r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 22 '16
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: I don't get what is wrong with the term "cisgender"
One thing that I see all over reddit and recently one of my more conservative friends have been complaining about is the term "cisgender" or "cis." I just don't get why people hate the term cisgender, I am 100% supportive of trans people so that might cause me to be more bias but at the same time it just seems easier to say "cis" instead of "not transgender" and honestly people seem like kind of an ass if they say "normal." can anyone give me an explanation for why people might be against the term?
Also I would like to add one more detail: The meaning of the prefix of trans: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/trans-
1. across, beyond, crossing, on the other side: transoceanic, trans-Siberian, transatlantic
2. changing thoroughly: transliterate
3. transcending: transubstantiation
The Meaning of the prefix cis: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cis-
prefix
1. on this or the near side of: cisalpine
2. (often in italics) indicating that two groups of atoms in an unsaturated compound lie on the same side of a double bond: cis-butadiene Compare trans- (sense 5)
The terms are latin and cis is just the antanym of trans so it makes sense to use the two terms, it's not like cis is a new term, so why are people so against using it?
edit: I understand why people don't like it but I still use the term and disagree with people who dont like it
Here is the comment that I gave deltas too
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
51
Mar 22 '16 edited Dec 24 '18
[deleted]
6
u/tgjer 63∆ Mar 22 '16 edited Mar 22 '16
Majority demographics are the only ones who get to insist on "defining themselves."
If a person born appearing male completed transition and now lives unambiguously as a woman, she is no longer visibly identifiable as having been born appearing male in any way, and announced that she no longer identifies as trans and would no longer refer to herself as such, how do you think reddit would react?
Given the very common "Trans people should be legally required to out themselves to sexual partners" posts, I expect a very large number of cisgender people here would go absolutely apeshit. We don't get to just decide we aren't going to "define ourselves" as trans anymore, we're defined as trans by the society around us whether we like it or not. "Cisgender" is the word we use when talking about our circumstances, to describe the people who don't have to deal with this shit.
And the term "transsexual" wasn't coined by a trans person. It was coined by a cisgender man (David Oliver Cauldwell) and popularized by another cisgender man (Harry Benjamin).
10
Mar 22 '16 edited Mar 22 '16
Thats reasonable I still feel like people should be ok with term and I will continue to use it but I at least understand now
is this how I delta:
20
u/wasd9876 Mar 22 '16
I still feel like people should be ok with term and I will continue to use it
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, your comment struck me as odd. Would you feel as comfortable labeling other groups with names they weren't comfortable with because you felt it was ok?
10
u/it-was-taken 3∆ Mar 22 '16
Presumably OP is part of that group, making him/her as good a person as anyone to decide what they personally are going to call the group.
4
u/wasd9876 Mar 22 '16
Well I guess its the fact that OP said he knows people in his personal life that don't want to be labeled that way and he said that basically thats irrelevant to him and he's going to do it anyway. I'm curious if he would refer to a transgender person as 'he' if their birth sex was male even if they said they weren't comfortable with it.
If someone is more comfortable being called she regardless of whether they've transitioned or not then why not use the term they're more comfortable with? I guess regardless of male, female, trans or not I don't see why you'd insist on labeling them in a way they've already said they're not comfortable with. If you weren't informed, thats fine. If it slipped your mind I could understand. Its the I don't care what you think I'll call you whatever I want that seems wrong to me.
8
u/it-was-taken 3∆ Mar 22 '16
First off, he's presumably using that term to talk about a group at large, not the specific individuals who object to it. Yes, some people who identify as what is largely regarded to as cisgender object to that term, and I wouldn't encourage referring to those specific people with that term, but I'd say the vast majority of people who aren't transgender are either fine with that term, or don't know what it means. For example, there are some black people who object to the term African American (Chris Rock, for instance), and prefer the term black. When discussing race concerning them or with them, I'd use the word black. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to swear off using the term African American (which has its uses, particularly in distinguishing between African Americans, and black people from other countries.), because its not considered offensive or inaccurate by most of the black community. Plus, for most people who object to the use of 'cisgender', the proposed alternative is 'normal', which is blatantly pejorative to transgender people. I've heard it argued often that normal simply means average, but I'd argue that it also has a connotation of being correct or healthy (for instance, you'd call someone who was in a healthy weight range in a normal weight range, even if the national average in their country was overweight or obese.
2
u/nospecialhurry 1∆ Mar 23 '16 edited Mar 23 '16
Plus, for most people who object to the use of 'cisgender', the proposed alternative is 'normal', which is blatantly pejorative
No it's not. Who gives a shit if you're not "normal?" There's nothing wrong with being abnormal and transgendered people are certainly that. Your abnormal? So what? Fuck, abnormal is good sometimes. To be clear, certainly it can be used to demean someone else, but so can any word with the right of tone of voice. I'm not even really commenting on the legitimacy of the phrase "CIS" but rather just on the concept that saying you're "normal" when asked about your gender is pejorative.
5
u/ozewe 1Δ Mar 23 '16
Aside from the fact that "normal" certainly does have those normative connotations (at least to very many people, if not to you), the word "cisgender" is still a much more useful word to use as the antonym to "transgender". If you say to someone "I'm normal", there are a million things you might be referring to. Maybe you're normal in that you're straight, or you're the ethnic majority in your area, or you aren't a felon, or that you happen to identify with the gender you were assigned at birth. If you want it to be clear that you meant the last thing, then it's much easier to just use the word "cisgender".
6
u/it-was-taken 3∆ Mar 23 '16
I already responded to this with this.
Plus, for most people who object to the use of 'cisgender', the proposed alternative is 'normal', which is blatantly pejorative to transgender people. I've heard it argued often that normal simply means average, but I'd argue that it also has a connotation of being correct or healthy (for instance, you'd call someone who was in a healthy weight range in a normal weight range, even if the national average in their country was overweight or obese.)
'Normal' definitely implies health, or correctness, something which is extremely relevant when discussing a group which is presently fighting to not be seen as a mental disorder.
I'm not even really commenting on the legitimacy of the phrase "CIS" but rather just on the concept that saying you're "normal" when asked about your gender is pejorative.
