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

[Areloch]

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' 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 shoud 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?

Wow, calm down. I was merely extrapolating on your "the only people that have a problem with it don't know trans people in real life". If they have no good frame of reference of it's usage, it's going to appear to be a negative term. I didn't say anything more or less than that.

And weither you like it or not, tumblr and twitter are gigantic social communication platforms, so yes, the way words are used on them impacts their meaning to society at large. I utterly despise this fact, but it doesn't remove it. It may be unfair to taint a word by the minimal, but widely visible, negative usage, but the same thing could be said of all kinds of things that fall to the association fallacy, such as feminism. The vast majority of feminists are great people working towards a noble goal. However, the most visible ones are the awful ones that make humanity look bad, not just feminism. Which is why feminism has such a bad rap recently.

It may not be fair, but it's what happens. The same thing happens to words, and my pointing that fact out for the sake of furthering the topic doesn't put me in agreement with the phenomenon.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Wow, calm down. I was merely extrapolating on your "the only people that have a problem with it don't know trans people in real life". If they have no good frame of reference of it's usage, it's going to appear to be a negative term. I didn't say anything more or less than that.

And weither you like it or not, tumblr and twitter are gigantic social communication platforms, so yes, the way words are used on them impacts their meaning to society at large. I utterly despise this fact, but it doesn't remove it. It may be unfair to taint a word by the minimal, but widely visible, negative usage, but the same thing could be said of all kinds of things that fall to the association fallacy, such as feminism. The vast majority of feminists are great people working towards a noble goal. However, the most visible ones are the awful ones that make humanity look bad, not just feminism. Which is why feminism has such a bad rap recently.

It may not be fair, but it's what happens. The same thing happens to words, and my pointing that fact out for the sake of furthering the topic doesn't put me in agreement with the phenomenon.

I'm perfectly calm.

As for your argument, why exactly should people who labour in confirmation bias then be allowed to dictate the terms by which language is used? I can point to this thread that dislike of the word cis is not some grand over arching majority just because of exposure (lest you make the assumption that simple exposure to incorrect word usage is enough to tarnish the word alone). Association fallacy is just that, a fallacy. Lest we allow people's ignorance to dictate the course of language. For the same reason we don't scrap a word like 'evolution'. Enough people have put shit on it throughout history. Far more vehemently than anything seen on twitter, etc.

I'll point to the word abnormal. In a medical sense alone it has negative connotations. Doesn't mean I want the word to be abolished. It's a useful word to detail a strange condition of the human form. But then it shouldn't apply to people simply because of one's subjective feelings that it may be applicable.

I'm not sure why I should listen to the same types of people again who try to conflate a word with their confirmation bias in terms of its nature when, as this thread is proof enough, that transgender people don't use it as a pejorative. Why exactly should transgender people feel the need to adapt a perfectly fitting term that seeks to clarify and express meaning, because of people who can't be bothered to pick up a dictionary? Sorry ... it helps no one ... and any substituted word to mean the exact same thing as it does now will also end up being attacked because of someone's feelings.

You know the grand majority of times I've heard cis? From cisgender people saying that it was used badly. I've never come across this offline, and yet I'd probably use the term once or twice every couple of days.

It's like saying: "I believe in 'hot', but this idea of 'cold' is garbage! Why not have 'not hot', or 'normal'?"

People use dialectic terms because it's a necessary tool to discuss how something is like or not alike. Nothing more. Frankly, I'm not sure why I should drop a term that has easy means to examine metaphysics of gender identity. Which is perhaps the greatest sin here, the fact that people should dictate the means to investigation shortcuts in looking at trans people and their relationship with others in the social fabric. Willful ignorance, and willful opposition, to effective tools of metaphysics and metaphysical examination on the basis of a perceived pejorative is anti-intellectualism at best.

Grimh said it best;

"It's a thing that describes a thing."

 

[Azure23]

It's just a dry, clinical term. If you were biologically born male, and then grew up and continued to identify as a man, you're cisgender.

