Having difficulty understanding transgendered people? I'll try to help.

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

Lolita Style, The Best Style!
Jan 12, 2010
2,151
0
0
JoJo said:
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
NoeL said:
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
No there actual cases of double Y chromosome people with no X chromosome. Humans can survive weird things. Some people actually survive with a single sex chromosome.
Source?
To be honest the last time I looked about it was on wikipedia, and no I'm not going to look it up again, what do I look like? Someone who's not lazy?
Trust me, I'm a biology graduate, you can't survive without an X chromosome as there are over a thousand genes which are only on the X, many of which are vital for development. A YY embryo would miscarry pronto, as do most chromosomal abnormalities (trisomy 21 is an exception in how survivable it is).
Well what ever, I'll concede that I may be wrong on this subject. Now lets stop arguing about it, because in all honesty genetics don't account for everything. I mean in that context, some people are actually born the gender opposite their genes, and people with perfectly fine genes are born deformed for other reasons(like my dad, with his right hand being basically a single huge thumb on an under developed palm.)
 

Trucken

New member
Jan 26, 2009
707
0
0
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
I think(for whatever reason) Cisgender is a bad/offensive term.
Simply put it's not. It's a way us trans people use to define people with a gender identity that matches their birth sex. I am not going to other myself by counting you as "normal" for being born and feeling one way, so don't do that to me. As for people who use the term as an insult? Well they're jerks, just like people who use the term "normal" to insult others. Don't be a jerk either way is all I ask.
The only problem I have with Cisgender is that I feel it's an unnecessary term. I can imagine there are times it could be useful, especially in the transgendered/transsexual community. "Is he trans?" "No, he's cis." I can sort of understand it there, but will I ever refer to myself as cis? Hell no, if anyone ever asks me if I'm trans I'll reply with "no, I'm normal."

Now, is this meant to offend trans people or to say that there's something wrong with them? No, absolutely not, it's just me saying that I identify with the gender I was born with, which is the norm. And if trans people want to refer to me as a cis that's fine, as long as they are OK with me referring to myself as normal.
 

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

Lolita Style, The Best Style!
Jan 12, 2010
2,151
0
0
Trucken said:
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
I think(for whatever reason) Cisgender is a bad/offensive term.
Simply put it's not. It's a way us trans people use to define people with a gender identity that matches their birth sex. I am not going to other myself by counting you as "normal" for being born and feeling one way, so don't do that to me. As for people who use the term as an insult? Well they're jerks, just like people who use the term "normal" to insult others. Don't be a jerk either way is all I ask.
The only problem I have with Cisgender is that I feel it's an unnecessary term. I can imagine there are times it could be useful, especially in the transgendered/transsexual community. "Is he trans?" "No, he's cis." I can sort of understand it there, but will I ever refer to myself as cis? Hell no, if anyone ever asks me if I'm trans I'll reply with "no, I'm normal."

Now, is this meant to offend trans people or to say that there's something wrong with them? No, absolutely not, it's just me saying that I identify with the gender I was born with, which is the norm. And if trans people want to refer to me as a cis that's fine, as long as they are OK with me referring to myself as normal.
The only problem I have with that stance is this: Using normal as an exclusionary term, especially when trans, or homosexual people are involved, kinda excludes us. It's also kind of judgemental. I mean you get to be called normal, but I don't just because of my gender identity? Then again I have an issue with the word anyways, because it always excludes people, for whatever reason.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Redryhno said:
Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

This is sorta the attitude and mentality I'm talking about. I can't answer your first question with any amount of honesty, you know that, and I'm not going to. But I never said MtF trans were hysterical, that's all you buddy, I said there seemed to be an overabundance of MtF trans that were unlikable and if you bothered to read my posts, you'd see that I very much acknowledge that it could very easily be bad luck on my part much like my experience with the majority of gay men.

I never called the jokes either of those things either buddy, so maybe, just maybe, could you stop putting words in my paragraphs, meanings in my ideas, and thoughts in my head that weren't there? Also, I'm trying to figure out how "Die Cis-Scum Die" is a joke. Is there some context to it that I'm not aware of similar to "PC MASTER RACE, CONSOLE PEASANT SERFS"? Or is this just an overblown example of someone taking stuff too seriously and getting it carved into their chest or something while...I dunno, walking around in a Gay Pride parade?

And I have no doubt I've met reasonable transfolk unknowingly, it doesn't change the fact that the people answering questions have a microphone and a strict set of rules when it comes to them you cannot deviate from. That is my problem. It's not the people living their lives, it's the ones that are vocal and don't like being in the presence of ignorance while claiming to attempt to de-ignorize.

This post? It reads like a rough satirical overview of an example of why alot of people have no interest in having anything to do with trans issues. You can't hold an opinion that isn't deemed kosher, whether it be opinion, experience, or even ignorance. It's just too much trouble with minimal thanks, if you even get that.