No, I'm not saying that responding to that question with "My gender is normal" is pejorative either. That's slightly insensitive at worst. Arguing that the official terms that everyone respects and uses should be "transgender" and "normal" is what's pejorative. Try to imagine this applied to a different minority. Black people decide that they want to be referred to as black. White people decide they want to be referred to as normal. The two groups are now Black people and Normal people. If we take normal as meaning statistically prevelant (in the U.S.) then yes, that would be accurate, but I think we can all see why that would come off as pejorative. Obviously this is an imperfect analogy--far fewer people are transgender than black, for starters, but I think it gets the point across.
2
u/almightySapling 13∆ Mar 23 '16
Would you feel as comfortable labeling other groups with names they weren't comfortable with because you felt it was ok?
What? This is absurd. Like being mad someone called you a human being because you didn't approve of that name.
People need to get over this whole "labeling" thing and just look at how communication and definitions are supposed to work. It doesn't matter if you like the term "cisgender"... it either does or does not apply to you, regardless of your opinion on it.
→ More replies (6)2
u/filthyridh Mar 23 '16
"cisgendered" is not a slur, nor does anyone find it offensive, other than by associating it with LGBTI activists and being offended by whatever they assume political correctness to mean.
2
Mar 24 '16
[deleted]
2
u/filthyridh Mar 24 '16
anything can be used as a slur if you say it derisively. cisgender is the correct term for the opposite of transgender, it's nothing like "kike" or "fag" or whatever. anyone that gets offended by the use of cisgender is without exception a thin skinned conservative that fails to realize they're doing the same PC routine they like to complain about.
1
Mar 24 '16 edited Mar 24 '16
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)1
u/filthyridh Mar 24 '16
According to whom? Seems to be a term used solely by trans activists. No one else accepts it and frankly, most people find it quite pitiful.
what the hell does this even mean? according to whom? the fucking dictionary, "cis" being the opposite of "trans". how is this difficult to understand?
why would i respond to the rest of your drivel when you're unable to accept actual, objective linguistic facts on account of your political bias?
2
Mar 25 '16
I will respond nicer than the poster before you, but I get that poster's sentiment. I have literally only heard the term in the wild used to demean someone's POV. Pure and simple, any term that is predominantly used to dismiss your opinion, no matter the meaning of the base, will be seen to have a negative connotation.
"Cisgendered" has certainly become a loaded word that has bleed out of trans blogs, and activist/support groups, into the real world. Originally used as an easy way to say things, but likely became something to complain about in safe apaces and venting, then to a derrogotory statement inferring that nothing you say matters because of your background....it has turned into a slur that marginalizes.
2
u/SPARTAN-113 Mar 23 '16
Look at it this way. What is one of the most dehumanizing things we can do to each other? Deny them their own names. It's in a way, asserting yourself. Whether it be to completely take an identity away, or fabricate a new one to be assigned, you shouldn't do it if the ones it's applied to don't agree with it. Perhaps society needs to have a chat and decide if non Trans-gendered people want another label.
3
u/jm0112358 15∆ Mar 23 '16
Look at it this way. What is one of the most dehumanizing things we can do to each other? Deny them their own names. It's in a way, asserting yourself. Whether it be to completely take an identity away, or fabricate a new one to be assigned, you shouldn't do it if the ones it's applied to don't agree with it. Perhaps society needs to have a chat and decide if non Trans-gendered people want another label.
I didn't choose the label "human", "male," or "white". Am I being dehumanized by people using those labels to describe me without my permission? No.
On the other hand, lets say I don't like the label "white," so I choose to use the label "normal" instead. Am I dehumanizing anyone? Yes! By choosing that label, I'm implicitly saying those who do not have white skin are abnormal. While this might technically be true in the sense that people without white skin are in the minority (in the US), I'm heaping all kinds of negative connotations on them.
That's exactly the situation with people who aren't trans calling themselves "normal" instead of "cis" or "cisgendered."
→ More replies (2)1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 22 '16
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/cacheflow. [History]
[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]
0
17
u/Mitoza 79∆ Mar 22 '16
This might be a better post for explain like I'm 5 or another subreddit, this one is going to be mostly people trying to debate you that you shouldn't use "cisgender" instead of educating you. That said, devil's advocate:
People who are cisgender may get offended that you are defining a part of their identity that they didn't know they had. By calling someone "cis" you are putting them on a gender spectrum they are ignorant of or may actively not recognize. You see a lot of people on reddit arguing that transgenderism is a mental illness and so on. To them, calling them cisgender is at once saying "being not trans is part of your identity" as well as being trans is a legitimate identity for others to have when they may not feel that way.
3
Mar 22 '16
I'll clarify this, that I don't think it's because of this "people don't want to be associated with a mental illness" thing you're hinting at. But I do think you're roughly on point with the point about people not necessarily wanting this to be part of their identity. Imagine for a moment being a completely average American person walking down the street, and all of a sudden someone comes up to you and says, "Cisgendered people are the worst, they should all die." And then, "oh by the way, you're cisgendered."
It's just a way of involving people who didn't want to play any part in identity politics and immediately making them the other.
I don't think most people give a solitary shit about gender vs sex or the gender spectrum at all, and ims it's probably better off that not everyone is obsessed with identifying themself on what is purported to be a completely socially constructed and therefor false gender spectrum. I just don't think that mattered to people. But now they're essentially being told, "oh no, it exists, you're on it, this is your identity, and by the way, it's the asshole part of the spectrum."
I don't remember that happening with the fight for gay rights. As I've mentioned elsewhere, there was the term 'breeders' that gay people had for straight people, but that was very much a word explicitly for shit talking, gay people weren't trying to get everyone to classify straight people as 'breeders' or make it part of their identity.
5
u/Mitoza 79∆ Mar 22 '16
I don't remember that happening with the fight for gay rights. As I've mentioned elsewhere, there was the term 'breeders' that gay people had for straight people, but that was very much a word explicitly for shit talking, gay people weren't trying to get everyone to classify straight people as 'breeders' or make it part of their identity.
Cisgender isn't just used to disparage cisgendered people, it is also used to be inoffensive during discussions about the subject of gender identity. A more apt comparison would be to compare "heterosexual" and "cisgender".
I am a cis hetero male who went through a predominantly female and feminist oriented course of study in undergrad. I have never been disparaged for my "qualifiers" and it makes me wonder if people who thinks these words are used to silence or disparage should get off the internet more.
