In This Thread: replacements for "cisgender"

[The Cadet]

So a lot of people on this site seem to have a problem with the term "cisgendered". For the record, a cisgendered individual is someone whose gender identity aligns with their sex; for example, a man who identifies as a man. It is a counterpoint to "transgendered", an individual whose gender identity does not align with sex; for example, a man who identifies as a woman.

Many people object to this term as being somehow "a buzzword", as if it were some part of PC culture that will go away if we ignore it long enough. Never mind its use in the scientific literature or the popular press or just general parlance, let's just talk about one thing: its utility. "Cisgendered" is a term that is unique and genuinely useful. It describes a relevant attribute of a person that is not well-described by other words. So in order to show why we shouldn't use "Cisgendered", one needs to demonstrate one of the following:

1. That the attribute "being cisgendered" is never or almost never relevant (this one doesn't work)
2. That there are other terms that provide the same usage in similarly concise and precise terms, without inserting any unnecessary bias to the conversation (for example, "normal" is typically frowned upon as it is both not very precise and because it places a stigma of abnormality on those who don't belong to that group)

So... have at it. What term should we be using to describe people whose gender aligns with their sex if not "cisgendered"?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Well if cisgender is the 'same' gender as the sex of an individual then maybe the Greek prefix for "same" could be used?

Just a thought...

 

[nightflight]

"Normal", as pertaining to and adhering to the norm.

 

[super animator]

It's less about the word itself and more on how it's used.

 

[The Cadet]

"Normal", as pertaining to and adhering to the norm.

Problems with "normal", as pointed out several times by now:

• It attaches a stigma, implying that it is somehow "abnormal" to not be cisgendered
• It's extremely vague and non-descriptive; there are any number of behaviors we consider "normal", many of which are cultural rather than physical, and saying "that person is normal" could mean any number of things to various people
• It's far too broad; given the sheer number of things we tend to label as "normal", calling someone "normal" does not concisely or clearly communicate the issue. If I refer to someone as "normal", this doesn't just say "their gender matches their sex", it may also say "they're right-handed" or "they're straight" or "they're white" or "they're neurotypical" or or or or...

Normal is not a good term for this.

 

[nightflight]

• It attaches a stigma, implying that it is somehow "abnormal" to not be cisgendered

Every time I've come across the word "cisgender" it seems to have a stigma; I've never seen it used in a positive sense, but rather in a finger-wagging condemning sense.

 

[Chesterton]

At least you put this in the right forum. So what do call a hamburger made with meat and bread? A hamburger, 'cause that's the way they're normally made.

 

[Cute Tink]

Cis- is the Latin prefix meaning "on the same side". It has uses outside of its use as "cisgender".

Just as a side note, cisgender and transgender are adjectives. You can be cisgender or transgender, but you aren't "a cisgender" or "a transgender" (proper: cisgender person, transgender person), nor can you be "cisgendered" or "transgendered".

This ends your English lesson for the moment. Continue on.

 

[Cute Tink]

Every time I've come across the word "cisgender" it seems to have a stigma; I've never seen it used in a positive sense, but rather in a finger-wagging condemning sense.

I've seen it used many times in a positive or neutral sense. I've used it such ways.

Of course, some people who have felt slighted by the cisgender community may use it in derogatory ways, but that doesn't mean everyone does.

 

[nightflight]

I've seen it used many times in a positive or neutral sense. I've used it such ways.

Of course, some people who have felt slighted by the cisgender community may use it in derogatory ways, but that doesn't mean everyone does.

Same with normal.

 

[PsychoeDial]

Cisgender is said to be identification for those that are the opposite of Transgender. Cisgender is a made up word to make a parallel to those who are male or female both biologically and emotionally.

Replacement for Cisgender? Eradication of the word itself with a return to common sense and courage to identify as, male or female. Which is the natural, normal physiological,biological identity of one who is either male or female.
Those that believe their gender is opposite of what their God given bodies display are abgenus, absexual.
The Trans-privilege doesn't extend to and should have never been permitted to reworking the language that pertains to normal gender identities of males and females.
I agree, Cisgender has never in my hearing been used in a positive sense. And if someone has no idea what it means they're out of luck to understand the discussion that uses the term. Whereas male, female, are very clear.

