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

[Mong0]

Considering how often I've seen it used to dismiss the beliefs of people someone disagrees with, often in a sort of smug and self righteous way, I'm going to say that I think its insulting. That doesn't mean that needs to stop being used though; sticks and stones and all that.

Do you blame all tools for the way they're sometimes used?

I'll change my opinion of it when I start to hear it used properly; something that I've yet to experience even once.

Do you base all of your opinions only on your own personal experiences? I mean... that seems kind of untenable to me.

Yes, I do. I also recognize that it need not be an insult, but the OP asked how I felt about it, not what I thought that it was. Additionally, a words association with such use is precisely how they become derogatory. Unless you're willing to defend words like retard on the same grounds, then you're not being entirely consistent.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Its just spite, isn't it? It was a term coined out of spite because people kept calling non-trans people "Normal"

I dunno...its kinda like physically handicapped people coining a derogatory term for people with working legs or all their fingers. Like I get it can piss handicapped off to not be considered normal, but surely the whole point of the term 'handicapped' is to imply they can't do at least one normal, usually every day task like walking or something. Not to put too fine a point on this, but that is why we differentiate between the handicapped and the non handicapped.

I get that trans people don't like getting their feelings hurt; no one does. But it is an abnormal psychological(and occasionally physical) condition. Its not bad! There's nothing wrong with it at all! But the average human being is not trans. So to coin a whole new term when the words normal or average work perfectly well...

I see no reason for the term outside of insults.

 

[templar1138a]

Well, the opinion I have on the term isn't in your poll. The term requires some getting used to, but it is correct, and that's good enough for me. And I sometimes have to state it quite openly when dealing with people - cis or trans - who seem to take issue with my being a straight, cisgendered male.

As I see it, there are a number of people who seem to be of the opinion that you're either a gender-fluid pansexual or you're a bigot. They don't understand that there's a difference between tolerance and total embracing. I wish I could find a video clip of the South Park episode where Mr. Garrison explains that difference. The gist of it: Just because you tolerate something doesn't mean you have to like it. You tolerate a baby crying in the seat next to you on an airplane. Honestly, trans people make me uncomfortable on a base level, but I'm alright with the distinction between trans and cis and recognize the rights of both.

The only issue I have with the terms as they are is that they're clunky and difficult to shorten. "Tranny" is now considered an insulting slur (does no one remember "shemale"?), so you can't say that. Honestly, I wouldn't care if someone were to refer to me as a "Cissy" if I could say "Tranny" in the same everyday tone in which people say "gay".

 

[Yan007]

For me, cisgender is just a pompous way of saying normal.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

While the word has been weaponized (like a lot of words have), I don't see what the big deal is. I understand that not many lay people would know what the heck the word means, it's not likely to come up outside of transgender discussions and its a perfectly serviceable word in that context.

I mean, while I don't really consider myself "normal" (I'm cis, but my hair is blue and my daughter's name is Tali'Zorah, so yeah) I can understand completely how any person wouldn't want to be described or discussed in a way that frames them as "abnormal". The words "normal" and "abnormal" don't really have intrinsic positive or negative connotations, but humanity and the reality of language means that people are going to (justifiably) be upset by them.

I, as a white man, see "cisgender" as being less insulting than "gringo" or "cracker", and in almost every non-derogatory context it should be as insulting as the word "straight". There's always going to be psychos who type "die cis scum" in all caps, and there's a lot of psychos who ruin a lot of things for a lot of people. Transgender people deserve to have a way to discuss people who aren't transgender without insulting themselves or feeling uncomfortable, and I can't imagine getting offended at the word applying to me when used in such a context.

 

[MHR]

It's not needed. What the hell is wrong with "straight?"

People will understandably get annoyed when being described with strange new terms that off-handedly have a passive-aggressive connotation when there were perfectly good ways to describe them before. Why even start? It's a stupid abbreviation/acronym anyway, why can't we use normal words to describe things still? To be politically correct or start a conversation other people don't even care to have? That comes off as nothing by annoying.

No joking, I'm straight, my brother is gay, my father is gay (yes really, it was the classic case of marry to hide being gay drama,) and since I've met most of my friends through my brother, almost 80% of my friends are gay, and my brother's boy/girl/whatever friend once was even pre-trans. I'm surrounded by gaywads, but I think everyone is perfectly equal. However they all know better than to unironically start with that cringe-worthy SJW shit. I would probably unfriend them for being annoying.