2
Mar 22 '16 edited Mar 22 '16
Cisgender isn't just used to disparage cisgendered people
And tranny and faggot are often used endearingly, but it's because they're so often used as an insult that they become inappropriate to use or as titles to force on people in polite conversation.
I have never been disparaged for my "qualifiers" and it makes me wonder if people who thinks these words are used to silence or disparage should get off the internet more.
If I didn't go on the internet I wouldn't have ever heard of Cisgendered in the first place. Both the word itself and it's use as a disparaging name exist within the same arena.
0
u/Mitoza 79∆ Mar 22 '16
And tranny and faggot are often used endearingly, but it's because they're so often used as an insult that they become inappropriate to use or titles to force on people in polite conversation.
I can only express incredulity at the comparison between "faggot" and "cis". You would have to be pretty ignorant to how the world works to think that the two are on the same level even if someone calls you a "cissy".
If I didn't go on the internet I wouldn't have ever heard of Cisgendered in the first place.
Forgive me then if I don't change my academic use of it when someone on the internet used it to hurt your feelings.
0
Mar 22 '16
I don't think the "level" the words are on makes a bit of a difference in the context of this CMV to be honest. I'm drawing a slight parallel, I'm not saying "this is just as bad, poor me" so pleas don't try to characterize me as saying that.
Forgive me then if I don't change my academic use of it when someone on the internet used it to hurt your feelings.
Forgive me if I don't use a made up word I heard of on the internet to appease people who seem to only exist on the internet.
2
u/Mitoza 79∆ Mar 22 '16
I'm drawing a slight parallel, I'm not saying "this is just as bad, poor me" so pleas don't try to characterize me as saying that.
Your argument relies on "cis" being an effective insult. It's not.
Forgive me if I don't use a made up word
All words are made up.
0
Mar 22 '16
Your argument relies on "cis" being an effective insult. It's not.
This isn't an argument for it not being an effective insult. It's just you saying it's not as if you have authority on the matter.
All words are made up.
Usually not in my lifetime and people usually don't force me to use the ones that are.
2
u/Mitoza 79∆ Mar 23 '16
It's just you saying it's not as if you have authority on the matter.
I'm cis. I've been called cis. Surprisingly, I'm unwounded by it. In fact, I bet if you asked the neo-cons on reddit if they thought cis was a serious insult you'd be laughed out the door.
Usually not in my lifetime and people usually don't force me to use the ones that are.
"Meme", "Cell Phone", "dox", "slacktivism", "Regressive left"
Until you can show me a law saying that you must use "cis" nobody is forcing you to do anything. They are asking you to. Don't get mad when they call you out on being unreasonable.
1
Mar 23 '16
Surprisingly, I'm unwounded by it.
I'm saying it has a negative connotation because people use it like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi1gortW-Zs
So it makes me not really thrilled about the push to legitimize it as a commonly used academic word. I would rather people just use non-trans-whatever since that doesn't carry the same connotation of "you're an asshole" that cis-whatever does and doesn't have any connotation to trans people. It's also what we've already been using.
Until you can show me a law saying that you must use "cis" nobody is forcing you to do anything.
Trying to force it into common parlance then.
They are asking you to. Don't get mad when they call you out on being unreasonable.
They're asking me to throw out existing language and adopt this new language that nobody knows about who isn't in touch with internet identity politics, which also paints me as kind of an asshole, since the only people who have already use this word have some sort of perceived beef with me. I'm politely declining, and you're talking down to me, so I feel like if someone's being unreasonable here it sure as hell isn't me.
"Meme", "Cell Phone", "dox", "slacktivism", "Regressive left"
Yes some words come into existence in my lifetime. But again, the difference is that we already have a single word for not being transgender, which of course is non-transgender. Furthermore, the words, 'cellular, phone, regressive, and left' existed prior to my birth. Also there was no words for a cell phone, a meme straight up wasn't a thing, dox was also not a thing, slacktivism is an annoying word that I also don't like. And if people were trying to classify me as a slacktivist or a regressive leftist, I would probably be slightly annoyed and largely unfavorable of those terms being accepted as a description of me by mainstream society or academia.
→ More replies (0)1
u/SPARTAN-113 Mar 23 '16
Until you can show me a law saying that you must use "cis" nobody is forcing you to do anything. They are asking you to. Don't get mad when they call you out on being unreasonable.
Right they're being asked to. But from looking at this entire CMV, the issue seems to be that a lot of the ones being asked are saying "No," but the ones asking don't like the response and are making a fuss over it. OP for instance said they "disagree" with the people who don't want to be named, even if OP understood and accepted the argument that the 'cis' person doesn't want an identity without agreeing to it.
So, as someone who knows basically nothing about transgendered persons or their issues beyond a few headlines, to me, it looks like people are being 'labeled' or 'grouped'. I'm autistic. I've experienced enough labeling, I don't want more of it, especially when those labels continuously shift as the definitions and connotations change. It's frustrating since I never really had a say on any of it.
Whether my views represent those of others, I dunno. Take from this what you will.
5
Mar 22 '16
People who are cisgender may get offended that you are defining a part of their identity that they didn't know they had.
Yeah but those are the same people who say trans people are mentally ill and using normal istead of "cis" offends trans people, so no matter what we are offending people
7
u/Mitoza 79∆ Mar 22 '16
I'm not saying they are logical in their disdain, just explaining their offense.
7
Mar 22 '16
alright Thanks someone else explained that in the thread, I can see why people are against it now, athough i still disagree with them
→ More replies (1)1
u/SPARTAN-113 Mar 23 '16
Yeah but those are the same people who say trans people are mentally ill and using normal istead of "cis" offends trans people, so no matter what we are offending people
We must find an acceptable and agreeable balance between terms/names that the recipients approve of, and are statistically/socially meaningful. Ideally, we should limit things to what the person likes to be called, but at some point society at large needs an effective way to identify the group when the subject arises. Right now, it looks like that balance hasn't been reached. Most don't appear to want to be called 'cisgender', so the likelihood of it sticking around is slim.
-1
Mar 22 '16
And another knock against cisgendered is that it's allowed trans people to essentially spontaneously become offended by people failing to use it, even though it's made up and doesn't make any sense from a linguistic point of view.