It's just a more eloquent way of saying not-transgender. And it's probably pretty alienating to trans individuals when people use normal (as an alternative to cisgender) or worse. It's a word used to refer to people who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth without implying that someone else is abnormal, or of less value. It prevents othering. It's as neccesarey as having a word describing trans individuals, which is to say, absolutely necessary.

Is the crux of this debate really that some fed up, exasperated people used it in a sentence to describe the type of person who is always shitting on them and then people felt offended by association? That seems childish to me. The person above me really said it best. It's just a qualifier with distinct and categorical boundaries. That some people insist it's a pejorative term should not change that fact.

And seriously you must, must, must abstain from using the word when discussing gender, just say not trans instead. I mean you'll still be silly for not using a perfectly good and well defined term, but at least you won't be othering people for no reason.

 

[Areloch]

Wow, calm down. I was merely extrapolating on your "the only people that have a problem with it don't know trans people in real life". If they have no good frame of reference of it's usage, it's going to appear to be a negative term. I didn't say anything more or less than that.

And weither you like it or not, tumblr and twitter are gigantic social communication platforms, so yes, the way words are used on them impacts their meaning to society at large. I utterly despise this fact, but it doesn't remove it. It may be unfair to taint a word by the minimal, but widely visible, negative usage, but the same thing could be said of all kinds of things that fall to the association fallacy, such as feminism. The vast majority of feminists are great people working towards a noble goal. However, the most visible ones are the awful ones that make humanity look bad, not just feminism. Which is why feminism has such a bad rap recently.

It may not be fair, but it's what happens. The same thing happens to words, and my pointing that fact out for the sake of furthering the topic doesn't put me in agreement with the phenomenon.

I'm perfectly calm.

As for your argument, why exactly should people who labour in confirmation bias then be allowed to dictate the terms by which language is used? I can point to this thread that dislike of the word cis is not some grand over arching majority just because of exposure (lest you make the assumption that simple exposure to incorrect word usage is enough to tarnish the word alone). Association fallacy is just that, a fallacy. Lest we allow people's ignorance to dictate the course of language. For the same reason we don't scrap a word like 'evolution'. Enough people have put shit on it throughout history. Far more vehemently than anything seen on twitter, etc.

I'll point to the word abnormal. In a medical sense alone it has negative connotations. Doesn't mean I want the word to be abolished. It's a useful word to detail a strange condition of the human form. But then it shouldn't apply to people simply because of one's subjective feelings that it may be applicable.

I'm not sure why I should listen to the same types of people again who try to conflate a word with their confirmation bias in terms of its nature when, as this thread is proof enough, that transgender people don't use it as a pejorative. Why exactly should transgender people feel the need to adapt a perfectly fitting term that seeks to clarify and express meaning, because of people who can't be bothered to pick up a dictionary? Sorry ... it helps no one ... and any substituted word to mean the exact same thing as it does now will also end up being attacked because of someone's feelings.

You know the grand majority of times I've heard cis? From cisgender people saying that it was used badly. I've never come across this offline, and yet I'd probably use the term once or twice every couple of days.

It's like saying: "I believe in 'hot', but this idea of 'cold' is garbage! Why not have 'not hot', or 'normal'?"

People use dialectic terms because it's a necessary tool to discuss how something is like or not alike. Nothing more. Frankly, I'm not sure why I should drop a term that has easy means to examine metaphysics of gender identity. Which is perhaps the greatest sin here, the fact that people should dictate the means to investigation shortcuts in looking at trans people and their relationship with others in the social fabric. Willful ignorance, and willful opposition, to effective tools of metaphysics and metaphysical examination on the basis of a perceived pejorative is anti-intellectualism at best.

Grimh said it best;

"It's a thing that describes a thing."

Ok.

Taking a step back here. Why do you keep coming back to talking about dropping the usage of the term entirely? I have said nothing about suggesting stopping it's usage. At this point it nearly sounds like we're on two totally different subjects.

You brought up the fact that "most people that dislike the term don't know any trans people", inferring that they wouldn't ever see it used in a context not on the internet. I built upon that by pointing out that social networking sites tend to fester the sort of people that would use it negatively, and if - as brought up just prior - they don't see it anywhere else but online, then the only likely exposure they'll have to the term is negative.

