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

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
No I think that a few people see cisgneder as an insulting term, in spite of it having a perfectly applicable definition, and despite having the word having been coined from a clinical standpoint. Also using cisgender as an insulting term is seen as a joke amongst trans people. So I'd assume people who find insult in it are looking for insult.
It's possible that some people were just looking for insult and then successful set of a chain reaction. I wouldn't be surprised if the spark that set the powder keg off was a bigot screaming bloody murder at a "nothing" but successfully set up the notion that it was a slur. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter as long as non-bigots are now offended by it. I have seen significant hatred of the term in the gay community even when combined with orientation. Specifically the Huffington Post article by a gay man that I linked earlier comes to mind. Though from what I'm told there is some serious tension in the Lesbian community towards the Transgender community. So I'm just not sure what to think there. I think it would be presumptive of us both to assume it's all anti-trans people making a fuss about it. But maybe this is how people react towards something they're ignorant of and therefore afraid of? That would beg the question of why other terms like non-trans have been around for far longer and haven't generated anything close to this kind of controversy.

The thing with non-trans for me is that I've seen it used by both sides as an exclusionary term. "Non-trans only", "No non-trans allowed", "Non-trans people are scum", "Being non-trans means there is nothing wrong with me", and so on and so forth. I've seen it used in hostility in person than cisgender used in hostility online. I also avoid twitter and tumblr like the plague so that probably helps. But the big issue with non-trans is it tends to come off as some sort of smug superiority trans people have against cisgender people, because it revolves around the word trans, and kind of elevates one side, or the other. It's just a weird term that way it always seems to favor the side that used it against the side that didn't, at least in my experience.
I don't know if you're transgendered yourself or not. But I sincerely hope that these Neanderthals who would discriminate and harm others would finally learn their lesson. I get the whole "Tribalism" logic of the thing but it is a travesty to see our communities so divided over what really amounts to ignorance and hatred.

Also PaulH made some really good points earlier. One reason to my mind "******" isn't comparable to "cisgender" is that "******" wasn't originally a term used to label gay people, then when it did become a label it was never positive, and it was misused for decades as a slur. Most slurs have history and are words co-opted out of context as hate speech. Using cis in a derogatory sense is co-opting a valid word and misusing it as a pejorative term. Other valid terms we use today like "homosexual" and "black" have been used as pejorative, but still are valid terms.
Black was actually considered a pejorative term for a significant time period and Negro was used instead. This is why Martin Luthor King Jr uses "Negro" in his I Have a Dream speech. It wasn't until the Nation of Islam proponents found Negro offensive that black resurfaced as legitimate for use.

"Homo", just like "Cis" is also deemed to be offensive and Homosexual is also considered to be offensive as something used pretty aggressively by anti-gay proponents wishing to paint the individuals as diseased.

http://www.glaad.org/reference/offensive

They prefer gay or lesbian. In an academic conversation they seem not to care. But in media and general discourse? Gay or lesbian suffice. I guess we both learned something just now (I'd thought there was something about the term but wasn't sure).

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GD6qtc2_AQA/maxresdefault.jpg

So... yeah. We have very similar terms going the exact same way due to how they were used.

A word does not have to be created as a negative term to be used as a negative term. I've given you so many examples of clinical terms that are not inherently negative that were eventually made negative by the context in which they were used. Sometimes just because the word is easy to use along with a sneer ("******" not only wasn't a bad term but is still commonly used in non-US countries. It became an insult in the US due to context even though it was a proper clinical classification of black people back in its day). Man... you can tell I'm American when I flinch every time I type that word. Feel like an asshole just for using it in any context.
 
Jan 27, 2011
3,740
0
0
Meh, don't care.

Unless it's followed by "Should all die", then I don't see the word cisgender as negative, really.

It's a barely necessary label, only saved from the unnecessary label pile by virtue of needing a simple word for "identifies as birth gender" that isn't the word "normal" because that would be kinda offensive to some people.
 

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

Lolita Style, The Best Style!
Jan 12, 2010
2,151
0
0
Lightknight said:
Well being a transgender person to answer your question I have a lot of exposure. I don't think ignorance is the driving force behind the usage of cisgendre and cis as an insulting, I think it's mostly due to trans denial, trans exclusion, and militantly trans people. I have a lot of experience with the fist two, but I've only met one militant trans person. The militants tend to get shunned because they're part of the problem driving transphobia.