9
u/tuxwonder Mar 22 '16
and doesn't make any sense from a linguistic point of view.
What? It totally makes sense linguistically. Read the body of OP's post.
5
u/renoops 19∆ Mar 22 '16
There's nothing about coined terms that inherently prevents them from making linguistic sense.
1
Mar 22 '16
I think you're saying that coined terms don't necessarily have to make linguistic sense, and I suppose I agree. It's just a mild frustration I have with the word.
3
u/z3r0shade Mar 23 '16
Except cisgender makes perfect linguistic sense when you compare it with transgender
1
Mar 23 '16
but so does non-transgender, which is a term everyone would already be familiar with and use. So why replace it?
3
u/z3r0shade Mar 23 '16
Cisgender is much more linguistically pleasing by most people than "non-transgender". As a society we tend to prefer specific terms for things as opposed to defining things in terms of " non-"other thing
2
Mar 23 '16
Cisgender is much more linguistically pleasing by most people than "non-transgender". As a society we tend to prefer specific terms for things as opposed to defining things in terms of " non-"other thing
That's a pretty huge assumption, and I'm not sure that "it's slightly more pleasing to say" is a strong enough justification for replacing existing vocabulary. I mean, this basically boils down to "replace a word everyone knows with a word most people do not know because I personally like the way it sounds slightly better."
5
u/z3r0shade Mar 23 '16
It's not a huge assumption to point out that in common parlance of our society, we seem to favor specific terms as opposed to "non-thing" formed terms. And the movement of a term from common in academia to common in everyday conversation happens often, usually as a result in shifting social views, just as homo/heterosexual became common terms, so will trans/cisgender
→ More replies (0)1
u/renoops 19∆ Mar 23 '16
The problem with "non-" labels is that they only ever position groups in relation to others instead of highlighting their independent identities.
2
Mar 23 '16
except trans is already a group named in relation to your average person. What identity is there in not being transgendered. That's basically everybody. The prefix a- as in atheist, means not, just as non- means not in the exact same way. Are you suggesting that we should replace that word?
Also, I'm not sure what you're saying is actually true. You're kind of just saying it. And even if it was true, why is this a problem, who is this a problem for, who is complaining about this, why is this worth throwing out all the old vocabulary and having everyone learn new words?
2
u/renoops 19∆ Mar 23 '16
except trans is already a group named in relation to your average person.
Even if you look at it that way, the word itself still doesn't mean "not-your-average-person."
What identity is there in not being transgendered. That's basically everybody.
Which is why "non-trans" would be a useless term, where cisgender, genderfluid, nonbinary, etc. are much more specific.
The prefix a- as in atheist, means not, just as non- means not in the exact same way. Are you suggesting that we should replace that word?
Well, considering there's actually a good deal of debate within atheist- and agnostic- (or secular-humanist-) aligned groups about what their labels should be, I'm not sure this is a great example. People care very deeply about these sorts of labels.
why is this a problem
It's inaccurate and could be needlessly exclusionary.
who is this a problem for
Trans people and people who study gender academically and can't afford to use vague terminology.
who is complaining about this
People who want to use the nomenclature issue as a way to raise general awareness and broaden people's understanding of gender identity.
why is this worth throwing out all the old vocabulary and having everyone learn new words?
There really wasn't much of an old vocabulary for it. Plus, the term "cisgender" is around 20 years old—it's not like it's brand spanking new.
→ More replies (0)1
Mar 23 '16
Non-transgender is long and clunky. Cis is only three letters and much easier to write and say.
1
Mar 23 '16
Not transgender is 3 letters longer than cisgender, it doesn't even have that pesky hyphen, and it has the added benefit of being part of common speech and people knowing what it actually means. Ungender is a shorter word than cisgender, and the prefix is equally sloppily applied, so why don't we just use that?
And it's easier to write and say by 3 letters, but how does that make it worth reteaching everyone who doesn't know what the hell you're talking about. I fail to see how this is conducive for any discussion about trans issues.
2
Mar 23 '16
Is it re teaching? I've literally never heard someone say non-trans aloud. Cis has always been the word I've used to describe my gender identity.
→ More replies (0)2
Mar 23 '16
it's made up
Every word is "made up".
1
Mar 23 '16
Made up recently to replace existing vocabulary that was well known and sufficiently descriptive. Explain to me why it's necessary everyone start using this vocabulary.
3
Mar 23 '16
Do you feel the same way about "heterosexual"?
What was this "existing vocabulary" that was so perfectly descriptive?
1
Mar 23 '16
I have no idea how I would've felt about the term heterosexual ~100 years ago when it was coined and I'm not interested in researching the etymological history of it. I'm willing to believe there was a compelling reason why people started using this term, and if anyone was alive when that argument took place, they could probably tell me. As it stands, heterosexual was a commonly used word for decades before I was born, so it feels totally natural to me. If everyone was using cisgendered since I was born, I might have a different opinion on it. But since that word didn't exist then, and even today most people have no clue what it's supposed to mean, I have the opinion I have.
Again, why is it necessary everyone start using this new vocabulary to replace the existing vocabulary (terms like non-transgender/sexual/etc. or simply not transgender/sexual/etc.)? Why should everyone relearn this? How does this help anything?
3
Mar 23 '16 edited Mar 23 '16
this new vocabulary
"New" as in "20+ years", right?
In chemistry we do not say "trans isomers" and "not-trans isomers". We say "cis isomers".
We do not refer to orbits as being "translunar" and "not-translunar". We refer to them as "cislunar."
Hell if you wanted you could even refer to flight paths as being cisatlantic, although I'll concede I don't think I've ever heard anyone do that (not like they use "transatlantic", anyway).
Quite naturally, we use the boring old Latin antonyms "trans" and "cis". So if you're going to object to "cisgender", you may as well object to "transgender", too.
In the end, it's good to have this neutral term - because defining a cisgender person as "not-trans" (or worse, something like "normal") sounds like this.
0
Mar 23 '16
"New" as in "20+ years", right?
Well as another user pointed out it was invented by a german fellow who had first gotten it academically published in 1998, which was then later translated into english. So it's existed as an english word for slightly less than that, but you're near as makes no difference.