As for why they shouldn't consider me "mewling and some kind of garbage"? Maybe because I'm hoping to be proven wrong by being in this thread and trying to get answers I've been trying to get for literal YEARS to not be an ignorant douche?

Gonna continue hoping by the way, over in my cis-scum corner. Gonna go to work now.
Given that you are proceeding into a discussion about them why exactly shouldn't they have strict set of rules? But perhaps you're right ... I did come off as hostile and for that I apologize. Just been a bad day, but that's no excuse.

Look, for the 'crazies' I think most of them are normal people living their lives. It's just that the internet is a nice way to talk about various problems with people. Given that trans people don;t tend to have the easiest of existences, the two kind of mesh together. It's pretty frightening actually, and some of it sounds crazy though it has a basis in reality. Like for instance, being afraid to report a crime inflicted upon you to the police, because you'll likely be treated with further abuse? Being made homeless for it? Denied housing? Denied employment? Mistreated in hospitals?

It adds up. It might seem crazy, but when you face ingrained prejudices EVERYDAY, somebody making fun of you for simply being trans, rather than some aspects of it which might actually be witty, but just simply being? Well ... sorry, calling it 'bullying' seems adequate, whether you like it or not. People are better than that, and criticism of it, whether it be targetting sexuality, race, or for being trans, is deserved.

Which is why we no longer have portrayals of black people like Hattie McDaniel's Mammy from Gone with the Wind. Because people became better than that. And yes, that requires fierce opposition. That requires loud opposition. Nobody had their rights won by being silent. So you call it crazy, I see analogues to any civil rights movement in history. Loud wins over a quiet little corner of the internet.

Also. I didn't call you cis-scum, or garbage, I said that if you don't treat a person with respect they have no reason to treat your opinion with respect. Who's putting whose words in their mouths?

(Edit) Oh, and for the record ... I didn't piss on Ace Ventura. I said it was a 'product of its time and place' ...
 

Trucken

New member
Jan 26, 2009
707
0
0
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Trucken said:
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
I think(for whatever reason) Cisgender is a bad/offensive term.
Simply put it's not. It's a way us trans people use to define people with a gender identity that matches their birth sex. I am not going to other myself by counting you as "normal" for being born and feeling one way, so don't do that to me. As for people who use the term as an insult? Well they're jerks, just like people who use the term "normal" to insult others. Don't be a jerk either way is all I ask.
The only problem I have with Cisgender is that I feel it's an unnecessary term. I can imagine there are times it could be useful, especially in the transgendered/transsexual community. "Is he trans?" "No, he's cis." I can sort of understand it there, but will I ever refer to myself as cis? Hell no, if anyone ever asks me if I'm trans I'll reply with "no, I'm normal."

Now, is this meant to offend trans people or to say that there's something wrong with them? No, absolutely not, it's just me saying that I identify with the gender I was born with, which is the norm. And if trans people want to refer to me as a cis that's fine, as long as they are OK with me referring to myself as normal.
The only problem I have with that stance is this: Using normal as an exclusionary term, especially when trans, or homosexual people are involved, kinda excludes us. It's also kind of judgemental. I mean you get to be called normal, but I don't just because of my gender identity? Then again I have an issue with the word anyways, because it always excludes people, for whatever reason.
I think the problem here is that if I'm 'normal' that makes you 'abnormal', and people usually make the connection that abnormal=wrong. The word normal has been pretty abused over the years, people thinking it means that if you're not normal there's something wrong with you. There isn't, it just means that you as a person don't apply to the norm, but then again, is there anyone on this planet that fully applies to the norm? Considering how many things there are where there is a norm (height, weight, haircolor, taste in movies, favorite color) I'd argue that noone is completely 'normal'.

I get what you're saying, I just don't agree with it, mostly because people are using the terms 'normal' and 'abnormal' wrong. If they were used the correct way I don't think that people who are trans would even need the word 'cisgendered'.
 

TranshumanistG

New member
Sep 24, 2014
77
0
0
Notshauna said:
TranshumanistG said:
Or is this completely different from how transgender people put their self-identification into practice?
Mostly correct, when people think of a woman or a man they're actually thinking of around 3 different things that in the vast majority of people line up as opposed to being crossed. These categories are Sex, Gender and Gender Expression/role. Sex is the one that everyone knows male, female and non-binary sexes (I'll describe everything outside the binary as non-binary due to the sheer size of the category otherwise), this is what you're born with. Then there is Gender or Gender Identity, which is what the transgender people are crossed with, it's the internal sense of who you are And much like inner ear balance and other ill remembered senses, it's not really something you can feel except when out of whack. This includes Man, Woman and the non-binary gender identities (including genderfluid, agender, bigender etc). And finally there is Gender Expression this is what people refer to as being a construct. It's how you express yourself and includes masculine and feminine in our culture (other cultures have more than two).
This confuses me. Does this mean that that you can be transgender while being content with your Sex and Gender Expression conservatively expected of you? Doesn't that leave being transgender nothing more than a pronoun game?

