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

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

Lolita Style, The Best Style!
Jan 12, 2010
2,151
0
0
Lightknight said:
The term is entirely unnecessary. How many other disorders need a unique term for other people who don't have the same disorder?

I think the intention is to avoid saying "Normal people" in contrast with trans people. It's a good intention but not necessary and the term they used has become offensive to people. I mean, I don't want to be called "cis". Sounds like a condition or like a cyst. Non-trans would be simple and explanatory enough to not require explanation. Like non-downs or non-schizophrenic.

It would be nuts to try to have a null equivalent for every condition. Sorry, but being transgender is having a rare condition and as such requires the special term to denote it. Not the vast majority of other people with a gender identity disorder. If transgendered people find the term offensive then we simply need to come up with another term, not impose another term on everyone else to soften the fact that they have a condition.
Seeing what you've posted elsewhere and your very ignorant and non-accepting views of transgender people, I'm not inclined to put very much stock into anything you say on the subject.

That said, "other pepople with a gender identity disorder" as you said is plain ridiculous, first because gender identity disorder is an outmoded term, gender dysphoric and gender dysphoria have replaced it with all professionals except for verified quacks. But also anyone with gender dysphoria technically falls under the broad classification that is transgender. There is just so much wrong with what you say and seem to think is the truth it astounds me.
 

Neurotic Void Melody

Bound to escape
Legacy
Jul 15, 2013
4,953
6
13
Voted do not care either way. A term is a term and i've no idea how anyone can take offense at something like this. Perhaps...now just perhaps, there is a sweet irony to the people who do take offense at this. It has probably already been thought before though. Oh well, i'm a little different, baby...i'm KISS gendered!!

...Ok that was bad. Sorry!
 

Kerethos

New member
Jun 19, 2013
250
0
0
Lightknight said:
The term is entirely unnecessary. How many other disorders need a unique term for other people who don't have the same disorder?

I think the intention is to avoid saying "Normal people" in contrast with trans people. It's a good intention but not necessary and the term they used has become offensive to people. I mean, I don't want to be called "cis". Sounds like a condition or like a cyst. Non-trans would be simple and explanatory enough to not require explanation. Like non-downs or non-schizophrenic.

It would be nuts to try to have a null equivalent for every condition. Sorry, but being transgender is having a rare condition and as such requires the special term to denote it. Not the vast majority of other people with a gender identity disorder. If transgendered people find the term offensive then we simply need to come up with another term, not impose another term on everyone else to soften the fact that they have a condition.
I mostly agree with your entire post here, with the exception that I don't take any offence to being called cismale - it just confuses me for a bit as I try to remember wtf that meant, because it's quite rare.

I realize gender issues can be very tough to deal with, as can a non hetero sexuality or anything else that breaks the cultural norm.

Coming to terms with who you are is tough enough without other people judging your for being you, and - at least in my experience - what gender people consider themselves as doesn't really affect me in any way, outside what I refer to the person as in terms of gender. So why should I even bother to make any judgement on what gender people consider themselves as?

Born a "he", but identifies as "she"? Well then you're she to me, or trans.
Same if you're born a she and identify as "he" - then you're a he to me, or trans.
Had biology play tricks on you and be both, just pick one or I'll go with whatever I think you look (or possibly sound) like, or just call you a hermaphrodite when that seems more practical.

If anyone wants to change their registered identity to the gender they identify as, rather than the one they were born as, though I'd advise against it. Not because I'd consider it dishonest or anything like that, but from a medical standpoint they are biologically that gender and drugs, disease and such don't care what gender you identify as - only what biology you currently have. So it would, for example, be pointless for you to be called in for a prostate exam if you were born without one.

That is pretty much the extent I consider gender. I don't think I'm sorry if that offends anyone...
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Aelinsaar said:
You mean like, "Sane", and "Insane"? Yeah, that would be nuts! =P You can't just go around making totally reasonable and inoffensively technical language for everything can you? On wait... we do. To me, your reaction kind of epitomizes a quiet hypocrisy... you don't want to be labeled.
1. The term "sane" meant healthy and normal. 17th century Latin. It was used generically just as insane could be used to cover a wide range of conditions. Cisgender and transgender are very specific. So I'm unsure why you think "insane" is a condition. You might as well be saying "sick" which just means "not-healthy".

2. We don't have a counter term for everything. We have a counter term for some things. Most of the time a person without the condition is not labeled in relation to that term at all, nor are they (people without the condition) relevant to most conversations about people with that condition.

3. Labels are traditionally necessary for things that fit outside the norm. This is because it is unnecessary to label that which something else is being distinguished from.

