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

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
16,197
1,756
118
necromanzer52 said:
I think the issue some people can have with it is that a cisgender person can't really understand what it means to identify as a gender. As in, I don't really identify as a bloke, I just sort of "am" one. It's more of an absence of gender dysphoria than the opposite of it.
Yeah, this sort of problem crops up all the time. People who are in whatever society deems the norm in one aspect tend not to even notice there is an aspect that there is a norm for, because that's just the way it is, and is something they can take for granted.
 

Areloch

It's that one guy
Dec 10, 2012
623
0
0
Aelinsaar said:
CommanderL said:
Just use the word normal

I dont mean to be a prick
but people who are attracted to the oppistate sex and see themself as the gender they are born in are the norm

we are the default factory settings
On average, 1% of the human population is Schizophrenic. .5%-2% are Psychopaths. ~5%-10% are not straight. .1%-.2% are intersex at birth, requiring medical intervention.

I could go on.
Major mental illnesses: paraphelias, OCD-spectrum issues, major depression, etc... etc...

Sorry, "Normal" is a fiction, unless you're being unusually technical and are referring to a Normal Distribution.
I enjoy that you list several things, but all of them are stark minorities.

You do understand the basic notion of 'normal' or 'the norm', yes? Obviously, "normal" is contexted to what you're discussing.

In terms of heterosexuality, it is 'normal', while homosexuality is not, because it's a small comparative minority. However, inside the context of homosexuality, other aspects ARE normal, because they are the norm.

In context of mental illnesses, .5-2% are psychopaths. Which means that 98-99.5% are not. Therefore, being a psychopath is not normal.

Attempting to obfuscate the terminology of 'normal' by appropriating all non-normal states en mass is an incredibly weak argument.
 

Kristoffer

New member
Apr 22, 2015
22
0
0
I'm sure it works fine in a context where there's a need to contrast cisgendered and transgendered, but it is currently being used to insult "cis white male".

It's also confusing as f, I never heard of the term until I came across raging femonazis online.
 

ObserverStatus

New member
Aug 27, 2014
147
0
0
I don't see why people are so mad. Calling someone cisgendered is like calling someone bald. I mean sure, there are times when it is pointless or even rude to point it out, but it's certainly not a slur or anything and has an important role in our language.
 

Areloch

It's that one guy
Dec 10, 2012
623
0
0
Aelinsaar said:
Areloch said:
Aelinsaar said:
CommanderL said:
Just use the word normal

I dont mean to be a prick
but people who are attracted to the oppistate sex and see themself as the gender they are born in are the norm

we are the default factory settings
On average, 1% of the human population is Schizophrenic. .5%-2% are Psychopaths. ~5%-10% are not straight. .1%-.2% are intersex at birth, requiring medical intervention.

I could go on.
Major mental illnesses: paraphelias, OCD-spectrum issues, major depression, etc... etc...

Sorry, "Normal" is a fiction, unless you're being unusually technical and are referring to a Normal Distribution.
I enjoy that you list several things, but all of them are stark minorities.

You do understand the basic notion of 'normal' or 'the norm', yes? Obviously, "normal" is contexted to what you're discussing.

In terms of heterosexuality, it is 'normal', while homosexuality is not, because it's a small comparative minority. However, inside the context of homosexuality, other aspects ARE normal, because they are the norm.

In context of mental illnesses, .5-2% are psychopaths. Which means that 98-99.5% are not. Therefore, being a psychopath is not normal.

Attempting to obfuscate the terminology of 'normal' by appropriating all non-normal states en mass is an incredibly weak argument.
Actually, the only way that "Normal" can stand as a state is if it represents the mean of a normal distribution. If your 98%-99.5% of non-psychopaths aren't Non-alcoholic, non-pedophile, non-intersex, non-schizophrenic, "not from 'round here"... all of the other things society DEFINITELY treats as abnormal...
...then they're not "Normal".

What you're arguing for is a slightly intellectualized version of the Nuclear Family notion. You COULD talk about "Normal Sexual Orientation", in terms of the normal mean, but you're not... and people don't. You almost NEVER hear the word, "Normal" or "Abnormal" qualified by people making the argument you do.
So your argument is apparently that context to the topic is irrelevent when unassociated third-party factors may ALSO be a non-normal state?
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
It has its place (in discussions of transgender issues and social gender identity). But I have a sense that it's over-used, and wrongly used to insult or attempt to put others on the defensive. On the whole, I have a certain sense that one has a right to define how they describe themselves, and to a degree how others describe them. But when you seek the right to define how others describe themselves, you're overstepping.
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,257
0
0
I find it a bit unnecessary, but it's not like it's used commonly enough to bother me. I've never heard it in real life apart from when me or friends joke about Tumblrite "cis-scum" beauties.

Man, Woman, and Trans-X works well enough for me (though I'm sure that's terrible to do so).
 

necromanzer52

New member
Mar 19, 2009
1,464
0
0
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
When it comes right down to it, to actually understand what being transgender is, you'd have to experience it, and it's not something I'd ever want to wish on someone. It's not a "pick from these" situation to my mind, it's more "this is how I identify myself, and this is what I want to project to the world." I hope that helps.
Ok, I have a question on this. Why do you feel like you have to "project to the world" rather than just being you and letting the world think whatever it wants to think?