Angelowl said:
Kameburger said:
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Personally I like what you're doing, and while I never felt uncomfortable with trans-individuals conceptually speaking, I do feel like there is a gap in how I see trans-folk and how they might see themselves.

So my question is this. Why use the word trans at all? I feel like I know many people who come out as trans but I suppose it's easier for me to wrap my head around the idea that you simply just are what you are. If you feel like you are a man inside and you want to be that man that you feel you are, then I'm going to treat you like a man, end of story. If you feel like you're a woman then I don't see anything weird about treating you that way. But I feel like trans doesn't accurately define someone to me as an identity and I don't quite get it. This may sound stupid and irrelevant but you wouldn't call a Caterpillar in a cocoon a trans-butterfly. I guess my point is: doesn't basing an identity around the transformative process rather then the persons own identity undermine the concept of wanting to be who you feel on the inside and instead solidify yourself as an "other" so to speak? I'm sorry if this seems offensive but this is seriously what not just myself but a few others I know are thinking and it's not easy to ask this kind of a question.
There are those who do that, so you are definitely on to something. Problems with it is that a lot of the time society refuse to let us just be men or women as everone else. Laws with bounties on our heads for using public bathrooms of our preference for example, even to the level when someone with hormones and surgery would be forced to use one where they do not fit in at all. But yeah, it would be simpler that way.

Personally I still identify as a trans woman as my experiences in my teens and young adult life have really shaped my personality, it explains my life situation and my views on feminism, gender and so on. As well as me having a bit of a provocative personality, being an eccentric that has been somewhat of a social outcast. I take pride in being the weird one in the group.
And what about transgender people who are content with their Sex but are transgender in terms of Gender Expression? Do they conciously choose to follow Gender Expression of the gender they identify with or do they just happen to follow Gender Expression opposite of assigned gender? Particularly, if they are a part of trans-feminst movement, which I assume, rejects constructed gender roles.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Trucken said:
I think the problem here is that if I'm 'normal' that makes you 'abnormal', and people usually make the connection that abnormal=wrong. The word normal has been pretty abused over the years, people thinking it means that if you're not normal there's something wrong with you. There isn't, it just means that you as a person don't apply to the norm, but then again, is there anyone on this planet that fully applies to the norm? Considering how many things there are where there is a norm (height, weight, haircolor, taste in movies, favorite color) I'd argue that noone is completely 'normal'.

I get what you're saying, I just don't agree with it, mostly because people are using the terms 'normal' and 'abnormal' wrong. If they were used the correct way I don't think that people who are trans would even need the word 'cisgendered'.
Right, but isn't this problematic on its own? Meaning is derived by understanding. Not only that, abnormal is kind of wrong to describe trans people because there's no reason to believe that cis people are somehow 'normal' beyond simply being the majority. As you rightly pointed out. Not only that, I don't see why 'abnormal' in this context should relate to trans people. When it could apply to anything beyond some seeming perpsective of normality that would like, with enough iterations, find the user divorced from it also.

So ... given all this ... why not just use an antonym of trans? That way we don't have to do mental gymnastics pretending it isn't far more usuable than 'normal'?

Though I kind of get what you're saying. That it's not really relevant to non-trans people. Given even in the direct question of whether one is trans or not; the most likely (English) answer would be; "No, I'm not." If you turned around and said, "Oh no, I'm normal." Well ... why would someone say that? It sounds weird, tbh.

Entirely PC language-police stuff. Sorta ... not sure ... is it 'language police' if 3/4s of people use abnormal as if a weapon for detailing 'freaks'? Not only that, but it also sounds needlessly complex. "No," or "No, I'm not" seem far easier ways to describe your state of being. "Were you a redhead?" >>> "No, I'm normal." Ehh, see it still sounds weird. (edit) I guess it could be kinda of fun for a light ribbing of a friend (<-keyword) who is trans, but I think context of the situation matters more than any literal definition.

'Normal' seems the thing you'd use to describe your height, your weight, quality of some thing inhuman ('How's the gain on that amp?' >>> 'Sounds normal to me.' ... blech, even in this context it sounds more like a 'fine' than a 'normal') 'Normal' sounds kind of bad when used to compare yourself to others, or to use it to draw attention away from self onto others.

But you're absolutely right ... abnormal SHOULDN'T be bad ... but it is. I don't know why, either. It's human nature? Though human nature is often bad whe it's not adequately fought either. 'Cis' is useful though, at least from a trans person's perspective.
 

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

Lolita Style, The Best Style!
Jan 12, 2010
2,151
0
0
Kameburger said:
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Personally I like what you're doing, and while I never felt uncomfortable with trans-individuals conceptually speaking, I do feel like there is a gap in how I see trans-folk and how they might see themselves.

