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

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

HYPOTHETICALLY, assume I am agreeing with you for that particular question. Why is a mental disorder a bad thing? Why would a trans person not want to be associated with someone who has autism?

As I said before, having an illness is a bad thing. People saying being trans is being ill, is a bad thing -- as it's utterly incorrect. Having schizophrenia is not good. Having gender dysphoria is not good. But only one of those I transition out of. Only one of those I have managed to be free of. I am neither dysphoric, nor disordered in my gender identity. With my schizophrenia on the otherhand? Well, that will likely be for the rest of my life.

I'm not saying a person IS bad for being sick. That would be heartless.

Again, there is no consensus. One country is listed.

I .... no. If one has gender dysphoria, they do not always have dysphoria. The only reason why it gets a mention is because it provides a psychiatric grounds for a patient to seek treatment. Nothing more. It does not persist to be dysphoric, so long as a trans person satisfactorily transitioned.

I did. No longer dysphoric.

Sex and identity are not the same thing. In this case one believes their body to be incorrect. Functioning or not, it's still an issue they have to deal with that someone without the ailment doesn't have to deal with.

Yes, they are different ... but both of them have the same principles why they should not be seen as disorders in and of themselves. Both can promote a dysphoric state, but both of them can exist beyond a dysphoric state. It's not an ailment, maainly because it doesn't persist as an ailment. You're missing the point. Pay attention.

Gender dysphoria is not permanent dysphoria. This is why transitioning is a recommended medical course to take in legitimate cases of gender dysphoria. These more often than not lead to a situation where the person no longer feels dysphoria. They do not display symptoms of being a disordered person.

 

[Grey Edwards]

It's a good term to have. When I was younger and knew even less than I do now about trans issues I didn't know the term at all. Which led to me using words like "normal". Not even in a dismissive way, just that I honestly didn't know a word to use but even then I felt like cringing whenever I said it. Don't really know what else to say tobe honest.

I'll continue to use the term normal. When 90% or so of a species has something in common, it's just the normal thing about them. Being "Cis" is to be normal for the human species. Being heterosexual, is to be normal, for the human species. If you want to be clinical, accept the fact that to not be in the normal category, means to be abnormal, or aberrant, or an aberration.

Personally, I find the entire trans discussion to be abhorrent. When did it become wrong to be a tomboy? When did it become wrong to be an effeminate man? Today, we tell both groups that they must clearly be the wrong sex, label them trans and then encourage the idea that they were born with the wrong body. My wife is a tomboy. She doesn't do any of the typically "girlie" things. What she does do, is share almost all of my interests and hobbies. If she were 20 years younger, everyone would have told her as she grew up that she was clearly just a trans man, and I would never have gotten together with my soulmate.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Not that I necessarily agree with mister Abom, but this is a bit dumb.

Being wrong about something doesn't preclude one from being right about something else.

And here's where I go "ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" and wiggle my outstretched hand, palm down, in an indecisive manner- I may not really 'agree' with Abom's approach to this, but I can't bring myself to disagree with the core argument, since it's essentially a semantic one.

By definition, trans and gay folks are abnormal and suffer from some sort of 'disorder,' in that both are, again by definition, not the norm. It isn't an inherently negative thing and I don't subscribe to the idea that either are bad in any sense of the term.

Unless they're specifically asking me to refer to them as bad and, depending on their inflection and the context, I may oblige them. Snap snap. Grin grin. Wink wink. Say no more. Say no more.

The words can be viewed as negative or simply as a descriptor. Kinda like 'Cis,' imo.

Well, hell, exactly like 'Cis.'

This has nothing to do with the cis discussion. It's about psychological health. Abom was pointing out how trans people were by dint of being trans disordered individuals. That's blatantly false. Which is why they are opting for the term dysphoria as a disorder. And only as it pertains to feeling dissatisfied with one's body. The medical treatment naturally being, transitioning. To promote an existence beyond dysphoria.

As for the 'abnormal' debate, it seems fucking pointless for me to remove myself from using a word with my friends to define a group of people far better than 'normal' would. It sounds downright stupid in any conversation I can think of in my head where me and my friends have used 'cis'. I don't see why I should have to stop using a word that perfectly encapsulates the subject of what I may be referring to.