Cisgneder isn't as far as I've seen, in real world application, a term used for discrimination, non-trans is. I'll stick with dictionary definition and real world applications as my guide line, rather than kowtow to a few crazies and a sphere of perpetually offended internet dwellers. Also if we're gonna talk words like "******" it's always been used as a dehumanizing pejorative, even clinically, the British used it widely as a pegorative against East Indians in the 17th to 18th century. In the US it's basically a standard term from slavery, segregation and Jim Crow eras. It has a storied history and was never used positively for black people.

Edit: Non-trans/non-transgender is one of those words that ends up putting a weird spin on gender dysphoria and gender identity discussions. Because the focal point is the term trans/transgender it gets weirdly othering in a lot of cases, it probably shouldn't, but it does. Focusing on transgender kind of does exclude which is why I feel and have found that non-trans comes off as exclusionary language.

Finally in terms of GLAAD. They're a visual personal politics group, a lot of trans denial has come from them in the past, so I just flat out refuse to trust them on wording. When it comes to word usage I'll trust a person on their own preferences, I'll use generally what's considered least offensive, or most acceptable. But literally I've offended gay men by referring to them as them gay people when they prefer homosexual. So in short no term is actually "safe" because there is too much bad usage to taint any classifying term.
 

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

Lolita Style, The Best Style!
Jan 12, 2010
2,151
0
0
King Monarch said:
Warining for just saying confused? I said that because I didnt read the thread at all and never heard of the specifics, never ment to offend anyone...so mods...please erase this post and the one before.
Low content posts, like one word ones, are a against the code of conduct. That's what got you warned, not any perceived offense from the post it self.
 

Lightspeaker

New member
Dec 31, 2011
934
0
0
Lightknight said:
]Do you feel like I'm being guilty about this here or like I've been presenting points and counterpoints? I've been trying to carefully word my reasoning here. Not that anything you said has to be about me. I'd just like to know if I'm coming off in that way.
I was more thinking of certain other people here. From my read of the thread a couple of individuals have effectively doing little more than saying "you're wrong to think this" over and over, that's all.


King Monarch said:
Warining for just saying confused? I said that because I didnt read the thread at all and never heard of the specifics, never ment to offend anyone...so mods...please erase this post and the one before.
One-word replies are viewed as spam and tend to get warnings. Its not that you said you were confused, its that its ALL you said.
 

DementedSheep

New member
Jan 8, 2010
2,654
0
0
King Monarch said:
Warining for just saying confused? I said that because I didnt read the thread at all and never heard of the specifics, never ment to offend anyone...so mods...please erase this post and the one before.
It's not because you offended anyone. You got a warning for having a low content post.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/codeofconduct

Edit: hah, well it seems a lot of people on this forum jump to explain that one.
 

King Monarch

New member
May 22, 2015
9
0
0
Ooh, okay...my bad for that. Never heard of cisgender and just skimmed past it, thought it was some 4th or 5th type of new gender, but its just a different word for something else.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Lightknight said:
I've heard it used offensively multiple times. And my anecdotal evidence is equally irrelevant.
Once again, show evidence. Show me proof cis on its own is offensive. I can show you why ****** is pejorative. I can't say the same for cis. But hey, that's not my job to do that. That's your job. Get cracking.

Lightknight said:
More than 50% of the respondents believe that the term is offensive, unnecessary or two unknown of a term to have in place (it would explain why the nearly 8% of respondents don't even know what the term means).
Over 50% of the thread think it's unnecessary. That's perfectly fine. Unnecessary doesn't = bad. And I'm willing to bet it's 'unnecessary' because, gee whizz ... they might not be trans. Would I be on the money there, you reckon?

Just because you're in a majority doesn't mean you get to co-opt language and we just have to like it. You see why this is a problem in my eyes, don't you?

You'll also forgive me if I find it occasionally useful. Still do.


Lightknight said:
Regardless, even with the numbers clearly stacked against the term here I don't think the escapist is necessarily a legitimate sample demographic. These kinds of polls are for a local community inquiry and may not even be representative of the community depending on certain factors including sufficient randomization of the sample (people who know and care about the term are more likely to respond which skews the results). Is the escapist representative of the internet community as a whole? Is this poll representative of the Escapist community? Don't know.
And I don't give a fuck in geeral what the internet thinks. The internet is a cesspool, where words last years and without proper situational context. Does the word get used as a pejorative (at all?) offline? No? Then I don't give a fuck.