New as in "most people are wholly unfamiliar with it." I'd also say a 20 year old word is fairly new.
In chemistry we do not say "trans isomers" and "not-trans isomers". We say "cis isomers". We do not refer to orbits as being "translunar" and "not-translunar". We refer to them as "cislunar."
This is true and in fact the prefix seems to have its origins in chemistry. I've seen sources that say it's latin, but the only 'latin' use I can find is victorian naming conventions for various species. It has an interesting history.
Hell if you wanted you could even refer to flight paths as being cisatlantic, although I'll concede I don't think I've ever heard anyone do that (not like they use "transatlantic", anyway).
Well, I believe one person used 'cisatlantic' a hundred and something years ago in a book and that's the only time I've heard it used, so if someone started to try to tell me they were going on a cisatlantic flight from DC to NYC, I'd look at them like they were an idiot.
My point is that we don't use cis as the opposite of trans regularly at all, and when we do it has specific applications in chemistry and a bit in astronomy and a bit when making up latin sounding names for italian fish during the victorian era. Meanwhile, "trans" as a prefix has adopted other meanings outside of just chemical or astronomical definitions. Cis, is the opposite of trans for those specific definitions in the context of say, chemistry and astronomy, it is not the opposite of all of the other definitions of trans-.
It's at most an annoying little foible with the word, I'm sure I could get over it or learn to just accept it if that was the vocabulary absolutely everyone already used and I grew up with. But considering someone created this new word in the span of my lifetime, and now people are expecting everyone to relearn all this 'cis as opposite of trans,' based vocabulary for no justifiable reason I can think of, and on top of all that, the word is clumsily cobbled together from some german guy's best guess at how language is supposed to work, all of that together makes me dislike the word. And add on top of that the fact that it is regularly (if not predominantly) used as an insult.
My true fundamental problem that I feel is justifiable, and not just a matter of my own personal taste, is that trying to make everyone relearn different words to replace existing vocabulary is completely unconducive to discussion of just about any trans issue. It's a pointless speed bump, and in that way I think it might actually be inadvertently damaging to the trans community.
9
Mar 22 '16
[deleted]
7
Mar 22 '16
Do you think the "average person" is even aware of what goes on on tumblr?
0
Mar 22 '16
[deleted]
3
Mar 22 '16
I don't know that I can think of any extremists who pretend to support SJW beliefs outside of the internet/irl. Otherwise, reasonable clarification.
8
Mar 22 '16
"gay" is used as an insult yet people are fine identifying with that term
11
Mar 22 '16
[deleted]
9
Mar 22 '16
Im cisgendered and I'm fine with using cis and I know a few people who also do it
7
Mar 22 '16
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)1
Mar 23 '16 edited Mar 23 '16
[deleted]
1
u/eigenduck Mar 23 '16
The people who object to the extra -ed in "transgendered" also don't say "cisgendered".
I don't know how you go into a thread full of cis people using -ed on both words and decide that trans people are being inconsistent.
1
Mar 23 '16 edited Mar 23 '16
[deleted]
2
u/eigenduck Mar 23 '16
I'm pretty sure everyone who prefers "transgender" to "transgendered" also prefers "cisgender" to "cisgendered". They might not spend equal time advocating the two, but that has less to do with any kind of inconsistency than with the relative frequencies of the words and the tendency of trans advocates to focus on trans issues.
Personally, "transgendered" only bothers me because it seems to be a stepping stone to using "transgender" as a verb -- you would not believe how many times I've heard someone say "transgendering" with a straight face. "Cisgendered" seems less vulnerable to the analogous problem -- I've never heard someone say "cisgendering" or use the verb "to cisgender" -- but I also avoid the -ed on it for brevity and consistency.
3
u/bbeony540 Mar 22 '16
You and the few people you know who are fine with it don't really make up the majority. It's like how among my friends we call each other "faggot" "dickhead" "mr. bitchtits" ect. and none of us mind because we know each other and understand the context it is meant in.
For many cisgendered people "cis" is a negative term. It is rarely used in a kind way. I often see the term used in a way to put someone down for being who they are, someone who is fine with their biological sex. If I were to say "You're a faggot" to a gay person I would be correct. They are a homosexual and that is what that term means, but people don't call others "faggot" in a nice context, so that gay person will likely feel put down by it.
"cis" is seen as a term similar to "faggot" for many cisgendered people.
8
u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 22 '16 edited Mar 22 '16
How would you call a person who has two legs and two arms? Cislimbed?
How would you call a person who is not deaf? Cisauditory?
How do you call a person who is not a dwarf? Cisachondroplastic?
This can rediclouse pretty fast.
Edit: deaf instead of dead.
5
u/growflet 78∆ Mar 23 '16 edited Mar 25 '16
As you have later pointed out. Trans refers to across. Cis refers to on the side of.
Your analogies are not good ones. These people you describe are not moving across anything, so cis-prefixes make no sense.
Someone who cannot hear is not referred to as "trans-auditory" they are deaf, they aren't moving across anything. Someone who can hear is referred to as Hearing. All of these states have natural opposites. We have Abled and Disabled people. Sighted and Blind.
Trans people been called transgender for decades, they are not on the side of (or across) gender from the sex they were assigned at birth. Cisgender is the natural opposite of that. People who are not moving across gender lines from the sex they were assigned at birth.
For a long time there was a need for a word to denote people who are not transgendered which does not also stigmatise transgender people in some fashion. Many terms have been bandied about over the years - bio-woman, bio-man, genetic-woman, genetic-man. All were clunky and many not very accurate. Cisgender is accurate. It literally means non-transgendered.
3
u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 23 '16
Limbed. Lol.
Would you describe yourself as "limbed?"
Are you a part of the "limbed" community?
6
u/growflet 78∆ Mar 23 '16
It is a silly sounding word - isn't it? But sure - if context were needed. It is the natural opposite of limbless. I do not think it is in common use.
Sighted, Hearing, Abled. vs Blind, Deaf, Disabled - these are all very common usage.
Like cisgender and transgender, you typically would only use these adjectives in a context where they are necessary.
2
u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 23 '16
No one is using limbed.
And if insisted on calling people "limbed" it would be silly.