I don't call cis people cis in a derogatory fashion, I don't use it at the drop of the hat in much the same way I don't use 'trans' all that much unless context requires me to do so.

(Edit) No ... 'abnormal' does not equal disorder. Having red hair does not mean you're a disordered person. Being left handed does not make you a disordered person. That's just blatant prejudice to treat people as having a disorder because they fuck the 'wrong' type of adults or choose to present themselves in a certain way.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

It's a good term to have. When I was younger and knew even less than I do now about trans issues I didn't know the term at all. Which led to me using words like "normal". Not even in a dismissive way, just that I honestly didn't know a word to use but even then I felt like cringing whenever I said it. Don't really know what else to say tobe honest.

I'll continue to use the term normal. When 90% or so of a species has something in common, it's just the normal thing about them. Being "Cis" is to be normal for the human species. Being heterosexual, is to be normal, for the human species. If you want to be clinical, accept the fact that to not be in the normal category, means to be abnormal, or aberrant, or an aberration.

Personally, I find the entire trans discussion to be abhorrent. When did it become wrong to be a tomboy? When did it become wrong to be an effeminate man? Today, we tell both groups that they must clearly be the wrong sex, label them trans and then encourage the idea that they were born with the wrong body. My wife is a tomboy. She doesn't do any of the typically "girlie" things. What she does do, is share almost all of my interests and hobbies. If she were 20 years younger, everyone would have told her as she grew up that she was clearly just a trans man, and I would never have gotten together with my soulmate.

First off cisgender is a perfect term when dealing with transgender terms, rather normal aside from bad connotations can be a bit too broad for the subject manner. Where cisgender includes gay people.

Also most trans people aren't told that they have the wrong body, we're the ones who say we're in the wrong body, that there in our mind's eye we're different from the person we see in the mirror. In recent year's it's become more and more okay to be a tomboy for girls and women, on the other hand being effeminate as a man has always been looked down upon, and it's actually getting worse... But that's beside the point, because neither tomboy girls and women, nor effeminate men strictly show the signs of gender dysphoria. Trans people do, then we transition and the dysphoria goes away.

 

[Silvanus]

See, I agree with Abom on this bit though.

It's just a cyclical bit of word fappery that doesn't really address the issue and, frankly, can't. Changing the politically correct term doesn't alter the behavior of the people seeking to use the underlying meaning to cause harm. They will simply use the new one or whichever is more expedient for projecting their intent.

And you're right, Silv. Half of language is connotation and to ignore that fact is folly, yet it seems like you're doing just that... from the opposite perspective of Abom.

He's going "IT'S THE LITERAL DEFINITION" and you're going "IT HAS NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS," both of which are completely true, and it doesn't seem like there can really be a meeting point here since these aren't mutually exclusive ideas.

Or, alternatively, I'm completely misinterpreting errything and not forming my thoughts well due to lack of sleep.

I'm willing to err on the side of the "ahmconfoosed" argument.

Well, firstly, saying I want to "change" the word implies that "abnormal" was ever a generally-accepted term for Trans people. It wasn't, because it isn't even specific to this situation: it fails even at the hurdle of being informative about the subject.

I'm not ignoring anything about the word. It denotes being "atypical", and connotes being inferior. This isn't a new thing, or a changing perspective; it's had these connotations for ages.

 

[Ishal]

Self-esteem issues are part of what drive so many of ours to suicide. So some sensitivity is helpful with a group that is constantly damaged from outside outside sources, for no good reason. Besides that the brain is a chemical computer cis and trans are both chemistry terms too, in fact cis bled over to transgender topics from chemistry.

Also It's not to feel comfortable socially or emotionally only, it's also just to feel comfortable in our own bodies.

Not to butt in, but got around to replying a bit late, and was actually going to bring up just that.

My first exposure to the terms Cis and Trans were in regards to Chemistry. Specifically Cis and Trans Isomerism. That was back in high school.