AwesomeHatMan said:
I personally dislike it when people refer to me as "cis-gender". This is both because I dislike the concept of gender and because I don't identify as my sex, nor the other sex, nor neither sex, I don't identify as anything, I simply am my sex. I don't really understand what identifying as transgender is supposed to mean. I am frequently told that it means "What you identify as" which doesn't help my understanding because I don't know what it means to "identify" as something. I am also told "that one's sex feels wrong" which I can understand and I refer to as dysphoria. I consider it similar to body integrity identity disorder. I believe that people who experience dysphoria or BIID truly do feel that their body parts shouldn't be part of them and its sad that people feel uncomfortable with their bodies.
I fully support people breaking traditional gender roles, be it in terms of hair, make-up, clothing, choice of occupation, social activites, who pays for a date, whatever. If a man wants to grow his hair long, put on lipstick, wear a dress and learn belly dancing while he's not at work as a secretary he should feel free to and all power to him.
I feel like the concept of defining one's gender is restrictive as to me it seems almost like saying "pick one of these options for a set of gender roles which you then have to follow". The idea that one should define their personality by the sex that they would like to be is wrong because one should not have to restrict their personality in such a way nor should there be a "right" personality for a certain sex.

I support the usage of the terms dysphoric/non-dysphoric.
lunavixen said:
(EDITED)
I'm not cisgender (I'm pretty sure I'm genderqueer, I don't really identify as female, but I don't identify as male either), but I have no problem with people using the term. To be honest, I find cisgender less offensive than "normal" as a term because "normal" implies that those that aren't, need fixing.
Hi lunavixen,
I'd be interested to hear whether you identify as a tertiary option and/or if you identify as not being male/female. I would also be interested to hear if you feel like the cis/trans nomenclature makes you feel like you are confronted with a binary option.

--
Best wishes to both of you.
PS If one was to use the word transgender, then cisgender is the correct choice for an antonym.
Don't you love those moments where someone explains exactly how you feel about something. I really can't wrap my head around the idea of identifying as a gender. I've always felt like I could be comfortable as either sex because I don't really see that there's enough of a difference between them to make a fuss about it.

I guess what I'm saying is, well...take it away, Bruce.
 

CaptainMarvelous

New member
May 9, 2012
869
0
0
Dismal purple said:
Cis is a sweet word. When I was participating in trans discussion forums it was really awkward to have no word for people who aren't trans. We would say "heterosexual" instead of cis which was stupid and made us look like we were part of an exclusionary "NO HETEROSEXUALS ALLOWED" LGBT club.

Cis and trans dichotomy is the exact linguistic equivalent to homo and hetero and has no drawbacks at all. This is probably why it hasn't stirred up much of a controversy so far.
Point of order, Cis means this side, Trans means that side, it doesn't make a lick of sense since trans- is derived from TRANSport or TRANSform as in to move or locate to the side you want to be on which is why I think Cis- is a stupid ass prefix.

I think Statisexual/Statigender, derived from the root word for being stationary works a shit ton better because it a) doesn't mean you define gender as 'this' and 'that' since it means on a transgender forum a 'cis' person is 'trans' as you're on the outside b) relates to why you use the word trans and c) is a word that makes sense even if you don't know the term since static is a far more common word.

But that's just my opinion, the linquistic dichotomy I think misses the point by a wide-streak.
 

viranimus

Thread killer
Nov 20, 2009
4,952
0
0
Its origination, intention and usage are that of a pejorative.

I think what people seem to miss on this is that it is a terminology concocted FOR a group of people of which did not request, need or have any part of the creation of the term. That illustrates its pejorative nature. It is not a term that this group of people use, its only use is by those who are not a part of that group to refer to said group.

It does not matter if it is rationalized as being a scientific, sterile or non offensive term, its context and usage make it bigoted and offensive. It is no different than the term Negro having similar roots from being a more polite form, that rooted in Latin. The word itself is not offensive, it is the manner in which people use the word that makes it offensive. There is no difference here because the term was originated in a pejorative context and its usage is that of a pejorative context.

So its just another form of hate speech, not due to the literal definition of it, but due to the context of its use. The only difference is that in context it is hate speech against a group that is socially acceptable to hate. Otherwise it would be the kindling to set off a fire storm of politically correct outrage.

Perhaps professor Carlin can explain it more eloquently than I.


Got to love this faux enlightened world we live in.
 

lowtech redneck

New member
Sep 19, 2014
61
0
0
In common use, its generally a way of declaring allegiance to and/or promoting an irrational 'anti-heteronormative' mindset that is itself a gross overreaction to an equally irrational 'trans-gendered are immoral and should be kept miserable for my piece of mind' mindset.
 