I'm not sure why I should listen to the same types of people again who try to conflate a word with their confirmation bias in terms of its nature when, as this thread is proof enough, that transgender people don't use it as a pejorative.

"Why should I listen to people in their confirmation bias of a term when I can have my confirmation bias the term is acceptable in this very thread!"

You see trans people in this thread utilizing the term in a non insulting way. And that's fantastic. However, many people online may not be so fortunate. That's my point. That's it.

Also, you bring up a term like 'abnormal', and point out that clinically, it may be valid to use in context, however due to a negative connotation stigma people would consider it to be rude to be used. However you then point out that cis is also a clinical term, but deny that people may have - after negative exposure online as stated - the same feeling about the usage of 'cis'.

Why is one word's stigma an acceptable stigma to malign it's usage and another word's isn't? Because - not trying to be a dick here, seriously - it sounds like you're OK with the term cis, so any negative usage of it that may taint other people's perspective of the word is irrelevent.

Which sounds a lot like confirmation bias.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

It's a perfectly accurate term to describe the situation of identifying with the gender that matches your biological sex. I have no problems with the term. I don't use the term to describe myself unless it's relevant to the conversation.

I honestly can't see why anyone would have a problem with it.

 

[Areloch]

Huh I've noticed a trend of people saying they think it's an isult using examples of it being paired with an actual insult, but then saying it's the "cis" part that's insulting. For example, "cis scum".

Pretty sure it's the "scum" part that's the insult there. You can say "trans scum, "black scum", "straight scum". Pretty sure you wouldn't say it's the trans, black or straight part that's the insulting part, so I don't get why cis is viewed differently in this context.

Well, as broached in this thread, how many people do you think know what cis actually means without it being specifically explained to them? I know it took me a while to understand what it was supposed to mean. So if you have someone utilizing a phrase constructed as , is it really that odd that they'd infer that the unknown word is also a negative?

In actuality, of course, cis on it's own isn't insulting, but if you see a word you don't know used in an obviously negative context, your perceptions of the word are likely to associate it to the insult.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Huh I've noticed a trend of people saying they think it's an isult using examples of it being paired with an actual insult, but then saying it's the "cis" part that's insulting. For example, "cis scum".

Pretty sure it's the "scum" part that's the insult there. You can say "trans scum, "black scum", "straight scum". Pretty sure you wouldn't say it's the trans, black or straight part that's the insulting part, so I don't get why cis is viewed differently in this context.

Well, as broached in this thread, how many people do you think know what cis actually means without it being specifically explained to them? I know it took me a while to understand what it was supposed to mean. So if you have someone utilizing a phrase constructed as , is it really that odd that they'd infer that the unknown word is also a negative?

In actuality, of course, cis on it's own isn't insulting, but if you see a word you don't know used in an obviously negative context, your perceptions of the word are likely to associate it to the insult.

Yeah and the underlying problem with this is the reactionaries who use it with an insult, "cis scum" aren't always trans. Sort of the case when I see supposed trans allies who are cisgender using it to insult another cisgender person. As long as the loudest voices are the ones using the word out of context as an insult we're gonna have a problem with perception around the word. Hell I've seen transgender used as a slur, does that mean we need to change that word too?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Ok.

Taking a step back here. Why do you keep coming back to talking about dropping the usage of the term entirely? I have said nothing about suggesting stopping it's usage. At this point it nearly sounds like we're on two totally different subjects.

You brought up the fact that "most people that dislike the term don't know any trans people", inferring that they wouldn't ever see it used in a context not on the internet. I built upon that by pointing out that social networking sites tend to fester the sort of people that would use it negatively, and if - as brought up just prior - they don't see it anywhere else but online, then the only likely exposure they'll have to the term is negative.

I wouldn't know, I'm not on any social networking sites. I have my phone and google hangouts. I can only speak to where I have the most exposure to it, and that's with my friends. Also 'fester' ... for every example of cis being attached to a pejorative, I'm sure I could find ten times the amount in anti-trans rhetoric. The internet. Never has there been a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. But there is nothing wrong with the word, and me pointing out its usefulness in being descriptive still doesn't change.