Cis-het is so obvious. I suppose because I pronounce it "cis-shet" in my head is why I couldn't put it together. The more you know.

 

[Silvanus]

Then the opinions of people who are offended/insulted by the word "cis" are just as valid as those who are offended/insulted by the use of "normal".

That depends on whether the term 'cisgendered' has as strong negative connotations as the term 'abnormal', which I would consider a pretty bizarre assertion.

A lot of explaining? Here's my explaining.

I'm not attempting to be hurtful. I'm being as literal as possible. Any negative connotation one infers from my language is theirs alone and is a misconception.

That's fine. Be ready to explain that whenever you call somebody "abnormal", or you'll just be being hurtful.

Alternatively, you could just not call people "abnormal" in an attempt to make a point.

 

[Poetic Nova]

*sigh*

I'll just pretend Abomination never posted in the first place.

Anyway, while I personally use the term 'cis' I am becoming weary about the people who use it in a negative way.
It's something I've talked about in your other thread aswell, so I odn't think I need to elaborate on it.

Edit:
Dug up the post I mentioned:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.875085-Having-difficulty-understanding-transgendered-people-Ill-try-to-help?page=3#21998304

 

[Tsun Tzu]

This has nothing to do with the cis discussion.

I think it does?

We're talking about words and their connotations here. This thread is literally titled "How do you personally feel about the term cisgender?"

Me making a naked effort to come full circle to the original subject wasn't an accident, really.

It's about psychological health. Abom was pointing out how trans people were by dint of being trans disordered individuals. That's blatantly false. Which is why they are opting for the term dysphoria as a disorder. And only as it pertains to feeling dissatisfied with one's body. The medical treatment naturally being, transitioning. To promote an existence beyond dysphoria.

Apologies for me being mentally stunted here, but...would it be fair to say it's a treatable disorder, which is then cured by the aforementioned treatment, resulting in an erasure of said disorder?

Would the dysphoria itself be considered a disorder, since it's definitely not a norm?

I mean, from what I can see with a quick glance around info sites, the two are used to describe the same thing with no real consensus on the terminology. Surely dysphoria, by its very nature, in relation to ones biological sex/gender not aligning would and indeed could by considered a disorder? A misalignment of body and mind?

*He asked, with palpable trepidation.*

Or should I just be educating myself here?

Bearing in mind that we're trying to ignore negative connotations for words and take them at face value. This approach mirrors some folks' argument for 'Cis' being employed, regardless of its own potential negative connotations toward those its targeting.

As for the 'abnormal' debate, it seems fucking pointless for me to remove myself from using a word with my friends to define a group of people far better than 'normal' would. It sounds downright stupid in any conversation I can think of in my head where me and my friend's have used 'cis'. I don't see why I should have to stop using a word that perfectly encapsulates the subject of what I may be referring to.

Er. Well, ya see.

Someone could make that exact same argument for the use of 'abormal' in relation to trans folks, with their particular friends or conversational partners and as an argument for not using 'cis.'

I don't call cis people cis in a derogatory fashion, I don't use it at the drop of the hat in much the same way I don't use 'trans' all that much unless context requires me to do so.

No qualms then? All about context, m8.

I posted earlier in the thread and mentioned that I had no problems with the word itself, only with the way I'd seen it most used, ie. negatively...which seems to be the problem some of ya'll have with other terms?

(Edit) No ... 'abnormal' does not equal disorder. Having red hair does not mean you're a disordered person. Being left handed does not make you a disordered person. That's just blatant prejudice to treat people as having a disorder because they fuck the wrong type of adults or choose to present themselves in a certain way.

I realize that they're not equivalent terms. I specifically put 'disorder' in quotes to indicate that I wasn't meaning to conflate the two and was going for parity with a specific meaning, ie. 'abnormal condition' (sort of a literal interpretation)...which didn't work.

Don't really appreciate the inference of prejudice though.

Well, firstly, saying I want to "change" the word implies that "abnormal" was ever a generally-accepted term for Trans people. It wasn't, because it isn't even specific to this situation: it fails even at the hurdle of being informative about the subject.