So my question is this. Why use the word trans at all? I feel like I know many people who come out as trans but I suppose it's easier for me to wrap my head around the idea that you simply just are what you are. If you feel like you are a man inside and you want to be that man that you feel you are, then I'm going to treat you like a man, end of story. If you feel like you're a woman then I don't see anything weird about treating you that way. But I feel like trans doesn't accurately define someone to me as an identity and I don't quite get it. This may sound stupid and irrelevant but you wouldn't call a Caterpillar in a cocoon a trans-butterfly. I guess my point is: doesn't basing an identity around the transformative process rather then the persons own identity undermine the concept of wanting to be who you feel on the inside and instead solidify yourself as an "other" so to speak? I'm sorry if this seems offensive but this is seriously what not just myself but a few others I know are thinking and it's not easy to ask this kind of a question.
First I have to address this: Thank you for being so open in terms of treatment. You'd be shocked how many people treat me as my birth sex, instead of my identified gender. Usually for bullshit reasons too, like not believing in transgenderism. That doesn't make it any less rude to make it my problem.
Simply, it's a classification, a term used to define something. It's also part of any trans person's identity, meaning we're different, it's something that makes us different than most people. As a term it gives our situation meaning, allows us to identify it. Also trans people aren't going to burst from a cocoon as the sex we identify as, it'd be nice if that happened, but alas it doesn't.

Leon Royce said:
Hi KyuubiNoKitsune. Could you tell us what your family situation was growing up? Were any parents absent, violent, abusive? What about school?

Thanks.
Sure. I had both my parents present, though I was missing a grandparent on each side.(For those curious, my mom's dad and dad's mom passed before I was born. Then again the first was nuts, the latter had Alzheimer?s. So I may have been better off not having met them in such states.) I wasn't abused, or subject to any violence, well except for spankings, that I richly deserved. Seriously, I killed a TV once with windex at like age 7, I earned that spanking.

School wasn't much of an issue. I was taught karate, akido, judo, and kendo from an early age, so bullying was never an issue for me. Because when you can beat a bully senseless, the rest avoid you like the plague. On the administrative side... Well my mom once threatened to sue my grade school because I was being discriminated against, for liking to wear girl's clothing, which apparently was against dress code. My mom was a scary person when she was mad too, not physically, but she could literally say things that made you wish you were never born, and hate yourself at the same time. Apparently word got around too, because I never had a problem related to being trans with teachers and other staff.

I could dive deeper into my family and school life, but that would make a long post horrifically long.

Ihateregistering1 said:
So, here's my question:

Notwithstanding XX Male syndrome (which is exceptionally rare), what would be your thoughts on a person whose attitude is this: "I have no problem with trans people, I acknowledge that Gender Identity Disorder is a real thing and that being trans isn't a choice, and I would never discriminate against nor harm someone for it. It's your body and you have the right to do whatever you want with it. However, chromosomes determine sex, and thus no matter how many surgeries you have or how many hormones you take, as far as I'm concerned you'll always be a man (or woman, or whatever the case may be)"?

In other words, how much does it matter that others acknowledge your identified gender even if it doesn't affect their behavior towards you?
Honestly? It's fine, I respect the position. Just if it comes to them referring to me as my birth sex instead of the gender I identify as, we're gonna have problems. If you see me as male because that's how I was born, that's alright. But making my life harder by not respecting my identity is not alright. Basically use the right pronouns and respect how I am, I'll do my best to reciprocate the gesture.

mrgerry123 said:
Without society defining gender roles and gender stereotypes would you, or other trans people, be transgender?

Following up, what made you aware that you were in a body you didn't identify with? I assume you didn't feel that way from birth since most babies are incapable of contemplating gender. Was it a singular event or a series of them?

Hope I'm not being too blunt/insensitive
There is an extent which gender is a natural state. So in society it's expressed. I think that if there were no concept of gender, then we'd have to be a mono-gender species to start with, which means transgenderism wouldn't exist anyways.

Personally? I've basically always seen my self as a female, I identify, and empathize better with girls, I like dolls, and girly clothing, and I've always wanted to be a mother. Those are just some examples. The realization came when I had a discussion with my parents about gender. But many trans people will have different experiences.

Also, no, having honest questions isn't too blunt, or insensitive.

Areloch said:
What does "othering" mean?

As for fufilling someone's request to use their preferred pronouns, and I'm seriously not taking the piss here on this when I bring it up, but where does that put the ...rather more 'unique' individuals like on tumblr that demand you utilize 'mermaid pronouns' or 'unicorn pronouns'?

It'd be incredibly rude to them to not acquiesce to their request, but it also has no logical foundation for you to be obligated to do so. So I guess the question becomes why would it really be different for people with gender dysphoria?

Again, really not picking a fight, but there's clearly some kind of line involved, and I'm curious what defines it.
Othering means making someone else the "other."

