereas agender or genderqueer would specifically be used for those. Non-trans really isn't used for anything else nor is it confused with anything else.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

If someone says "Non-trans" do you not assume the meaning to be the standard gender association with sex?

Are you telling me that you believe people will get non-trans confused with agender? That seems unlikely. Especially since non-trans is exclusively used for cisgender whereas agender or genderqueer would specifically be used for those. Non-trans really isn't used for anything else nor is it confused with anything else.

Well, actually ... more confusing than you think. For example female Muist shamans. Samoan concepts of sex and the body... or native American ideas of spirit and body. Cisgender can actually cover some genderqueer variants, but by the word 'cisgender' it's about the discourse of comfort and dysphoria over one's body.

Starting to see why it's important to make a delineation? If you want to directly communicate a lack of having, or having ever had, gender dysphoria ... cisgender works perfectly by its ownsome. Not 'non-trans', however.

Specificities. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean we should abandon specificity of terms.

 

[Lightknight]

If someone says "Non-trans" do you not assume the meaning to be the standard gender association with sex?

Are you telling me that you believe people will get non-trans confused with agender? That seems unlikely. Especially since non-trans is exclusively used for cisgender whereas agender or genderqueer would specifically be used for those. Non-trans really isn't used for anything else nor is it confused with anything else.

Well, actually ... more confusing than you think. For example female muist shamans. Samoan concepts of sex and the body... or native American ideas of spirit and body. Cisgender can actually cover some genderqueer variants, but by the word 'cisgender' it's about the discourse of comfort and dysphoria over one's body.

Starting to see why it's important to make a delineation? If you want to directly communicate a lack of having, or having ever had, gender dysphoria ... cisgender works perfectly by its ownsome. Not 'non-trans'.

Specificities. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean we should abandon specificity of terms.

Except that non-trans is universally seen as cistrans. No one is going to get confused and any more specificity would already be discussed in context.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Except that non-trans is universally seen as cistrans. No one is going to get confused and any more specificity would already be discussed in context.

Universally? According to who? I don't ... I can recognise the argument that it normalizes transgender persons, but that seems ess of a concern when 'cis' is used between my friends. We have a term that describes gender dysphoria specifically. I also fail to see how it then makes it a bad term. For starters, it's shorter than 'non-trans' ... it's also in fairly common usage. It is also directly relative to having/had gender dysphoria or not.

If you want to use 'non-trans', be my guest. But 'cis' adequately describes the state whereby gender dysphoria has never been felt, and is very direct as to who I may refer. It's also easier to say. Probably for the same reasons that heterosexual is not stipulated by saying 'non-homosexual'. Bisexual, asexual, pansexual, and so on. If I specifically want to say 'heterosexual' that wouldn't be considered 'bad' or 'unnormalizing' homosexuality.

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

It reminds me of the organic chemistry classes I took two years ago. You know, like trans and cis conformations. Truly bone chilling.

 

[The Philistine]

I think "cis" is almost exclusively used by the trans community to describe non-trans individuals, and not by the non-trans community itself. Any time you run into a label getting assigned to a group from the outside, it's going to get pushback. Cis might be more accurate from an anthropological standpoint, but non-trans more accurately communicates a self-identity as not being trans.

Moreover, cis is not used in everyday speech. My understanding is that it's a clinical term. Outside of clinical situations it, at best, has a stiff or distant tone to it. I'd be perfectly correct in saying that I masticate gum. But with the term being outside regular use, it's going to sound like I'm either trying to be pompous or otherwise cause confusion with anyone unfamiliar with that term.

Even understanding the term "cis", it's use feels like some disconnected way of saying "the other people".

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think "cis" is almost exclusively used by the trans community to describe non-trans individuals, and not by the non-trans community itself.

Who is "the non-trans community" though? I mean, people sympathetic to the trans community use that word, unless you are including cisgender people in the trans community if they are sympathetic to them.

 

[The Philistine]

I think "cis" is almost exclusively used by the trans community to describe non-trans individuals, and not by the non-trans community itself.

Who is "the non-trans community" though? I mean, people sympathetic to the trans community use that word, unless you are including cisgender people in the trans community if they are sympathetic to them.

Poor choice of words on my part. Cis is a term rarely used by non-trans people to describe themselves unless it's in direct comparison to transgendered people or that non-transgendered person is directly involved with a trans-gendered community.

 

[Noblemartel]

I think "cis" is almost exclusively used by the trans community to describe non-trans individuals, and not by the non-trans community itself. Any time you run into a label getting assigned to a group from the outside, it's going to get pushback. Cis might be more accurate from an anthropological standpoint, but non-trans more accurately communicates a self-identity as not being trans.

Moreover, cis is not used in everyday speech. My understanding is that it's a clinical term. Outside of clinical situations it, at best, has a stiff or distant tone to it. I'd be perfectly correct in saying that I masticate gum. But with the term being outside regular use, it's going to sound like I'm either trying to be pompous or otherwise cause confusion with anyone unfamiliar with that term.

Even understanding the term "cis", it's use feels like some disconnected way of saying "the other people".

sooooo much this. I've read this whole dang discussion and this is the only guy I really agree with wholeheartedly. Don't get me wrong I'm mostly okay with being called cis by trans individuals and using it when around them. However it does feel mostly superfluous and when non-trans individuals use it it seems downright unnecessary.

 

[Lightknight]

Except that non-trans is universally seen as cistrans. No one is going to get confused and any more specificity would already be discussed in context.

Universally? According to who? I don't ... I can recognise the argument that it normalizes transgender persons, but that seems ess of a concern when 'cis' is used between my friends. We have a term that describes gender dysphoria specifically. I also fail to see how it then makes it a bad term. For starters, it's shorter than 'non-trans' ... it's also in fairly common usage. It is also directly relative to having/had gender dysphoria or not.

So what you're telling me is that you believe there are people out there who here "non-trans" and don't think it's people with a matching sex/gender combination?

 

[mrgerry123]

As identifying as the gender you were born with is overwhelmingly common I think it is an unnecessary term to use in day to day life. The word can of course still exist but I don't see why anyone would need to use it normally. It's like saying he's a grey elephant. It is an unnecessary descriptive word as people would already assume that.