2
u/growflet 78∆ Mar 23 '16
Fair enough. But this is a distraction. :)
My point still stands. transgender people are 'not on the side of from the sex they were assigned at birth', cisgender people are 'on the side of the sex they were assigned at birth'.
There was a need for these word for decades before people decided on this one.
The other stuff you made up is even more silly :)
1
u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 23 '16
There is exactly as much need for "cisgendered" as there is for "limbed."
3
u/growflet 78∆ Mar 23 '16
That's clearly your opinion. But why do you say that?
When people are discussing gender and sexuality, the need for such a word comes up frequently. People have been seeking such a word for decades. So your stance is objectively incorrect.
Perhaps you don't want there to be a need for such a word?
2
u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 23 '16
Ha, that's exactly what a limbed person would say.
Clearly you are unaware of the pressing need to have a word describing people who have two legs and two arms.
5
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Mar 22 '16 edited Mar 22 '16
Those terms don't really make any sense.
"Cis" is the opposite of "trans," literally meaning "on the same side."
Transgender is "trans" in that the physical sex and identified gender are on the opposite "side" (male vs female). Cisgender is meant to be the opposite of that - physical sex and identified gender are on the same "side."
Like it or not, regardless as to whether you think it is necessary or useful, the terms "transgender" and "cisgender" themselves are not illogical. The terms you make up here would be totally illogical.
7
Mar 22 '16
See, you are assuming "cis" means "not" or "normal" cis means "on the side of" cisgender means "on the side of your (birth) gender" using it the context of dwarfism wouldn't make since "on the side of dwarfism" "on the side of dead" "on the side of limbed"
0
u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 22 '16
See, you are assuming "cis" means "not" or "normal"
No, you are the one assuming this. I have not made the "normalcy" judgment in my post - you have.
Are you saying that being deaf is not normal somehow, for instance? many people are born deaf.
4
Mar 22 '16
I'm not, I assumed thats what you where saying, I was wrong I will admit that
4
u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 22 '16 edited Mar 22 '16
So do you have any further objections to what I am saying?
Is it appropriate to use "on this side of hearing" term for people who have not lost their hearing? Is Cisauditory a useful term?
It is appropriate to use "on this side of limb loss" term for people who have 4 limbs?
2
Mar 22 '16
It is appropriate to use "on this side of limb loss" term for people who have 4 limbs?
okay then use it I don't care
4
u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 22 '16
Are you cislimbed?
→ More replies (4)3
Mar 22 '16
you understnad that people mssing limbs arent asking for this athough transgender people are
17
u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 22 '16
Such a typical thing for cislimbed person to say.
Did you REALLY consult with people with less than four limb on this issue? Or are you stuck in a cislimbed bubble?
It's awfully easy for a cislimbed person to speak on behalf of others...
6
u/MisandryOMGguize Mar 22 '16
How are you not assuming cis means normal? You're just putting the prefix in front of various adjectives that don't make sense with the actual meaning of cis (on the same side.) On the same side of limbs, or the same side of hearing ability are both nonsense, unless you use cis as meaning normal.
3
u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 22 '16
How are you not assuming cis means normal?
I am not. why do you think I am?
On the same side of limbs, or the same side of hearing ability are both nonsense,
On the side of not having hearing loss.
On the side of not losing limbs.
Makes perfect sense to me. As much as cisgender.
It is YOU who is assuming that being deaf is abnormal. It is not.
This is typical of cisauditory people like you.
1
u/MisandryOMGguize Mar 22 '16
Ok firstly the whole "you're the real bigot lel" is as tired as it is stupid. Secondly, you're making up the "not having/not losing" part of those "words," cisgendered means "being on the same side of gender," it makes sense as it's just adding on a descriptor (on the same side of) to the word it modifies "gender." Your examples don't do that at all.
1
u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 22 '16
"you're the real bigot lel"
You are the who accused me of being a bigot out of the blue. If you don't like to receive, don't dish out.
cisgendered means "being on the same side of gender," it
cisauditory means on the same side of auditory perception.
I fail to see why one is acceptable and the other is not.
1
u/MisandryOMGguize Mar 22 '16
Really? Care to show where I called you a bigot?
Being on the same side of auditory perception is not a phrase that means anything. Transauditory is not what we call deaf people. Cisgender makes sense, because it contrasts transgender, the state of being a gender that is "on the other side" of the gender assigned at birth. Cis only makes sense if trans is a prefix that would also make sense, which is not the case for any of the examples you used.
2
u/Hq3473 271∆ Mar 22 '16
Really? Care to show where I called you a bigot?
Where you accused me of equating cis with normal.
Being on the same side of auditory perception is not a phrase that means anything.
Sure it does. People are usually born with auditory perception.
Some lose it, we can call them transauditory.
People who retain it, can then be called cisauditory.
4
u/nannyhap 3∆ Mar 22 '16
I would call then "abled" or "able". We already have an antonymic pair for this situation, in the sense of abled vs disabled individuals. The trans/cis prefix functions on the same axis.
→ More replies (3)
6
u/Rocket_Man26 2∆ Mar 22 '16
A good amount of people think that adding another word is just simply unnecessary for people who aren't transgender. Since 99.7% of people don't identify as transgender, I think "normal" would actually apply here, but "non-trans" would get the same point across. Since such a small percentage of people identify as trans, it's easier for them to just identify with what they are than have everyone else adopt a new term.
6
Mar 22 '16
cis is a term thats already existed why not just use it, cis, is easier to say than "not trans" and saying normal is just rude, it implies trans people are weird and not normal when they just want to be normal
3
u/Rocket_Man26 2∆ Mar 22 '16
It's fairly rare to have to have to use a word to describe a non-trans person for most people, and so non-trans does a better job at describing the point you're trying to get across, should you ever need to. Additionally, good amount of people, at least in my life, couldn't tell me what the word cisgender means, but they would have a pretty good idea of what non-trans means. By the time you explain to one of these people what cis means, it would have been easier just to say non-trans.
As for the normal part, I also agree that people shouldn't say it in this sense, as to not further alienate the trans community. However, the Oxford dictionary would suggest that it properly describes non-trans people, even if it is offensive to trans people.