In areas that I differ from the norm is fine and acceptable for me to be labeled. In areas where I am in line with the norm and do not have a condition then it is entirely unnecessary for the label. Non-[Insert condition name here] would serve perfectly well in discussion and would require no additional defining for the layman while still technically being a label. But "Cisgender"? Who the hell knows what that's talking about until someone explained it or unless read in descriptive contexts? It's unnecessary obfuscation of a point. Is non-trans really that difficult to use or understand by comparison?

But hey, go on defending a term that people find offensive. History really looks good on people who defended terms like "retard" and "******" against the people speaking out against them. I'm not sure who you think you're defending when I'm not calling transgendered people anything offensive as far as I'm aware, nor would I advocate calling them any such terms.

So I should ask, if people do dislike the term and find it offensive, why do you feel the need to defend the term? Would you defend the term transgender if transgendered individuals found it specifically offensive?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,025
5,794
118
Country
United Kingdom
Lightknight said:
But hey, go on defending a term that people find offensive. History really looks good on people who defended terms like "retard" and "******" against the people speaking out against them.
Both terms used against fairly vulnerable minority groups, note. I find it fairly unrealistic to say that "cisgender", which describes the majority, and a group in no significant threat, carries the same negative weight.
 

Zefar

New member
May 11, 2009
485
0
0
For a long time I had no idea what the "cis" part in cisgendered meant. Actually I'm still not sure. Generally because I haven't bothered to look it up at all.

I've only seen it being used to insult normal people. Or straight males that are white.

I think one of those Tumblerinas learned about this word and most likely wanted to make it to a word they could use like others are using gays, trans and lesbians. Well they got one now and they won't stop using it. Because they do love their labels on peoples.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Seeing what you've posted elsewhere and your very ignorant and non-accepting views of transgender people, I'm not inclined to put very much stock into anything you say on the subject.
? You mean not wishing to use pronouns? Oh boy, I'm simply the worst kind of cis-scum there is huh? Tolerant and accepting and defensive of everything Trans people are but the moment I state that I believe pronouns to be sex-based and not gender-based then bam, time to crucify me on the bigot cross of a semantics debate.

I'd understand it if I said that I would purposefully use the other pronoun they specifically requested. But I'd just avoid the use of pronouns altogether out of a personal desire not to lie.

That said, "other pepople with a gender identity disorder" as you said is plain ridiculous, first because gender identity disorder is an outmoded term, gender dysphoric and gender dysphoria have replaced it with all professionals except for verified quacks. But also anyone with gender dysphoria technically falls under the broad classification that is transgender. There is just so much wrong with what you say and seem to think is the truth it astounds me.
Actually, I said that they have "a gender identity disorder". Had I intended to say "GID", I would not have said "a". I quite unintentionally hit the old term with that phrasing and I do apologize if that hit any nerves but I wasn't saying that they have GID. But that their disorder (so classified in both the ICD-10 CM and DSM-5 as a disorder) is pertaining to gender identity.

However, until it is replaced in the ICD-10 CM it is absolutely still a viable term. I just try to avoid it because I agree with the reason why the DSM-5 changed it. That there is too much stigmatism towards transgendered individuals so if removing the term "disorder" from what's still a disorder helps stop people from being assholes to them, then why not? It is still a disorder, and that's how doctors justify reassignment surgery, but if semantics is what's making people go nuts then yeah, change it.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Silvanus said:
Lightknight said:
But hey, go on defending a term that people find offensive. History really looks good on people who defended terms like "retard" and "******" against the people speaking out against them.
Both terms used against fairly vulnerable minority groups, note. I find it fairly unrealistic to say that "cisgender", which describes the majority, and a group in no significant threat, carries the same negative weight.
If it's an insult to most people then it's OK with you but not if it's only against a few?

That's a double standard you're presenting there. Why not just be against offensive terms? Is the goal to offend?

I get that transgendered individuals have faced pretty bad prejudices and I hate that they've faced that nonsense over something that was no one else's business, but why does that make this OK? Over the years I've revised quite a few terms that were common use the moment I learned they were offensive. Why should I not expect people to do the same for others? Just because you don't esteem it to be hitting vulnerable people?
 

kurupt87

Fuhuhzucking hellcocks I'm good
Mar 17, 2010
1,438
0
0
I'm sorry, but why does a population segment that can, at best, be described as troubled and is also less than half a % point of the worlds population get to dictate language to the majority?
 