Now on the latter part? Well it's pretty simple to refer to someone using the gender pronouns that they prefer. Simple enough right? I'm not asking you to call me a dolphin woman, I'm asking you to use normal female pronouns regarding me. I'm not asking for special language, just every day language. My question to you is this: Is it really so hard to use regular words that match how I present my self?

klaynexas3 said:
Thank you for posting this, it's actually cleared up a good bit of my misunderstandings with transgendered people.

Though I'm still a little uncertain on the non-binary genders. I really don't even know where to start with that one, as the whole concept just sort of blanks on me, like I can't even comprehend the idea of it. It's just such an alien idea, what part of someone would make them feel like they do not belong to any sort of gender? I can understand with someone that feels like they want to be the opposite gender now, and there are even chemical reasons in the brain as to why someone would feel that way, is that the case for those that identify outside male or female? Or is that far more preference based, rather than an actual physical/chemical need to be something else?
Simply put? Some people identify more existentially than others. Some people identify as both genders, so it's not a stretch that others feel they don't fit in.

Snowfox_ said:
At the same time we have the freedom to not acknowledge an identity choice for our own conclusions, and I'm uncomfortable with trannies being allowed into bathrooms that don't match their biological sex.
First off, thank you for using a term I specifically stated isn't okay. Also would you be more comfortable if trans people were forced to use the bathroom that matches their birth sex? Cause it can be uncomfortable for everyone involved either way.

chuckman1 said:
How does it make you feel when someone is in to you but won't date you? I'd be pretty damn pissed in that situation, but id be one of those people, at least for now. Too much damn social stigma and risk of violence.
Disappointed, offended, possibly insulted. But at the same time I'll try to understand the other person's stance. I've had it happen to me in the past, it's upsetting, but understandable.

Areloch said:
Hm, an interesting point. Though relying on brain patterns to decide the, I don't know, 'validity' of acquiescing to someone's request of using non-standard pronouns seems weak to me. It also is something that's impossible to verify, for whatever that's worth.

After all, maybe that person does share lots of behavioral traits that cats do. Does it become more valid at that point? I have no idea. That's part of my problem with this sort of topic. It rapidly turns into one gigantic gray area with no way to define boundaries.
Simple. If you wouldn't call a woman a man, or visa versa, then the same rules apply. You're not being asked to use non-standard terms, you're being asked to apply the best term for the situation.

Now as it stands I can't focus on answering anymore questions. If I missed your question I apologize, but if I haven't gotten to it yet, be patient.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Could I ask; what would be the best type of martial arts to learn if you're not super fit anymore? I'm not overweight, but muscle mass is considerably lower than back when I was training in tennis 4 hours a day as a young teen. Admittedly I don't really have too much problems now given a few years of HRT, but just in case someone lashes out if one is inadvertantly outed and faces hostility? I live in Australia, so weapons are a no-no.

I'd rather someone with knowledge of the likely scenarios of being unexpectedly grabbed, etc. Personal perspective of what's most useful for someone with decent reach, but not much in the way of strength? As you seem to be someone with a lot of experience dealing with violent arseholes. Given I might be doing more bar work soonish, I kind of want to protect myself.

I'm 5'10'' if that makes a difference, about 65 kilos.
 

Trucken

New member
Jan 26, 2009
707
0
0
PaulH said:
Trucken said:
I think the problem here is that if I'm 'normal' that makes you 'abnormal', and people usually make the connection that abnormal=wrong. The word normal has been pretty abused over the years, people thinking it means that if you're not normal there's something wrong with you. There isn't, it just means that you as a person don't apply to the norm, but then again, is there anyone on this planet that fully applies to the norm? Considering how many things there are where there is a norm (height, weight, haircolor, taste in movies, favorite color) I'd argue that noone is completely 'normal'.

I get what you're saying, I just don't agree with it, mostly because people are using the terms 'normal' and 'abnormal' wrong. If they were used the correct way I don't think that people who are trans would even need the word 'cisgendered'.
Right, but isn't this problematic on its own? Meaning is derived by understanding. Not only that, abnormal is kind of wrong to describe trans people because there's no reason to believe that cis people are somehow 'normal' beyond simply being the majority. As you rightly pointed out. Not only that, I don't see why 'abnormal' in this context should relate to trans people. When it could apply to anything beyond some seeming perpsective of normality that would like, with enough iterations, find the user divorced from it also.

So ... given all this ... why not just use an antonym of trans? That way we don't have to do mental gymnastics pretending it isn't far more usuable than 'normal'?

Though I kind of get what you're saying. That it's not really relevant to non-trans people. Given even in the direct question of whether one is trans or not; the most likely (English) answer would be; "No, I'm not." If you turned around and said, "Oh no, I'm normal." Well ... why would someone say that? It sounds weird, tbh.