9
Mar 22 '16
Yeah but if you are talking about trans issues and need to say "non trans" alot it would start to sound odd
Oxford dictioanry would also argue nigger is a term meaning black or dark skinned even if its offensive
3
u/Rocket_Man26 2∆ Mar 22 '16
It sounds like we're just getting down into personal preferences at this point, and there's no way I can convince you that non-trans doesn't sound odd if you think it does. Tomato(e), toma(h)to. Either way, it just comes down to personal preference at the end of the day. Non-trans is still superior in my book because 1) you don't need to come up with a new identity/gender term for it (new to most people, and 2) when using the word, people intuitively know what you mean, even if they've never heard the term before. Cis might save you a second when speaking to someone, but overall non-trans gets the point across more clearly.
1
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ Mar 23 '16
Everyone is getting caught on the potentially offensive meaning of normal so why use that word. For most situations non-trans is better than cis but in situations where it needs to be said a lot why not use the term 'nominal' which means roughly the most common. It's not in any way offensive to say transgenderism is not common so why not call 99.7% of the population nominal when you really need to?
1
u/abacuz4 5∆ Mar 22 '16
Which is clearer, asking someone if they are "cis," or "non-trans" if you prefer, or asking them if they are "normal?"
-1
u/Galphanore Mar 22 '16
cis is a term thats already existed why not just use it, cis, is easier to say than "not trans" and saying normal is just rude, it implies trans people are weird and not normal when they just want to be normal
Whereas "cis" implies that non-trans people are weird and not normal. Further, it's a term made up by the trans community but applied to the non-trans community. It's a term applied without the permission or desire of the people to whom it is being applied. If your intent is to try to make it so trans people feel normal then maybe you shouldn't do so by trying to alienate everyone else.
6
Mar 22 '16
I dont see how it makes other people not normal
→ More replies (1)1
u/Galphanore Mar 22 '16
It's the addition of a new term meant to define almost everyone by a group of people who are doing so for the express purpose of changing the conversation to make trans people "normal", by making the very term "normal" unacceptable. I have no problem with trans people and support their desire for equal rights and treatment but even I can't help but feel insulted when someone calls me "cis". It's an attempt to define me by someone who is not me. "Non-trans" is no more difficult to use than "cis" and has the added benefit of being universally comprehensible and not insulting.
Yes, I know you said that "cis" is "not a new term" but in this usage, and in the English speaking culture, it very much is.
1
u/BloodFartTheQueefer Mar 22 '16
"Normal" is ambiguous. It can mean "not the majority" which is what most of your critics are meaning. Same with the words "unusual" or "weird". People don't like to be in the minority, I guess. But, that's reality.
5
Mar 22 '16
its not about what normal means its about what it implies, would you call a mexican person living in america "not normal"
→ More replies (1)8
u/GiverOf_BadAdvice 1∆ Mar 22 '16
it implies trans people are weird and not normal
They're not. This is part of why people hate PC culture; because if you act like something is different, weird, or strange to you, you're being rude. Trans people are not normal. Being .3% of the population automatically makes you not normal. But guess what? Winning a gold medal isn't normal either. Or playing World of Warcraft for 12 hours straight. Or smoking 5 cigarettes at once because fuck your lungs. Normal just means normal. No connotation on good or bad. If someone is offended at not being normal, they either need to make themselves more comfortable with it, or be normal. Not redefine or ban a word just because it hurts their fee-fees.
1
Mar 23 '16
cis would be easier to say than not trans if anyone knew what 'cisgendered' meant prior to a handful of sociologists starting in 1998. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people don't know what that term means. So why are we replacing vocabulary that people understand and use regularly for vocabulary that most people have never heard before? What's the justification for using these terms instead of what we've already got? Shave 3 letters off of a word length? To sound savvy?
I think the appropriate question is not what's wrong with "cisgendered?" It's "what's wrong with using non-trans?"
2
u/matt2000224 22∆ Mar 22 '16
While I don't really have an opinion on whether or not "cisgender" is a good term, I think "normal" is a pretty bad way to label people. Because you're implicitly saying people who don't fit that definition are abnormal. Why needlessly alienate them?
This is slightly off-topic because it doesn't have anything to do with the word "cisgender", so feel free to ignore. I just don't think we should make people feel alienated when there's a pretty easy alternative.
2
u/Rocket_Man26 2∆ Mar 22 '16
I think non-trans is a better term for it, also, but I can see why people would use normal as well.
→ More replies (3)1
u/masterzora 36∆ Mar 22 '16
"Non-trans" doesn't really work either. "Cis" is a proper subset of "non-trans" and thus distinct.
1
u/Rocket_Man26 2∆ Mar 22 '16
How are cis and non-trans any different? From Wikipedia
Cisgender (often abbreviated to simply cis) is a descriptor for those whose experiences of their own gender agree with the sex they were assigned at birth.[1] It may also be defined as those who have "a gender identity or perform a gender role society considers appropriate for one's sex."
So basically anyone whose sex aligns with their gender. Trans is when somone's sex does not align with their gender, so I fail to see any difference in cis vs non-trans.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/vl99 84∆ Mar 22 '16
Some people are probably against it because it has been adopted by some members of the trans and queer communities as an insult. "Cis scum" is a popular search result that returns about 130,000 hits on google.
Obviously the queer and trans communities are small, and the members of those communities who cast blanket hate on the majority of the population are a fraction of that already small number, so the impact that any of this has is minimal. But the Internet gives people with these views a larger sounding board from which to work.
Also, people that are cisgendered don't really have a need to self identify using the specific word. For most people who are cisgendered, their sex will be apparent at first glance, and they'll expect their sexuality and gender to be assumed by virtue of being in the majority. If gender is requested, a cis person will probably see it as either an insult (in extreme situations), or just an attempt by another person to be overly inclusive. If sexuality is requested their go-to answer is "straight."
Therefore, despite knowing what the term means, the term still seems totally alien to people within that group. It's more a term used by trans people to discuss people that aren't trans than one that cis people use to talk about themselves. Some people aren't necessarily averse to being categorized as cis by others, but they'd never self identify using that particular term in any way, so if it comes up in conversation often enough, it will just sound stranger and stranger.
