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

[Zefar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

First time I heard cis was from the whole "die cis scum" situation. So to me, I see it more as a hate word.

 

[Britisheagle]

Can I not just be "male" or "female"? I don't get it. If I was a transgender I would want to be indeitified as the sex I had gone through all the effort of becoming physically.

I think it is ok if you were in a talk with loads of people who identified themselves as trans to help differentiate, other than that I think it is complete and utter bollocks.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

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?

They communicate how I feel about myself, which is more than enough.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I say it's getting parodied more often than actually getting used. Whenever I read cis______ it's usually along the lines of someone going "ur raping my culture you cisscum shitlord lolol tumblr is weird". I can't remember actually seeing someone use cis- in a conversation without making fun of Tumblr culture or something of the like.

And it's straight up not used outside the internet. So I don't know, I just know on the Internet it's sort of become a joke term.

 

[Edl01]

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".

So.. because you can say "Gay" or "Straight" In the context of, "That straight guy," AND "That straight **** over there..."... just get rid of the word? I don't think you actually said anything real after, " I dislike it honestly". The rest isn't really a sound argument against it, but it IS a sound expression of your perceptions, which lead to dislike of it.

It's a shame that as a society, we've learned to confuse preference and opinion, with a point.

That's not what I said at all. The word, "straight", is used in a positive context as you use in your example fact is the word Cis has become toxic. It is primarily used to attack people on both sides of the transgender debate rather than to further any discussion.

The fact is it isn't just, "my", perception, after all if you look at the above poll you will find that the vast majority of people on the site dislike the term as well, with over 50% of people finding it unnecessary, insulting or needing to be changed. And if a term meant to describe a group of people is viewed as negative by a majority of people then something clearly must be wrong with that term. And even if this is just perception

The term doesn't even necessarily need to be changed, it just needs somebody to remove the current connotations that the word has gained due to it's inflammatory use by people on the internet. Which of course is difficult, however the connotations of words in the English language change constantly, meaning it is possible, although that is probably much more difficult that simply finding a knew, less toxic, word.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

The fact is it isn't just, "my", perception, after all if you look at the above poll you will find that the vast majority of people on the site dislike the term as well, with over 50% of people finding it unnecessary, insulting or needing to be changed.

There actually seems to be more people who find it useful than those that think it's insulting. And the grand bulk don't think it's necessary. I can say from experience that it's not a word that crops up every other sentence, but it's pretty darn useful when it does.

No negative connotations.

Honestly, I think it's merely a case of people who think cis is 'insulting' don't actually know any trans people in real life. As then they'd realize that the word has its uses every now and again. It's not a crime not to know trans people, but at the some time don't pretend like you know us or our use of language.

Or the simple fact that it's a word that has purpose to describe something effectively and without subjectivity.

Pretty simple.

 

[Areloch]

The fact is it isn't just, "my", perception, after all if you look at the above poll you will find that the vast majority of people on the site dislike the term as well, with over 50% of people finding it unnecessary, insulting or needing to be changed.

There actually seems to be more people who find it useful than those that think it's insulting. And the grand bulk don't think it's necessary. I can say from experience that it's not a word that crops up every other sentence, but it's pretty darn useful when it does.

No negative connotations.

Honestly, I think it's merely a case of people who think cis is 'insulting' don't actually know any trans people in real life. As then they'd realize that the word has its uses every now and again. It's not a crime not to know trans people, but at the some time don't pretend like you know us or our use of language.

Or the simple fact that it's a word that has purpose to describe something effectively and without subjectivity.

Pretty simple.

Of course, you face the issue of the people that don't know any trans people in real life, and frequent places like twitter, or tumblr, where stuff like 'cis scum' gets used. Is it how it's used in real life? Generally not, no. Can it VERY rapidly color their perception of a term? Absolutely.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Of course, you face the issue of the people that don't know any trans people in real life, and frequent places like twitter, or tumblr, where stuff like 'cis scum' gets used. Is it how it's used in real life? Generally not, no. Can it VERY rapidly color their perception of a term? Absolutely.

So I'm effectively responsible for people you don't personally like? People use words in the wrong way, or wrong context. Doesn't make them inherently bad. I've lost count of the number of times that people use 'disorder' in the wrong context and in a generally poor form on this thread alone. Doesn't mean I want to call for the word to be stricken, only for it to be used correctly. More to the point, people use the word 'abnormal' here to describe any perceptible differentiation regardless of how petty and utterly lacking in self-awareness (Edit: I would hope this is the case, unlike 'cis' for many I'm not going to assume everyone here has been using it in poor form).

The thing is if 'trans' is acceptable a word, then cis should be also. It's been around longer than English, and it's damn useful in a variety of context. Also, I fail to see the 'very rapidly' ... there seems to be about 5-10% of people on the poll who don't even know what the word means, or think that the meaning of the word is lost on others to explain their irritation.

If you were to drop cis and use another word in its place, people would have a problem with that also. I also find that people's perceptions of the word find itself utterly divorced from the reality of its use. Plenty of trans people here have said that if they use it, or recognize the word, as not being a pejorative but rather a qualifier with distinct categorical boundaries.

Maybe you should listen to the trans people now? If you're going to herald tumblr as if the official way people use words, then you should equally elevate all the trans people who have so far written in this thread how they see it and use it, if they do so use it. Otherwise you'll forgive me if your point merely seems like confirmation bias to me.

If I were to use the term 'straight scum' ... what's the problematic word in this context?

 

[Sanderpower]

Well it's the only way we know how to define non-transgendered individuals (instead of course saying non-transgendered individuals). Me personally I'm indifferent to it. Words and language are just tools for communication after all. Whatever helps better communication is a good thing in my book.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

That, and they have no experience with, or immunity to being labeled in a cold and clinical fashion outside of their control. Throw in a bit of stunted empathy and/or intelligence... some ideology and religion... and *poof*! Outrage.

I think it has more to do with self awareness and confirmation bias. You see one example of poor use, then assume that a word is somehow 'tarnished' even when popular use of it and meaning was never about it serving as a pejorative. It all strikes me as a bit language police-y. People are self aware enough when the use of '******' is thrown about ... unless its examination is to its critique, it's never usually used in civil conversation.

Instead we have people promoting a word that has DEFINE ABLY (Oxford dictionary, etc) poor connotations (see; 'abnormal') and is a word lacking in self awareness and entirely subjective, to try to replace a word that is neither subjective, and entirely descriptive. It's pretty mind-boggling if you think about it. I'm all for chaos of the self ... chaos within and without ... but the idea that we should throw away meaning and clarity of discussion for the sake of subjectivity? Particularly when the word makes it easier for specific people to communicate meaning, and relations of self to others in the social fabric?

It's one small step from that to the arguments various xenophobic people had about how foreigners should speak English and only English when in the company of other people in the workforce, because of potential misgrievances.