Areloch

It's that one guy
Dec 10, 2012
623
0
0
Aelinsaar said:
Areloch said:
Aelinsaar said:
Areloch said:
Aelinsaar said:
CommanderL said:
Just use the word normal

I dont mean to be a prick
but people who are attracted to the oppistate sex and see themself as the gender they are born in are the norm

we are the default factory settings
On average, 1% of the human population is Schizophrenic. .5%-2% are Psychopaths. ~5%-10% are not straight. .1%-.2% are intersex at birth, requiring medical intervention.

I could go on.
Major mental illnesses: paraphelias, OCD-spectrum issues, major depression, etc... etc...

Sorry, "Normal" is a fiction, unless you're being unusually technical and are referring to a Normal Distribution.
I enjoy that you list several things, but all of them are stark minorities.

You do understand the basic notion of 'normal' or 'the norm', yes? Obviously, "normal" is contexted to what you're discussing.

In terms of heterosexuality, it is 'normal', while homosexuality is not, because it's a small comparative minority. However, inside the context of homosexuality, other aspects ARE normal, because they are the norm.

In context of mental illnesses, .5-2% are psychopaths. Which means that 98-99.5% are not. Therefore, being a psychopath is not normal.

Attempting to obfuscate the terminology of 'normal' by appropriating all non-normal states en mass is an incredibly weak argument.
Actually, the only way that "Normal" can stand as a state is if it represents the mean of a normal distribution. If your 98%-99.5% of non-psychopaths aren't Non-alcoholic, non-pedophile, non-intersex, non-schizophrenic, "not from 'round here"... all of the other things society DEFINITELY treats as abnormal...
...then they're not "Normal".

What you're arguing for is a slightly intellectualized version of the Nuclear Family notion. You COULD talk about "Normal Sexual Orientation", in terms of the normal mean, but you're not... and people don't. You almost NEVER hear the word, "Normal" or "Abnormal" qualified by people making the argument you do.
So your argument is apparently that context to the topic is irrelevent when unassociated third-party factors may ALSO be a non-normal state?
Not even a little, but it's exciting to think that someone could go so far astray in the English language.
And now that you're in the smug superiority replies stage instead of actual counter points, I guess we're done here.

Have a good day.
 

viranimus

Thread killer
Nov 20, 2009
4,952
0
0
Aelinsaar said:
Lovely video of a man who would laugh in your face aside, other than repeatedly CLAIMING it's hate speech, with its origin in hate speech... you don't actually SUPPORT that claim.

Do you have any support, or was this just a rant?
Context my friend. Just like the assertion of my points boil down to a rant, when it originates with someone whos short post history indicates an incredible focus and undeniable bias on trans subject matter points. The assumption of what a dead man would think, despite the whole routine being about complaining about the softening, mutilation and outright butchery of the English language to compensate for the fact people seemingly have lost the capacity to cope with reality. It calls into question the accuracy of the judgmental assessment when it drips with taking personal offense at the suggestion of it in the first place. Perhaps if it were not viewed with such open hostility and defiance, there would be no need to support what is obviously already right there simply because it does not support personal perspectives.

But you need not concern with me, as I see you have already have more than enough previously lit fires to contend with.
 

K12

New member
Dec 28, 2012
943
0
0
Personally I feel weird using the term but am fine with there being a word that means "non-trans-gendered" that people can use when they want to. I don't talk about transgender things very often because I'm not transgender and don't know anyone who is (as far as I know) but if your are and do then fine.

There are a lot of words that are unnecessary within the conversations I tend to have but I wouldn't claim that this means they aren't useful to other people. What are the other options? "Straight" doesn't mean the same thing. "Normal" could too easily sound judgemental and "non-trans-gender" is rather clunky.
 

Pseudonym

Regular Member
Legacy
Feb 26, 2014
802
8
13
Country
Nederland
As far as I'm aware it means something like 'somebody who identifies as/feels comfortable with the gender identity that is ussually ascribed to them as a result of their sex'. This as opposed to people who are not born with a clear sex, who are born with one sex but identify with or would like to be the of the other sex, etc. It is a perfectly fine word. Some people might use it as some kind of ad hom but that is not a fault of the word itself so much as it is the fault of people making ad homs.
 

Beliyal

Big Stupid Jellyfish
Jun 7, 2010
503
0
0
CaptainMarvelous said:
Point of order, Cis means this side, Trans means that side, it doesn't make a lick of sense since trans- is derived from TRANSport or TRANSform as in to move or locate to the side you want to be on which is why I think Cis- is a stupid ass prefix.
Actually, "trans" is not derived from "transport"; "transport" is derived from Latin "trans" meaning "across/the other side" and "porto" meaning "I carry" (portare in infinitive). Similarly, "transform" also comes from Latin, where "forma" means "form/shape". You may not like the prefix cis for whatever reason, but here we are.

Seeing as trans- and cis- are already in use in other ways to denote opposites (for example, in the past in geography (Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul), now in chemistry with cis and trans isomers), it makes sense to use them here as well. You can blame the Romans :p

I'm fine with the term, it's neat and simple for when it is necessary to make the distinction.