It's bad enough we have to even consider this question in the first place. If male or female isn't acceptable to a minority segment of community that's too bad. They should work on becoming more tolerant of males and females.

Problems with "normal", as pointed out several times by now:

• It attaches a stigma, implying that it is somehow "abnormal" to not be cisgendered
• It's extremely vague and non-descriptive; there are any number of behaviors we consider "normal", many of which are cultural rather than physical, and saying "that person is normal" could mean any number of things to various people
• It's far too broad; given the sheer number of things we tend to label as "normal", calling someone "normal" does not concisely or clearly communicate the issue. If I refer to someone as "normal", this doesn't just say "their gender matches their sex", it may also say "they're right-handed" or "they're straight" or "they're white" or "they're neurotypical" or or or or...

Normal is not a good term for this.

Problems with "normal", as pointed out several times by now:

• It attaches a stigma, implying that it is somehow "abnormal" to not be cisgendered
• It's extremely vague and non-descriptive; there are any number of behaviors we consider "normal", many of which are cultural rather than physical, and saying "that person is normal" could mean any number of things to various people
• It's far too broad; given the sheer number of things we tend to label as "normal", calling someone "normal" does not concisely or clearly communicate the issue. If I refer to someone as "normal", this doesn't just say "their gender matches their sex", it may also say "they're right-handed" or "they're straight" or "they're white" or "they're neurotypical" or or or or...

Normal is not a good term for this.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I don't think I've ever seen so much opposition to one freaking word. And here I thought getting people to learn a new language was hard....

Good luck, Cadet. I don't think you're going to win this one though.

 

[Chesterton]

I don't think I've ever seen so much opposition to one freaking word. And here I thought getting people to learn a new language was hard....

Well ya'll shouldn't mind one more word then - "cismental". This describes normal human persons who lack a mental disorder. "cis" from the Latin "on the same side"; my mental states and perceptions align with reality, are on the same side as reality. There, now the transmental aren't stigmatized.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Homogenitocerebric. Your naughty bits and your brain have their switches set the same.

 

[Redac]

Problems with "normal", as pointed out several times by now:

• It attaches a stigma, implying that it is somehow "abnormal" to not be cisgendered

I understand that "abnormal" has negative connotations to it, but it is absolutely not "normal" to not be cisgender. That's just a fact. To imply that being something other than cisgender is "normal" is to deny reality.

• It's extremely vague and non-descriptive; there are any number of behaviors we consider "normal", many of which are cultural rather than physical, and saying "that person is normal" could mean any number of things to various people
• It's far too broad; given the sheer number of things we tend to label as "normal", calling someone "normal" does not concisely or clearly communicate the issue. If I refer to someone as "normal", this doesn't just say "their gender matches their sex", it may also say "they're right-handed" or "they're straight" or "they're white" or "they're neurotypical" or or or or...

Normal is not a good term for this.

Eh. Those could be clarified by the context in which the word is used, but yeah, it's not really very precise to just say "normal" without establishing what that means in the context of a given conversation.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The thought police are up and running.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

The thought police are up and running.

Who's policing your thoughts?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Are we not being told what we can say and not say?

Men who identify as men. That is NORMAL. But no, that is offensive.

It is crap like this that fuels the Trump bunch.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Are we not being told what we can say and not say?

I haven't seen anyone say you can't say whatever words happen to tickle your fancy. There's only one word that's been introduced in this thread and nobody has said you have to say it.

Men who identify as men. That is NORMAL. But no, that is offensive.

You could say "men who identify as men". That's perfectly fine. Nothing wrong or offensive about that. I haven't seen anyone say it is....

Conversely, I can say the same exact thing with using just one word. Is there something wrong or offensive about that?

It is crap like this that fuels the Trump bunch.

Yes, I agree. The Trumpettes are clearly driven by irrational fear. Fear of Muslims, fear of Mexicans and now we can add, fear of words.

 

[PsychoeDial]

Are we not being told what we can say and not say?

Men who identify as men. That is NORMAL. But no, that is offensive.

Truth is fast becoming a form of hate speech.

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

It is crap like this that fuels the Trump bunch.

I've not heard Trump rally for the gay and Trans community.