 

[Lost In The Void]

It's a word that has an actual definition that isn't offensive, used by some to insult other people and ultimately as someone who pretty much ticks every box on the Tumblr's hate list, I couldn't care less if it's used. Seriously as far as its use as an insult, I work in the trades, I'm called worse as a fucking greeting. Assholes are assholes, doesn't mean that a good word should be thrown away. Ultimately it makes sense as a term. Is it overused? You're goddamn right it is, but the internet seems to love overusing its word of the hour so honestly it's to be expected. To those who are cis, guess what, you are cis just as you might be gay or straight or asexual or fucking whatever and to those, trans or cis or whatfucking ever, using it as a way to attack or belittle, don't be pricks. Move the fuck on.

As for people saying 'what's wrong with straight?' Are you trying to come off as ignorant or are you actually ignorant? Because seriously.

Spoiler: Take it away Spaniard

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I think people who are insulted by the term cis are insulted by the vanishingly few who use it to insult people (And given I associate with a few trans people online and off, it fails to be a pejorative in the lingua franca of transgender cultural language). Words have a duality, passive and aggressive. I use it heaps, with my trans and cis friends who use it as an easy way to determine who and what people we're talking about.

It has far greater utility than any other word, and 'normal' doesn't even cover it. People who say 'normal' fits ... really? The argument being mostly from people commenting either from homosexual or cisgender backgrounds... but fails to actually properly delineate people into true descriptors of being in a useable social context. Often times, I've never ran across a person, IRL, who has a problem with me using cisgender. Mainly because I've never used it as a pejorative. It seems like the people who do think it's a pejorative, by nature, are the people who don't seem to have trans friends to begin with. It's a quick word. It's an easy word.

It also strikes me as a little Gay Liberation Front-ish back in the 80s. When they tried to just say that trans people were confused gay people, and tried to absorb their identity as automatic support during the HRC-pushed AGENDA bill back when LGBT rights were a hot button thing across numerous US States.

The problem was that the HRC backstabbed the trans community, and the Gay Liberation Front tried to pull that shit of "You're just confused gay people who should be happy that the HRC is fighting for gay rights (only)." The thing is, I see such rhetoric here in the forums. The continued delineation tha trans and gay are somehow the same in some contexts of meaning, when people push for this idea of 'normal' and 'abnormal' delineations.

Utterly refusing to see how a trans person does not necessarily, by dint of being trans, have a normative sense or idea of sexuality. Plenty of evidence out there that show being trans does not have any correlation with sexuality, therefore like you have 'gay and straight', you need trans and cis.

If you were to drop 'cis' and choose another word ... the same people would likely have a problem with that, also. Another case of normativity of the norm. Which strikes me as childish and overbearing over how a trans person must relate to the world around them. It's not a slur. No more or less than 'straight' is a slur.

 

[Sandjube]

Unfortunately these days my knee jerk reaction is to associate it with radical tumblr people and instantly get annoyed, but I can see how it could be a useful term to differentiate between transgender and...well, cisgender people. As long as it's not prefaced by "die" and followed by "scum" I can swallow it I guess.

 

[MHR]

...Because "Straight" is the opposite of "Gay", and neither have anything to do with "Trans"? I mean... at a guess at least.

Gay is gay, trans is trans (or whatever you want other people to call you,) and straight is straight.

I would see the point of inventing a new word like "cis" if the only other way to describe most people was "normal," since that implies bad things of everyone who isn't, but we do have the word "straight." A new confusing term laden with bad connotations that nobody even knows is not needed, and is annoying.

The only purpose with wide-appeal I can see for it really is to invent a term specifically for ridicule. You can't ridicule someone for being normal or straight or comfortable with the way they are with a buzzword, "straighty" or "normy" just makes you look dumber, and "hetero" barely passes. So, really, calling someone Cis scum makes sense in that context only to people that don't frequent the term in polite conversation. You aren't making any friends with it, and you never will.

 

[DementedSheep]

...Because "Straight" is the opposite of "Gay", and neither have anything to do with "Trans"? I mean... at a guess at least.

Gay is gay, trans is trans (or whatever you want other people to call you,) and straight is straight.

I would see the point of inventing a new word like "cis" if the only other way to describe most people was "normal," since that implies bad things of everyone who isn't, but we do have the word "straight." A new confusing term (an acronym no less) laden with bad connotations that nobody even knows is not needed, and is annoying.