Entirely PC language-police stuff. Sorta ... not sure ... is it 'language police' if 3/4s of people use abnormal as if a weapon for detailing 'freaks'? Not only that, but it also sounds needlessly complex. "No," or "No, I'm not" seem far easier ways to describe your state of being. "Were you a redhead?" >>> "No, I'm normal." Ehh, see it still sounds weird. (edit) I guess it could be kinda of fun for a light ribbing of a friend (<-keyword) who is trans, but I think context of the situation matters more than any literal definition.

'Normal' seems the thing you'd use to describe your height, your weight, quality of some thing inhuman ('How's the gain on that amp?' >>> 'Sounds normal to me.' ... blech, even in this context it sounds more like a 'fine' than a 'normal') 'Normal' sounds kind of bad when used to compare yourself to others, or to use it to draw attention away from self onto others.

But you're absolutely right ... abnormal SHOULDN'T be bad ... but it is. I don't know why, either. It's human nature? Though human nature is often bad whe it's not adequately fought either. 'Cis' is useful though, at least from a trans person's perspective.
You make some points, especially the 'no, I'm normal', it would be a weird fucking thing to say if someone asked if you were trans. Even so, I still believe the term cisgendered is unnecessary, especially since it just means that the person referred to identifies with the gender he/she were born with. And since a vast majority of people on this planet (I don't have any numbers, but it must be at least 90 %) are like that it means that they are the norm and therefore normal compared to transgendered people who are the clear minority.

Also, my main gripe with the term cisgendered is that it feels like a word that was created by someone that is transgendered, and the only reason for creating it was that this person, like so many others, misinterpreted the meaning of 'normal' and was offended by it, taking it to mean that anyone who referred to themselves as normal referred to the transgendered as wrong. I have no idea if it's like this, I might be completely wrong, but that's the impression I'm under.

I'm aware that this won't be getting us anywhere, we just have different views on the word cisgendered. I just don't like it, but that doesn't mean I have anything against transgendered people or their rights.
 

CaptainMarvelous

New member
May 9, 2012
869
0
0
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
I think(for whatever reason) Cisgender is a bad/offensive term.
Simply put it's not. It's a way us trans people use to define people with a gender identity that matches their birth sex. I am not going to other myself by counting you as "normal" for being born and feeling one way, so don't do that to me. As for people who use the term as an insult? Well they're jerks, just like people who use the term "normal" to insult others. Don't be a jerk either way is all I ask.
I actually do have one for this, even though it's nothing to do with you personally I still need to ask: Why do they not just call it Statigender?

It makes no sense in word structure, Trans is because you're in movement from one gender to another, cis is not (as far as I know) meaning non-moving, static would be the appropriate root word to apply if you mean the opposite. Like Hetero and Homo, hetero means different, homo same, as a sexuality descriptor it makes perfect sense, the Cis- thing a) is wrapped in negative connotations from all the folks who use it as a pejorative and b) doesn't seem like the best word to use for the meaning that is wanted.

Nevermind the fact I am confused how far reaching trans as an identity has come, it would seem to me that you'd only be transgender until you've transitioned then you'd be... well, 'Cis'. Because you've gone from being male to female. You have finished the 'trans', as far as anyone needs be concerned you are now the gender you always saw yourself as. You wouldn't be a Transman or Tranwoman, you'd be just a man or woman. You'd be 'Cis'.

EDIT: I am aware it's meant to mean 'comfortable with the gender you're born with' but given you may not develop Trans identity until later in life, it still feels like it'd be more sensible to have static gender where you don't wish to change and trans where you do.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,726
3,610
118
rednose1 said:
Where did the term "Cis" come from? Trans/bi/gay/decpticon, all those I remember being around for a long time, but then Cis came along and no one has told me yet where it comes from. What happened to njust being g called straight? I was fine with that.
It's from Latin, the opposite of trans. By comparison, the Romans divided Gaul into Transalpine Gaul, Gaul on the other side of the Alps, and Cisalpine Gaul, Gaul on this side of the Alps. Swap gender for mountains and people for Gaul, and there you go.

As mentioned, straight refers to sexuality, not gender. So, we have terms like "cishet" meaning cisgender and heterosexual. Having said that, the T in LGBT is for trans, of course, which confuses things.

Trucken said:
I get what you're saying, I just don't agree with it, mostly because people are using the terms 'normal' and 'abnormal' wrong. If they were used the correct way I don't think that people who are trans would even need the word 'cisgendered'.
Well, what would you call them? "Normal gendered"? You can't just say normal, because that could refer to anything.
 

AwesomeHatMan

New member
Jul 24, 2012
71
0
0
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Hi, thanks for making this thread, I really appreciate you trying to help others understand. It'd be great if you could help me with three things.