Lightknight said:
You're demanding a red herring ...
No, I'm asking for proof. Pretty basic. I can prove that ****** is offensive on its own. I can prove how ******, or tranny is offensive on its own. I have yet to find a case where 'cis' is inherently offensive. You say it's offensive, therefore you have the burden of proof to show me how it can be.

Lightknight said:
It doesn't matter if the word itself is a pejorative. All that matters is that the term is deemed as offensive.
Really? by who? Most people don't find it offensive. Poll up there buddy.


Lightknight said:
I need you to prove that a term has to be inherently offensive to be considered offensive. The burden of that proof is on you.
No, you're the one telling me to change a perfectly functional word which people, according to the poll, don't find offensive. This is all on your buddy. You're the one telling me to change a word that's been around before English, and only means on its own people who have not experienced gender dysphoria.

If you find that offenssive, you have to show me proof where it serves as a common insult to other cis people, or shame or ridicule them in some way. You're the one telling me I do this on the rare occasions when I use the word cis with friends.

Lightknight said:
Right, so you took offense at the term and it was changed. You also had your reasons for it but don't give me this "thicker skin" crap when it is clearly apparent that we all have the same thickness of skin and offensive terms hurt us one and all.
Really? Because it seems to me that I'm not the one trying to tell trans people what words they can use.

Lightknight said:
Gender Identity Disorder and Gender Dysphoria are synonyms. The whole intention of dropping the disorder was to help normalize transgenderism. Now, I quite agree with the decision to change the term. But it was absolutely done out of consideration for the offense it caused and the outspokenness of the community regarding it. Something I'm totally in favor of but is the same sort of thing you're now fighting against for unforeseen reasons.
I'm fighting against it now? How? Dysphoria makes sense ... also, the old GID had criterion that made trans people 'clinically' disordered simply for being trans. No longer. That was 'othering' and treating people as disordered for no reason. That's pretty horrific case of othering right there.

Now prove to me how 'cis' is even close to that.

Lightknight said:
How is carpet-muncher and inherently offensive term? Yeah, lesbians perform oral sex. That's a fact of the matter and not inherently offensive. Instead, it is used in an offensive manner.
Proof? FOr every occasion you can find cis used 'badly', I can find you ten times where it is used with no connotation of dislike.

Lightknight said:
Words don't have to be inherently bad. They just have be used offensively and then perceived that way. Hell, they don't even necessarily have to be used offensively. Perception is the only thing that matters. If you think using the pronoun he or she is offensive the its rude to use the term towards you. Simple as that. They do not have to be bad by themselves. If people take of offense to terms like Cishet because they think it sounds like Cis Shit then that's their prerogative.
How? Like, really. How?

Lightknight said:
Advocating for the use of non-trans instead of cistrans silences dialogue? Do explain why the substitution of a term stops dialogue?
A: Because it sounds stupid.

B: It's not nearly as descriptive as you pretend it to be

C: Because it has no pejorative value.

Lightknight said:
Are you saying that you believe the people largely against the term are doing so out of bigotry towards transgendered individuals? While I'm absolutely sure there's some truth to that you've got a steep uphill battle of proving that it's true with the majority of the group. It's pretty presumptive on your part.
So you agree that the majority of the people who find it offensive likely don't see trans people beyond a bigoted lens ... but you pretend the majority of use concerning cis is somehow pejorative? Why?

Lightknight said:
If the basis you're holding to is that you believe people are only offended at Cis because trans people can have a dialogue using it then I'd understand you holding to the term and would wield it myself too. If that were true then to continue using "Cis" would be to strike back at bigots which I'm sure most of us here would be perfectly fine with. I mean seriously. Bigot's? Fuck em. I'm not being sarcastic here. So much pain and needless anguish visited upon society and culture due to their ineptness at behaving like decent human beings. If I believed this to be true then I wouldn't be here posting.
I don't use it like that ... As I said before ... I'd call them a '****' ... cis is actually useful if you're trans. If only with other trans people. That's the only place you'll confront it offline. And people pretending like it represents hatred or whatever garbage do just seem to be the types telling me what I can say.

Do you understand what that's like?

All the trans people here are telling you that it's not a pejorative. All the times cis is used online? The grand majority wouldn't be 'offensive' ... yet you have a group of people who are telling us what we're allowed to say on frankly BS charges of it being a 'slur'. A term that neither others us, perfectly describes our opposite (without the overlap of 'non-trans', which is nowhere near contained as you think it is) ... You'll forgive me, but this just seems another exercise by people to other us, or marginalize how we speak and how we are in relation to others.

