In This Thread: replacements for "cisgender"

[seashale76]

<staff edit> Terms like cisgendered and cis-privilege are used because the goal is to normalize those that have gender dysphoria. In order to do that- an effort must be made to make the norm more ambiguous and less normal.

 

[John Davidson]

<staff edit> Normal is what the majority of the population is doing.

 

[lasthero]

No. Normal is what the majority of the population is doing.

That is not the definition of 'normal'.

 

[lasthero]

Also, curious, but does the term 'heterosexual' bother you guys?

 

[John Davidson]

Also, curious, but does the term 'heterosexual' bother you guys?

That term was not needed 60 years ago as everyone was.

 

[Chesterton]

Of course we do.

People without a belief in god(s) are atheists.

People without hair are bald.

People without sight or hearing are blind and deaf.

People without jobs are unemployed.

So forth and so on...

You make my point. All those things can be said to be characteristics. "Bald" is a characteristic, but there's no opposing word like "haired". Even a person with a lot of hair on their head is not referred to as "hairy". Likewise with the characteristic of atheism. There's no need for a word which means "not an atheist". There're probably dozens of words which necessarily imply "not an atheist" but those words represent opposing characteristics. In the case of cisgender, the opposing characteristic does not exist.

There's a group of persons. Within the group is a subset of persons without hair on their head. They are named bald persons, the rest are just persons.

There's a group of persons. Within the group is a subset of persons who have a disorder which makes them steal. They are called kleptomaniacs, the rest are just persons.

We don't need a new Latin-derived word to name persons who are not kleptomaniacs. And there are elephants and zebras, they have words. We don't a word need to specifically identify an elephant as a "not-a-zebra".

I don't know if you saw the other thread where we were beginning to touch on some mind/body philosophy when The Cadet suggested there is an "alignment" of the body and mind (someone else used a "switch" metaphor). I deny this because, as other persons have noted, the some persons have the characteristic of feeling a certain way, and the rest of us do not, so they are wanting to identify a non-thing.

I'd also add that part of my objection is that, like most Leftist ideas, it's ineffectual and/or counterproductive. If there is some negative stigma attached to having this disorder, changing my name (or theirs) will make no difference. Shakespeare wrote "What's in a name?". If ISIS changes their name to the Rainbows And Puppies Party, I'm not going to start thinking "y'know, genocide's not so bad after all". And it's counterproductive simply because people will dislike the attempt to further divide humanity and create more "us vs. them" which can result in people threatening people with death by baseball bat as in the pic posted earlier.

 

[seashale76]

Also, curious, but does the term 'heterosexual' bother you guys?

We've just been conditioned to it longer.

 

[lasthero]

That term was not needed 60 years ago as every was.

Except it's far older than that, and was originally made as an opposite to 'homosexual'.

 

[Chesterton]

Codswallop. It isn't a problem. It's normal not to think about your identity.

"Codswallop" is correct! The judges would have also accepted "poppycock", "balderdash" and "piffle".

 

[ScottA]

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.

See...that's the real problem: considering normal to be abnormal in any sense.

It is only when we allow the "norm" to become marginalized that there is a problem at all. As long as this is a discussion of terms...it is only when abnormal gets "to big for its britches" that the norm must defend normal - which of course is a mistake, because by doing so, abnormal becomes legitimate, when it should never be so.

 

[lasthero]

We've just been conditioned to it longer.

So you dont want me to call you heterosexual?

 

[seashale76]

So you dont want me to call you heterosexual?

It's unnecessary just like being called cisgendered is unnecessary. It's the normative human condition.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

So you dont want me to call you heterosexual?

Unless you're specifically contrasting various sexual acts or attractions, there's little reason to use the term.

 

[lasthero]

Unless you're specifically contrasting various sexual acts or attractions, there's little reason to use the term.

But there IS a reason to use the term, then. So why can't cisgendered be used the same way.

The word appears frequently in scientific literature, used exactly that way. A search on Google Scholar will show it hundreds and hundreds of papers.

 

[seashale76]

Unless you're specifically contrasting various sexual acts or attractions, there's little reason to use the term.

The cis-gendered heterosexual poster, seashale76, agrees with you. However, some think it's critical that seashale76 constantly label herself and refer to herself as cis-gendered and heterosexual in just those terms (even though the overwhelming majority around her are also cis-gendered and heterosexual), so as to make those that have gender dysphoria and homosexuality feel less triggered or something. I should also openly talk about all of the benefits of experiencing 'cis-privilege' all the time in an effort to let those that don't have cis-privilege know that my people have oppressed them and trigger them all the time simply by virtue of existing and being in the majority.

And- that's the issue at hand here. The OP is constantly using this terminology unnecessarily and then wonders why others are getting irritated about it.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

But there IS a reason to use the term, then. So why can't cisgendered be used the same way.

The word appears frequently in scientific literature, used exactly that way. A search on Google Scholar will show it hundreds and hundreds of papers.

Is that the only time it's used? Or is it more commonly used to exclude and divide?

 

[The Cadet]

The cis-gendered heterosexual poster, seashale76, agrees with you. However, some think it's critical that seashale76 constantly label herself and refer to herself as cis-gendered and heterosexual in just those terms (even though the overwhelming majority around her are also cis-gendered and heterosexual), so as to make those that have gender dysphoria and homosexuality feel less triggered or something. I should also openly talk about all of the benefits of experiencing 'cis-privilege' all the time in an effort to let those that don't have cis-privilege know that my people have oppressed them and trigger them all the time.

You have so fundamentally misunderstood this thread and essentially all of my posts on the subject that I have no idea where to even start with this crap. Go back, read it again, try to see it through the eyes of someone who cares about the wellbeing of transgendered individuals and who actually knows a thing or two about mental health.

And- that's the issue at hand here. The OP is constantly using this terminology unnecessarily and then wonders why others are getting irritated about it.

Every time I have used the term, it has been for a purpose. I'm never just calling someone cis out of the blue, it's usually to comment on their privilege.

 

[The Cadet]

Is that the only time it's used? Or is it more commonly used to exclude and divide?

To exclude and divide? What, you mean like "cis people only"? Well, no, that doesn't happen. People just pass laws banning trans people from using the bathroom and call it a day.

 

[lasthero]

Is that the only time it's used? Or is it more commonly used to exclude and divide?

No, it's not the only time it's used. So? The word homosexual had similar origins, then moved out into the general public. We don't have control over the way people decide to use certain words.

As for what it's more commonly used for, I have no way of determining how often the word is used for what purpose. You could post some examples of where it was used to divide, and I could post a search result with hundreds of examples of benign usage. I don't have any hard data, though. If you do, I'd love to see it.

 

[seashale76]

You have so fundamentally misunderstood this thread and essentially all of my posts on the subject that I have no idea where to even start with this crap. Go back, read it again, try to see it through the eyes of someone who cares about the wellbeing of transgendered individuals and who actually knows a thing or two about mental health.

See- I don't think any of this has anything to do with caring about the well-being of anyone.

Every time I have used the term, it has been for a purpose. I'm never just calling someone cis out of the blue, it's usually to comment on their privilege.

Oh- I see. It's all about wanting to be able to bandy about invented PC insults without being called out on it.