1. What does it mean/feel like when you identify as your gender?
2. Do you feel like you need to define your gender (To say I am male/female/third gender etc rather than just I am me)?
3. What would you like to say to those who believe that you, or anyone for that matter, shouldn't have to categorise their gender/no-one should care about genders in the first place and you should just be yourself?
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Trucken said:
You make some points, especially the 'no, I'm normal', it would be a weird fucking thing to say if someone asked if you were trans. Even so, I still believe the term cisgendered is unnecessary, especially since it just means that the person referred to identifies with the gender he/she were born with. And since a vast majority of people on this planet (I don't have any numbers, but it must be at least 90 %) are like that it means that they are the norm and therefore normal compared to transgendered people who are the clear minority.

Also, my main gripe with the term cisgendered is that it feels like a word that was created by someone that is transgendered, and the only reason for creating it was that this person, like so many others, misinterpreted the meaning of 'normal' and was offended by it, taking it to mean that anyone who referred to themselves as normal referred to the transgendered as wrong. I have no idea if it's like this, I might be completely wrong, but that's the impression I'm under.

I'm aware that this won't be getting us anywhere, we just have different views on the word cisgendered. I just don't like it, but that doesn't mean I have anything against transgendered people or their rights.
Pretty much. If it's any consolation I only use cis in writing and when talking with trans friends. For the same reason I don't really announce to the world that I'm trans at the drop of the hat, I don't typically call people 'cisgender' to their face because it's largely meaningless to most trans people. Given we're likely the first to get over lentil soup entree of form and function of one's body, and go straight to the main course sirloin steak in mushroom sauce that is one's soul.

Tender, juicy souls ...
 

Loonyyy

New member
Jul 10, 2009
1,292
0
0
PaulH said:
Could I ask; what would be the best type of martial arts to learn if you're not super fit anymore? I'm not overweight, but muscle mass is considerably lower than back when I was training in tennis 4 hours a day as a young teen. Admittedly I don't really have too much problems now given a few years of HRT, but just in case someone lashes out if one is inadvertantly outed and faces hostility? I live in Australia, so weapons are a no-no.

I'd rather someone with knowledge of the likely scenarios of being unexpectedly grabbed, etc. Personal perspective of what's most useful for someone with decent reach, but not much in the way of strength? As you seem to be someone with a lot of experience dealing with violent arseholes. Given I might be doing more bar work soonish, I kind of want to protect myself.

I'm 5'10'' if that makes a difference, about 65 kilos.
Taekwondo is good for fitness, and has sport potential, and typically gives a mix of typical self defense scenarios, grabs, knife attacks, strikes, as well as your array of strikes, in particular, a lot of kicks which don't really depend on having a large amount of mass. If you can kick someone in the head, it doesn't matter if you're 65 kilos. Self defense includes locks, arm bars, wrist locks, takedowns, depending on the class and the level. It might be more practical to take a Muay Thai class, or a self defense class though, because otherwise you'll probably have a lot of stuff to go over before you get into the more advanced self defense.

Other than that, I'd always recommend steel cap boots. I wear them for Engineering pracs, and work, but they're good if you can wear them in. It's not a weapon, it's not illegal, and they aren't going to be taken off you and used on you.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Loonyyy said:
Taekwondo is good for fitness, and has sport potential, and typically gives a mix of typical self defense scenarios, grabs, knife attacks, strikes, as well as your array of strikes, in particular, a lot of kicks which don't really depend on having a large amount of mass. If you can kick someone in the head, it doesn't matter if you're 65 kilos. Self defense includes locks, arm bars, wrist locks, takedowns, depending on the class and the level. It might be more practical to take a Muay Thai class, or a self defense class though, because otherwise you'll probably have a lot of stuff to go over before you get into the more advanced self defense.

Other than that, I'd always recommend steel cap boots. I wear them for Engineering pracs, and work, but they're good if you can wear them in. It's not a weapon, it's not illegal, and they aren't going to be taken off you and used on you.
A basic self-defence course that specialised in locks and takedowns sounds like something that won't get me sued. Also sounds pretty useful if you're grabbed suddenly, or against a drunk. And this Taekwondo sounds pretty good for me. I have shitty upper body strength, but my leg strength isn't so bad (and my reach with them is phenomenal), mainly because I walk almost everywhere in the city. I thought muay thai uses a lot of elbow work, so I might not be so good at that.

They'd also need to be some killer steel-toed boots. Like, GORGEOUS. I wear a lot of boots though, as I ride a motorbike. Though they tend to be the fashionable sort.

LeathermanKick25 said:
There are usually Krav Maga classes in most major cities. I'd also advice chucking on about another 10kg of muscle too.
Hmmm ... it would be an effort given my T-levels is like zero. Hell, even before HRT and other stuff it was pretty darn low, which is why I could never go pro in tennis. I had the form ... the technique, the strategy ... all downpat. Just poor injury tolerance and low strength development potential. Saving grace was I had high endurance due to being lean and trim and a long gait. My legs are awesome, only 5'10'' but they belong on someone over 6'.