I'm not ignoring anything about the word. It denotes being "atypical", and connotes being inferior. This isn't a new thing, or a changing perspective; it's had these connotations for ages.

Bit of justified confusion here.

I was leading on from the earlier bit where Abom listed words, "Disabled, retarded, handicapped, lame, impaired, crippled, special... abnormal" and wasn't specifically referring to 'abnormal' as THE word you wanted to "change."

But yes, that word isn't specific to or necessarily informative in this instance, nor does it really have to be in order to still be used correctly. Its subjective negative connotations don't automatically invalidate the word in certain circumstances any more than those that surround 'Cis' do.

I don't immediately go to 'inferior' when I think 'abnormal.' 'Subnormal' is the word I associate with 'inferior.'

It just means a statistical deviation. Now, I'm not going to sit here and claim that there aren't negative connotations associated with the word (I've already said as much) and I won't pretend like everyone can ignore that negative stuff when they see it, but the word itself is innocent.

Just like cisgender. To quote Carlin, "The words themselves are innocent."

Don't get me wrong, if some dude is wandering around, leering at gays and trans folks, loudly proclaiming them to be abnooormal in a sneering voice, then, yeah, in that context, it's a negative term.

Addressing those things as being abnormal, because they're recognized as statistical deviations (not because you fantasize about drowning segments of the population in your own bile), is a perfectly valid usage.

...I may just be arguing past you here or something and if I am, I'm sorry. On a related note, please send me coffee, mine doesn't seem to be working.

Then the opinions of people who are offended/insulted by the word "cis" are just as valid as those who are offended/insulted by the use of "normal".

That depends on whether the term 'cisgendered' has as strong negative connotations as the term 'abnormal', which I would consider a pretty bizarre assertion.

My immediate association with 'cis' is the phrase "Die Cis Scum," which is a lot more negative than anything I, personally, come up with for 'abnormal.'

Kinda the problem with all this subjective stuff.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I recently thought of something, that struck me a rather poignant on this subject. When dealing with gay issues people who are the opposite are straight, we have an opposite for short, which is tall... I mean we have pretty innocent descriptors for most things in humans for most all contexts. So why does the distinction between trans and non-trans have to be something like abnormal and normal? Cisgender is literally the opposite of transgender, the same idea of most things, being that it's two sides of the same coin. It's an important distinction that needs to be made and the word cisgender isn't really used for bad things except for in lines of really fringe elements, and we've never given them the in like this before over such an innocuous word. To me it's kind of like trying to diminish trans issues, or deny their validity... That may not be what most people are trying to do, but I think some nasty little group may have manufactured the outrage to diminish our cause. It's not like transgender issues are a small thing, it's a pretty big thing, we're lacking basic rights most groups have, so if every other group in the same situation has a specific opposite, why can't we?

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I recently thought of something, that struck me a rather poignant on this subject. When dealing with gay issues people who are the opposite are straight, we have an opposite for short, which is tall... I mean we have pretty innocent descriptors for most things in humans for most all contexts. So why does the distinction between trans and non-trans have to be something like abnormal and normal? Cisgender is literally the opposite of transgender, the same idea of most things, being that it's two sides of the same coin. It's an important distinction that needs to be made and the word cisgender isn't really used for bad things except for in lines of really fringe elements, and we've never given them the in like this before over such an innocuous word. To me it's kind of like trying to diminish trans issues, or deny their validity... That may not be what most people are trying to do, but I think some nasty little group may have manufactured the outrage to diminish our cause. It's not like transgender issues are a small thing, it's a pretty big thing, we're lacking basic rights most groups have, so if every other group in the same situation has a specific opposite, why can't we?

That's sorta the major reason why I'm A-OK with the word, in and of itself.

It's just a means of differentiating between the two...I guess "states?" Would that be accurate? No harm there.

Someone, I forget who, also brought up saying descriptors like "short" and the like earlier and made a point that they could also be used to insult, if given proper context.

It's the same thing, really. Doesn't make 'short' a bad word just because it can have negative connotations. It just makes the person using that word in a malicious fashion...well, an ass. And I think the focus on 'abnormal v normal' has a lot to do with the way said asses have been using it (Cis) as a sort of insult.