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

Lolita Style, The Best Style!
Jan 12, 2010
2,151
0
0
Lightknight said:
Silvanus said:
Lightknight said:
But hey, go on defending a term that people find offensive. History really looks good on people who defended terms like "retard" and "******" against the people speaking out against them.
Both terms used against fairly vulnerable minority groups, note. I find it fairly unrealistic to say that "cisgender", which describes the majority, and a group in no significant threat, carries the same negative weight.
If it's an insult to most people then it's OK with you but not if it's only against a few?

That's a double standard your presenting there. Why not just be against offensive terms? Is the goal to offend?
I think the point here would be more along the lines of removing the offensive nature from the term, as the term works as specific identifier. People call it a label and an insult, while the first is true to an extent the idea of labels has become offensive all by it self, where the second is only true when idiots use the word. Like I said we shouldn't let an idiot minority dictate the word's use and value as a categorizing word. Now if the majority of people start using it as a slur, that's different.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Lightknight said:
Silvanus said:
Lightknight said:
But hey, go on defending a term that people find offensive. History really looks good on people who defended terms like "retard" and "******" against the people speaking out against them.
Both terms used against fairly vulnerable minority groups, note. I find it fairly unrealistic to say that "cisgender", which describes the majority, and a group in no significant threat, carries the same negative weight.
If it's an insult to most people then it's OK with you but not if it's only against a few?

That's a double standard your presenting there. Why not just be against offensive terms? Is the goal to offend?
I think the point here would be more along the lines of removing the offensive nature from the term, as the term works as specific identifier. People call it a label and an insult, while the first is true to an extent the idea of labels has become offensive all by it self, where the second is only true when idiots use the word. Like I said we shouldn't let an idiot minority dictate the word's use and value as a categorizing word. Now if the majority of people start using it as a slur, that's different.
Sure, but three things:

1. The term is used as a slur. Doesn't matter if the majority of people start using it (hopefully most people don't go around using slurs at all).

2. I wonder if a more pleasant sounding label would have gone over. "Cis" itself sounds like a derogatory term. Like something is cystic. An abnormal growth. For example, "Non-transgendered" is a label and that doesn't register so much as a blip of a second thought.

3. The term obfuscates the point. It is unnecessary and requires special defining when we already have universal terms like "non" and "trans". As far as I can tell, the use of a specific label is specifically to put people in their place and show them what it's like to have a label that sounds like a bad thing. I get it but that doesn't mean I have to like it. They have a label because they have a condition that needs addressing. I sympathize with them but I don't agree with tactics employed to in some way insult everyone just because there are assholes in the world. It's not like those assholes would even get the point. They're always going to be ignorant little mucks who never look outside their own world view enough to realize that there's something more to just their plight.

Am I wrong?
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
Lightknight said:
If it's an insult to most people then it's OK with you but not if it's only against a few?

That's a double standard you're presenting there. Why not just be against offensive terms? Is the goal to offend?
But how the hell is "cisgender" an offensive word? It literally means "not trangender". It isn't like "******" or "******" that have had the kind of historical significance that make people uncomfortable when it's said in public. It isn't even necessarily about the larger group stigmatising the smaller one or vice versa, "cisgender" is a term that has legitimate etymology and is as harmless as calling a straight person a "heterosexual".

If the people that use it are hostile, it's their tone that indicates that hostility, not the word "cisgender". "******" and "******" have instant negative connotations and their whole purpose is to be incendiary. "Cisgender" does not.

I mostly avoid the term just to avoid arguments, though.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,025
5,794
118
Country
United Kingdom
Lightknight said:
If it's an insult to most people then it's OK with you but not if it's only against a few?

That's a double standard you're presenting there. Why not just be against offensive terms? Is the goal to offend?
Of course not, that's not my argument. My argument is that "cisgendered" is not primarily an insulting term; nowhere near to the level of those you mentioned.
 

Edl01

New member
Apr 11, 2012
255
0
0
I dislike it honestly. There is nothing wrong with the word itself, however over time it has gained a lot of negative connotations from the way people use it. This is because whenever I see it used it is either to attack somebody for being, "Cis Gendered", or it is being used ironically to mock the people who use the term like that.

Honestly I think at this point people need to either make a new term, or make a concerted effort to use the term in a way that seems like less of an attack. After all a person is never going to accept another group of people if a particuarly loud portion that keeps complaining about, "CIS HET MALE SCUM".
 

someonehairy-ish

New member
Mar 15, 2009
1,949
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
someonehairy-ish said:
The word itself is useful. It's better than having to say 'normal' which can come off as insulting, or 'non-trans', which feels awkward.
If they ask me I always say 'male' or 'straight'.
But neither of those terms communicate the same thing as cisgender?
 

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,370
0
0
First time I heard cis was from the whole "die cis scum" situation. So to me, I see it more as a hate word.