The only purpose with wide-appeal I can see for it really is to invent a term specifically for ridicule. You can't ridicule someone for being normal or straight or comfortable with the way they are with a buzzword, "straighty" or "normy" just makes you look dumber, and "hetero" barely passes. So, really, calling someone Cis scum makes sense in that context only to people that don't frequent the term in polite conversation. You aren't making any friends with it, and you never will.

Straight is to heterosexual what gay is to homosexual. As Aelinsaar said it has nothing do with being trans. You are not either gay, trans or straight because trans is not a sexual orientation. You can be trans and straight or cis and gay. The term being used is cis because in Latin cis is the opposite of trans (cis= on this side, trans= on the other side). There is no insult in it.

 

[MHR]

Well then I suppose it does work perfectly as a descriptor using pre-established latin (I had been told it was an acronym, but for the same meaning.)

It's still not going to work as a polite descriptor with the majority of people. Not unless someone forces it with a lawsuit and companies have to start saying it to avoid frivolous discrimination suits, and the term gets put on the news.

People will say "not trans," the somewhat ignorant will say "straight" and the insensitive will say "normal."

Everything's going to have its technical shorthand though. Most people won't know it, and for the most part, they won't need to, especially if the point gets accross.

 

[Deathmageddon]

All the 50 million made up genders to which "cisgender" doesn't apply make up about 1% of the population in total. I don't think we need to make that big a deal out of the default setting. From what I can tell, it's just one more word that progressives use to ignore facts based on the least interesting or relevant attributes of the person delivering them. Just when I thought straight, white and male covered everything, lol.

 

[Lodgem]

I think that cis may be useful when talking about transgender issues, but I doubt that it will ever become mainstream since the vast majority of the population are cis. Anyone who uses it should probably get used to having to define it when it's used outside the forums where trans issues are normally discussed.

As far as the word cis being used as an insult, I find that completely irrelevant. Anything can be taken and used as an insult by someone. The problem is with the attitude of the person using the word, not the word itself.

Remember, words don't hurt people, people with words hurt people.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Because I never heard of the term before, I think it sounds a bit silly. Not to mention I have only heard it used as an insult or ironically, so that didn't help its image either.

 

[AwesomeHatMan]

So what do you all think? Discuss!

-----

Then again I once heard a trans person use "cishet scum" unironically against a person and even I was offended by that. Seriously I wanted to smack that woman for saying that.

Hi Kyuubi, thank you for your response on the other thread, apologies if I go in a bit of a different direction to what you intended because the term is intrinsically related to the definition. To be cis or transgender, there must be use of gender.

The whole scum thing is problem what has caused the most immediate hate of the term. I am glad you are not like that woman.

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.

(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.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I don't know anyone who uses the term and the first time I got exposed to it was in a southpark episode.


It's not a real thing, it's something internet people have made up. I try to keep internet life and real life separate.


Basically it's like trying to say "normal" but without offending all the various other people by implying they're abnormal. However my feeling on the matter is that normal is boring and abnormal is interesting. I'm not what one defines as normal in most other aspects of myself so I can attest to how much fun it is to not pass as normal in everything you do. People don't know what to expect of you when you're not normal and thus you get to surprise and intrigue them. It's awesome.

 

[SmallHatLogan]

Well "normal" can come off as a being bit alienating (and is just too broad a term anyway), "straight" doesn't even apply in context and "not trans" is a bit clunky. And as people have said cis is already the opposite of trans in other contexts so I don't see why it shouldn't apply here.

I voted for don't care in the poll just because it's a term that I almost never think about. Outside of discussions about trans people on the internet I've never even encountered it. I'm pretty sure that the majority of people I know in real life wouldn't know what it means.

 

[Zhukov]

It's just a way to say "normal" without the nasty little implication that anything else is abnormal and therefore gross.

I personally don't have a problem with it, although I don't see it becoming common usage any time soon.

 

[KenAri]

You keep making these threads on pronouns and whatever, and every time the conclusion is the same; nobody cares enough to get it right. There are far more important things in the world than what some human somewhere on earth would like to be referred to as.

The more names people keep coming up with, the further and further away from everybody just being 'human' we go. Just call people people because nobody gives a damn about snowflakes.

Post reads slightly angrily, but that wasn't the intention; apologies.

EDIT: Voted 'Don't care enough', to clarify.