Weaponizing innocuous terminology. It's just what we, as a species, seem to do if given the chance.

Edit: Ooh, another thing comes to mind.

The relative 'newness' of the term in cultural consciousness makes it all the more vulnerable to defamation. A lot of folks are being exposed to the word when it's couched in vitriol.

In this instance, the jerks have a good deal of power to unjustly color perception of its meaning. Which sucks.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

That's sorta the major reason why I'm A-OK with the word, in and of itself.

It's just a means of differentiating between the two...I guess "states?" Would that be accurate? No harm there.

Someone, I forget who, also brought up saying descriptors like "short" and the like earlier and made a point that they could also be used to insult, if given proper context.

It's the same thing, really. Doesn't make 'short' a bad word just because it can have negative connotations. It just makes the person using that word in a malicious fashion...well, an ass. And I think the focus on 'abnormal v normal' has a lot to do with the way said asses have been using it as a sort of insult.

Weaponizing innocuous terminology. It's just what we, as a species, seem to do if given the chance.

Yeah, but thinking of the terminology here, normal and abnormal are far to broad. Cisgender and transgender are specific to the subject at hand when brought up. Saying trans and normal is kind of like misgendering a trans person, it's beside the point, and when working with the subject confusing as all hell. But cis and trans work together in a specific fashion, like say gay and straight, and that narrows the subject effectively with out being excluding, judgemental, insulting, or overly broad. Besides that, every other special interest like gay has a similar opposite term, why leave out the trans community? I mean unless you think our problems aren't worth addressing.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Yeah, but thinking of the terminology here, normal and abnormal are far to broad. Cisgender and transgender are specific to the subject at hand when brought up. Saying trans and normal is kind of like misgendering a trans person, it's beside the point, and when working with the subject confusing as all hell. But cis and trans work together in a specific fashion, like say gay and straight, and that narrows the subject effectively with out being excluding, judgemental, insulting, or overly broad. Besides that, every other special interest like gay has a similar opposite term, why leave out the trans community? I mean unless you think our problems aren't worth addressing.

Eh, I was agreeing with ya though.

I certainly see the validity of "Cisgender" and have no qualms with it, as a word.

'Spose the core of the 'abnormal/normal' idea, aside from what I previously mentioned, is based on a sorta populous argument stemming from the whole 99.7% of people are X vs. .3% Y thing and being...for some reason, unwilling to recognize that population and norms are irrelevant when considering justifiable applications of delineating terminology...

Not really sure, to be honest.

I may be rambling a bit.

Also, what -vvvvv- said.

 

[kris40k]

Yeah, but thinking of the terminology here, normal and abnormal are far to broad. Cisgender and transgender are specific to the subject at hand when brought up. Saying trans and normal is kind of like misgendering a trans person, it's beside the point, and when working with the subject confusing as all hell. But cis and trans work together in a specific fashion, like say gay and straight, and that narrows the subject effectively with out being excluding, judgemental, insulting, or overly broad. Besides that, every other special interest like gay has a similar opposite term, why leave out the trans community? I mean unless you think our problems aren't worth addressing.

Normal and abnormal are not broad; are specific to the subject at hand as well. Unlike those that are attempting to say that there is no such thing as a "normal person", normality is defined by the topic of discussion. For instance, if you were discussing the differences between a cisgender individual with heterochromia and a transgender individual with homochromatic eyes, if the subject were eyecolor, the transgender individual would be normal, the cisgender individual abnormal; if the subject were gender, the transgender abnormal, cisgender normal.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Yeah, but thinking of the terminology here, normal and abnormal are far to broad. Cisgender and transgender are specific to the subject at hand when brought up. Saying trans and normal is kind of like misgendering a trans person, it's beside the point, and when working with the subject confusing as all hell. But cis and trans work together in a specific fashion, like say gay and straight, and that narrows the subject effectively with out being excluding, judgemental, insulting, or overly broad. Besides that, every other special interest like gay has a similar opposite term, why leave out the trans community? I mean unless you think our problems aren't worth addressing.