10 kilos is a pretty big ask as I could never manage that even when I was training hard. Like, on a rough scale compared to the average person, how much difference does a 10 kilo weight class upgrade make in Krav Maga? Because that would mean long term physical training, and a pretty high degree of intensity training to maintain.
 

Robert Marrs

New member
Mar 26, 2013
454
0
0
The one and only issue I take with it is the notion that just feeling like a woman or a man makes you one. Obviously people really feel like that. Nobody is going to go through hormones and surgery just to try and trick the opposite gender or something. If someone wants to do that or feels like that more power to them. Ill call them a different name and all that out of respect for their personal decision. However I will never view them as the gender they want to be. That to me is the line I draw. You will never really be the other gender you want to be you are just lying to yourself as well as you possibly can and doing your best to appear as that gender to other people. That doesn't make you a woman or a man. Then when I see parents raising kids "gender neutral" which I really feel is child abuse, or people saying that someone who doesn't want to be in a relationship with someone who is transgender is a bigot it makes me worry a bit for the future. I think sometimes we need to worry less about peoples feelings and more about being logical. Respect other peoples personal decisions and just leave it at that. No other point needs to be proven.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,261
5,898
118
Country
United Kingdom
LeathermanKick25 said:
I just think you don't understand what normal means. Straight is normal. That's not mean as some attack against you or people like you. It's what the word actually means.
"Of the common type" is what the word denotes, but the word has connotations as well. "Abnormal" has pretty strong negative connotations.

Robert Marrs said:
The one and only issue I take with it is the notion that just feeling like a woman or a man makes you one.
There's neurobiological evidence as well, of course: a Trans individual's brain will tend to be more structurally similar to their identified gender than their birth gender. With that in mind, it has a fairly solid scientific basis as well.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Silvanus said:
There's neurobiological evidence as well, of course: a Trans individual's brain will tend to be more structurally similar to their identified gender than their birth gender. With that in mind, it has a fairly solid scientific basis as well.
Hmm, kinda ... one part genes, one part womb conditions, one part enculteration, one part self-construction. 'Man is the measure of all things' as they say. It is, beyond a doubt, true. We are everything. Everything we observe, randomly postulate, our neuroses, our memories, our biology, our will to power (first and foremost).

I've never been big into the brain studies thing, if only I have a hgher than average knowledge of psychology, and that the brain is about 85-90% glial cells which are, for all intents and purposes, kinda meaningless in data retention and cognitive processing. Glial cells are there mainly because neurons cannot come into direct contact with blood, other wise the brain royally fucks itself over. Leading to massive changes in personality, memory, etc.

Even memory is largey self-constructed. Most long term memory store stuff is actually 'false memory'. Which is why psychologists even now debate whether memory repression is actually a thing.

You can fuck with people's memories by just talking to them. Not even individually. Infact, I was a confederate in a psych experiment where we did just that. You'd be surprised just the way in which we asked questions to a group of people how BADLY they got the photograph wrong in recall not even a day later.

Give a psychologist 3 hours of your time, they'll rearrange the memories of your most favourite birthday party you ever had. Imma inside your head, redecorating.

The absolutely terrifying aspect of this was actually concerning just how much in a legal court case can a lawyer cross examining a witness actually manipulate the witness's memories. It turns out they can, and they do, and the the person being examined doesn't even know. They'll pass lie detector tests, they'll show absolute conviction that what you manipulated in their heads was true.

One of my groups I questioned, I managed to get them to get the colours of the vehicles in a fender bender wrong, I convinced them there was shattered glass on the ground. I even convinced them that there was a man cradling his head sitting on the side of the road.

This is actually better proof for the strength and conviction of gender identity however. Because it requires no collaboration. You ask trans people about their first experiences stepping out. Who their first sexual health specialist was, etc ... a whole lot of details. They'll get near perfect recall. The first friends they came out to, what they said, feelings of rejection and approval at the time, the whole works. Decades after the events.

To me, this represents far better proof. It's not a madness, but a truth that lay as a fundamental principle of self. In the same way a cis person has so much assurance about the nature of their body correlating to their sense of self due to massive saturation of their self awareness, trans people have an innate sense of self beyond what their body is in the same process. They have typically always felt that connection, as strong as their earliest memories, and commit it all to the foundation and self-construction of their meaning and psyche. Despite years of attempted deconstruction of self, or manipulation of thought and feelings by naysayers.

(edit) It's pretty inspirational stuff, really ... given the fragility of memory in every other way. The long short of it is, you can't make a truly gay person be straight, nor can you make a truly trans person not trans. People should just learn to deal with something that is ultimately harmless to them. What's the true madness is many straight people thinking being near gay or trans people and respecting their mutual identities and attractions somehow impedes upon their own sense of sexuality or meaning of the world.

Which strikes me as the height of paranoia and insanely egotistical.