Seems pretty thinly veiled to me. But hey, we're used to having garbage thrown at us. The difference is that when you start dictating to us how we should speak? Yeah ... not going to put up with it. Frankly, we struggle to get off the lowest rung in society enough ... dictating wht we can say, so that your can manufacture more hatred of us? Yeah, why should we put up with that? Anybody that would pitch this line. Non-trans doesn't work. It also has the problem of making certain cisgender people no longer cisgender.

Which is bad enough. But the principle that people are allowed to manufacture a narrative if only to police how we express our relations to others? Why exactly should we stand for that?


Lightknight said:
No, cissexual was coined in 1995 by Volkmar Sigusch. Cisgender came later.
Actually, cisgender arose on the internet back in the old altnet chat rooms of '95. So, no... also, how [i[exactly[/i] does this diminish or improve a word? English is great, it invents new words all the time.

Lightknight said:
Interestingly enough, the gay community has had significant issues with the term "Cis" as well. They are perhaps the most offended by it even when care is taken to include the orientation with the term.
You'll forgive me, but the gay community doesn't, in general, act very supportive of trans people, so why exactly would this be surprising for me? The greatest opposition to transgender rights in the West has been from gay and lesbian camps. So, doesn't that just hurt your argument that people aren't merely trying to find reasons to try to other trans people by any means necessary, including manufactured hatred of a 'slur' that isn't a slur?



Lightknight said:
"******" means black person. How is that inherently offensive except due to context?
Really? You're comparing cis to ******? Once again, you have the burden of proof to show how cis is a slur. Not me. Honestly, no ... walk me through the steps why you think the two are comparable? Because at the moment it feels like you're just clutching at straws here. I want you to show me the mechanics of how you arrived to this situation of equating ****** with cis.

Lightknight said:
A lack of language isn't the same as using offensive language. Why do you think the distinction is irrelevant?
Because no one would say that, that's why.

Lightknight said:
What? Have I offended you?
You've 'offended' me now. Bad faith much? Either quote me properly, or we're done. You damn well know that that part of what I wrote correlated to whether or not someone pissed me off. Which is likely why you didn't bother to quote me on the points I made underneath. Either quote my meaning, or we're done. I'm allowed to call you a tool. I'm allowed to call you a shitlord. I'm not going to call you a 'cis fucker' ... that sounds stupid and so divorced from reality.

Lightknight said:
I think you misunderstood what I meant. Let's give an example:

Let's say I know a transgendered female named Natalie. I do, and she's one of the biggest reasons why I care about the topic of transgenderism. Now, obviously her preferred pronoun is "she" or "her".

Now, I understand this but my dilemma is (or was, I've since changed my mind on the matter thanks to my conversations with people here), I knew and became friends with Natalie when she was Jonathan. I wrestled with him (Jonathan) in Highschool and have quite a masculine foundation of him in my mind. So when I'm talking about Natalie I'm potentially prone to slipping and saying "him" or "he". This slipping would not only cause Natalie pain, but would get me called "****" but others like you just pointed out and least of all, would conflict with my internal semantics view on what pronouns mean.
If you slipped up, I wouldn't call you a shithead. But I would call you a shithead if you purposefully misgendered me, or outed me, when you profess to be my friend ... or hell, even a basic acquaintance. Someone I have to work with. WHy should I have to put up with your garbage in my life?

Lightknight said:
Why not use "Cis fucker" or call them ignorant cis scum? "Die" is a bit much.
Because cis isn't an insult? If I want to insult someone, I'll insult someone.

Lightknight said:
Die cis scum wasn't meant as a slur to be used against people so much as a concept that became offensive and spun off into using cis as an insult in other ways. Usually to imply bigotry against trans persons.
WHo gives a shit? One phrase is not enough to tarnish how it is used 99.999999999999999999999% of the time.

In fact, I'm sure any other qualifier or race, identity or sexuality has been dragged through the mud far more than 'cis' EVER will.
 

WonkyWarmaiden

New member
Jun 15, 2010
189
0
0
I dunno, I've seen plenty of assholes online use the term in a tone of clear revulsion that's reserved for pointing out that one has just stepped in dog poop. Really though, thinking about it, it's just a cheap insult for unimaginative people on the internet to use. To me it's become a negative term but I don't see a reason it should change just because dumb fucks on the internet decided to adopt it as their go-to 'slur' for people they dislike.