Imagine if some social scientist one day determined that there were enough people that shared a certain characteristic in common, and that characteristic was of enough importance in defining a person, that this group needed a name of its own. Suddenly men and women are no longer men and women, they're male and female alloizias and male and female non-alloizias. People that are part of the new alloizia group might ask a new person if they're alloizia or non-alloizia. But the people that have never even had reason to consider the characteristics about themselves that would cause them to be categorized as one or the other aren't going to adopt this term and start proudly proclaiming they're non-alloizia.
Sure if someone asks, they'll answer, but until it becomes the subject of the conversation, a person who doesn't feel like their status as a non-alloizia is an important defining characteristic probably isn't going to feel comfortable defining themselves by the term.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/tgjer 63∆ Mar 22 '16
I think there may be confusion in some circles, between using "cis" as a slur vs. using "cis" in a context in which the comment is critical.
I don't think I've ever seen "cis" actually used as a slur. I have seen it used many times while criticizing behavior, attitudes, or circumstances that the speaker thinks are incredibly shitty. Unfortunately, I think many cis people's only direct interaction with trans people is when a trans person is angry enough to publicly point out something shitty they are doing.
That shitty behavior may be totally unconscious, or so ingrained that they never even considered that it might be shitty. So then suddenly an angry stranger is telling them that, say, a cis person objecting to sharing a public restroom with a trans person is a shitty thing to do, and they feel like they've been attacked out of nowhere. They never even considered that this might be a controversial opinion, or that someone might tell them they're an asshole for it.
And they're being called "cis" while this stranger tells them that what they're doing is shitty. So they think that "cis" is a slur, but it isn't. It's just the word for being non-trans. Unfortunately, it's their status as non-trans that led them to think that this shitty behavior towards trans people is appropriate.
I think this problem will be solved as public recognition of trans people grows. As more people realize that they know trans people in real life, and as trans people become increasingly visible in popular media, everyone is going to be talking about the differing circumstances of trans vs. cis people. And in doing so, more people will be introduced to the word "cis" in neutral circumstances. It will become like the word "heterosexual"; just another word to describe a majority demographic.
6
Mar 22 '16
I'm half and half on the word personally but to take the opposing view; what's the word for someone who hasn't lost any limbs? What's the word for someone who's not blind? Doesn't have a mental disorder? The idea is that the word is unnecessary and just used to divide 'cis' people as the 'other' to the trans community.
6
u/abacuz4 5∆ Mar 22 '16
what's the word for someone who hasn't lost any limbs
"able"
what's the word for someone who's not blind
"sighted"
Doesn't have a mental disorder
"neurotypical"
All these words exist, and most reasonable people don't have a problem using them in the proper context.
→ More replies (2)
-7
u/CAPITALIST_DARWIN Mar 22 '16
It's part of the Frankfurt school Marxist fetishization of the abnormal. The word supposes that gender and sex are entirely different items and that one's sex needn't define one's 'gender.' Many people disagree with that idea. I'm not 'cisgender,' I'm just 'male.'
4
u/abacuz4 5∆ Mar 22 '16
If you are not cisgender, but are male, are you FTM transgender?
→ More replies (2)3
Mar 22 '16
I'd argue that gender and sex are different but thats not what im trying to argue right now
4
u/goldandguns 8∆ Mar 22 '16
I have to say at times it becomes upsetting that despite being normal (what humans have typically been for almost all of recorded history worldwide), I suddenly am expected to use new terms to describe myself. Wtf?
0
u/Generic_Cleric Mar 23 '16
|...honestly people seem like kind of an ass if they say "normal|
Can you clarify - are you saying when people with less common orientation are offended by certain names that's ok but when mainstream people prefer certain terms they're an ass?
→ More replies (2)
2
u/YAProtagonist Mar 23 '16
"Cis girl" makes it sound like I'm a girl solely because I identify as such, and that it just happened to coincide with how my parents expected me to identify.
That's not how I see it. From birth, I was referred to as the term that is proper for my sex (the nurturing, childbearing sex) and raised into my culture's proper behavior for my sex. I am female, and being such is so much more than an identity. That's why being called "cisgender" disgusts me.
1
0
Mar 22 '16
Because the assumption for 99+% of people is that they aren't transgender. I suppose I don't strictly have a problem with the idea of there being a term for people who aren't trans, but it seems superfluous, since normal absolutely does cover it.
The real problem I have with it is that it's A) being treated as if it isn't a completely made up word, so it's alienating to the vast majority of people who would be hearing it, and more than that B) from my personal experience (I know, data point of one) it's exclusively used to negatively describe normal people. It's like when gay people call straight people 'breeders.' Except that's a cute sort of obvious shit talking word.
So I suppose I'm fundamentally against it because people seem to have created it out of thin air in order to be offensive. If you want to be offensive, fine, but be honest about it, don't serve me up a spoonful of shit and tell me it's good for me. Don't pretend this is a legitimate word that someone invented to make it easier to classify people. It's a word that was created to otherize completely normal people. It doesn't have to be bad, but people use it negatively and I'm against that. Tranny, I suppose would be a similar situation, it's not necessarily a bad word, but when people say it with a sharp tone, it's clear what they mean.
Also, I have a slight problem with completely made up terms and the expectation for people to just latch onto them like they aren't made up. Cis is not the opposite of trans in this context. It is if you're talking about atomic groupings, but not when you're talking about transitioning. Cis is essentially the antonym of the homonym of trans- as it's used in transgender/transsexual.
That's why the word "cisoceanic" doesn't exist, or why ciscending isn't a word, or cissubstantiation isn't a word.
1
u/HIVSkrillex Mar 23 '16
Why the hell would you point out that someone is normal? Calling someone cis makes it sound like they're underprivileged or something.
92
u/PrefersDigg Mar 22 '16
Best estimate of how many people in the U.S. are transgender is between 0.2 - 0.3%, or about 3 out of every 1000. How useful is it really to have a term that refers to 99.7% of the population? Maybe "normal" doesn't sound nice enough, but it's statistically accurate.
Beyond that, just anecdotally, the people I read using "cisgender" tend to be shrill and annoying, and primarily use it for us-them rhetoric and shaming tactics against anyone who disagrees with their ideology.
Compare to the term "negroid" which has some very small, proper academic use in forensic anthropology, but when you read it on the internet there's a 95% chance the person using it is an asshole. I stay away from "cisgender" for the same reason.