Normal and abnormal are not broad; are specific to the subject at hand as well. Unlike those that are attempting to say that there is no such thing as a "normal person", normality is defined by the topic of discussion. For instance, if you were discussing the differences between a cisgender individual with heterochromia and a transgender individual with homochromatic eyes, if the subject were eyecolor, the transgender individual would be normal, the cisgender individual abnormal; if the subject were gender, the transgender abnormal, cisgender normal.

Not the point, the point I was making is that every special interest has their own opposite identifier. Normal and abnormal are also considered rather judgmental at any rate. My point still stands. Are we somehow less valid than homosexual people? I mean they have two identifiers if you look at it gay/lesbian being opposite to straight, and homosexual as opposite to heterosexual. So our issues, basic rights, protections, and freedoms, worth so little that we can't use specific subjective termonology like the others use. Cisgender is after all just the opposite definition of transgender.

 

[Atomic Spy Crab]

Why would the term be necessary at all?

 

[necromanzer52]

Yes, that's why Chinese people call themselves "normal" as opposed to "Chinese." White Canadians refer to themselves as "normal" Canadians, because they're in the vast majority! It's why we don't have (or rarely use) the term "right-handed" - because the vast majority of the population everywhere on the planet is right-handed. They call themselves "normal-handed", as they should. Maybe in the future, when left-handed people are the majority, we'll use the term right-handed.

Who is being obtuse here?

I'm genuinely curious now. Where do people say normal-handed? This is the first time I've ever heard it. Everyone I've ever heard talk about handedness has used the words right-handed, left-handed and ambidextrous.

Come to think of it, I've never heard people use the word normal in reference to their race either.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Why would the term be necessary at all?

For the same reasons we have terms like straight to define the opposite gay/lesbian, or heterosexual being the opposite of homosexual, same as the reason every race is named. Same reason we have differentials for tall and short. Cisgender is simply the opposite of transgender and in the context of gender identity discussions it's a term with a valid worth.

Yes, that's why Chinese people call themselves "normal" as opposed to "Chinese." White Canadians refer to themselves as "normal" Canadians, because they're in the vast majority! It's why we don't have (or rarely use) the term "right-handed" - because the vast majority of the population everywhere on the planet is right-handed. They call themselves "normal-handed", as they should. Maybe in the future, when left-handed people are the majority, we'll use the term right-handed.

Who is being obtuse here?

I'm genuinely curious now. Where do people say normal-handed? This is the first time I've ever heard it. Everyone I've ever heard talk about handedness has used the words right-handed, left-handed and ambidextrous.

Come to think of it, I've never heard people use the word normal in reference to their race either.

I'm fairly certain that that post was made as a sarcastic response to the post before it.

 

[Atomic Spy Crab]

Why would the term be necessary at all?

For the same reasons we have terms like straight to define the opposite gay/lesbian, or heterosexual being the opposite of homosexual, same as the reason every race is named. Same reason we have differentials for tall and short. Cisgender is simply the opposite of transgender and in the context of gender identity discussions it's a term with a valid worth.

I've never heard cisgender used by anyone that wasn't being ironic or judgemental, and isn't gender determined by your reproductive organs? If you identify as a female as a male, you're still male, you have male reproductive organs and all that testosterone.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Why would the term be necessary at all?

For the same reasons we have terms like straight to define the opposite gay/lesbian, or heterosexual being the opposite of homosexual, same as the reason every race is named. Same reason we have differentials for tall and short. Cisgender is simply the opposite of transgender and in the context of gender identity discussions it's a term with a valid worth.

I've never heard cisgender used by anyone that wasn't being ironic or judgemental, and isn't gender determined by your reproductive organs? If you identify as a female as a male, you're still male, you have male reproductive organs and all that testosterone.

Sex is determined by reproductive organs, gender is more of a social/cultural construct of humans, and an identity with in that construct. Besides after a orichectomy I don't have that much natural testosterone production due to the fact that the main testosterone producers were removed. I've never heard cisgender being used by someone being judgmental except for in one instance in real life.