"Why should I listen to people in their confirmation bias of a term when I can have my confirmation bias the term is acceptable in this very thread!"

You see trans people in this thread utilizing the term in a non insulting way. And that's fantastic. However, many people online may not be so fortunate. That's my point. That's it.

Then I find it a moot point, you'll forgive me. Because I have never come across it as a pejorative out in the real world. Even online, most times I run across cis tend to be benign.

Also, you bring up a term like 'abnormal', and point out that clinically, it may be valid to use in context, however due to a negative connotation stigma people would consider it to be rude to be used. However you then point out that cis is also a clinical term, but deny that people may have - after negative exposure online as stated - the same feeling about the usage of 'cis'.

Why is one word's stigma an acceptable stigma to malign it's usage and another word's isn't? Because - not trying to be a dick here, seriously - it sounds like you're OK with the term cis, so any negative usage of it that may taint other people's perspective of the word is irrelevent.

That's not really the point I was making, but rather how it's incorrectly used given the number of people who promote it here as a 'substitute'. Also, the word cis on its own has no pejorative value. The word abnormal does. If I wrote a message 'die heterosexual scum' ... the word 'heterosexual' will not be any less viable a word to use in any sort of discourse, or 'tainted' by its association with a pejorative. Similar with cis. That's the point I was getting at.

It's not 'confirmation bias' to come to this conclusion. If heterosexual, trans, and homosexual do not have any innate malice, then neither would cis. That's not 'confirmation bias' ... that's logic. Cisgender is a really convenient word, pretending like it's tainted because someone had a problem with cisgender people does not make it inherently less useful.

(Edit) I will point out, as I did before. That I have no problem with the word 'abnormal' so long that it is in reference to a disease or problem. I have schizophrenia, that is undesireable. It also leads to abnormal behaviour, irrationality, etc. Me being trans is nothing inherently undesireable. Not without significant prejudice being espoused, that is ... or a severe case of gender dysphoria (if a personal hatred of the body as it is).

A happy, socially active and participatory member of society is not an undesireable person, trans or otherwise. Therefore not abnormal.

 

[Lightknight]

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.

In and of itself? No word is itself inherently bad. It'll always come down to perception of society.

Now, as for why Cisgender is considered inflammatory? Perhaps because it's also used as an add-on term for insults regarding privileged people who don't know what they're talking about in discussions about transgendered individuals or any minority discussion. An insult used in conjunction with steamrolling our opinions and thoughts out of discussion.

Who knows, maybe it's just because the term sounds like a cyst or something abnormal. Maybe that's why it lends itself to being used as such. I'm not sure.

In any event, non-transgendered doesn't seem to carry negative usage and wouldn't be easy to use in a derogatory fashion. It conveys the exact same message so why not accept the use of that term instead?

 

[Lightknight]

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.

I'll certainly concede that point. But it is largely perceived as an insult and non-transgendered conveys the same point inoffensively.

 

[Areloch]

Huh I've noticed a trend of people saying they think it's an isult using examples of it being paired with an actual insult, but then saying it's the "cis" part that's insulting. For example, "cis scum".

Pretty sure it's the "scum" part that's the insult there. You can say "trans scum, "black scum", "straight scum". Pretty sure you wouldn't say it's the trans, black or straight part that's the insulting part, so I don't get why cis is viewed differently in this context.

Well, as broached in this thread, how many people do you think know what cis actually means without it being specifically explained to them? I know it took me a while to understand what it was supposed to mean. So if you have someone utilizing a phrase constructed as , is it really that odd that they'd infer that the unknown word is also a negative?

In actuality, of course, cis on it's own isn't insulting, but if you see a word you don't know used in an obviously negative context, your perceptions of the word are likely to associate it to the insult.

Yeah and the underlying problem with this is the reactionaries who use it with an insult, "cis scum" aren't always trans. Sort of the case when I see supposed trans allies who are cisgender using it to insult another cisgender person. As long as the loudest voices are the ones using the word out of context as an insult we're gonna have a problem with perception around the word. Hell I've seen transgender used as a slur, does that mean we need to change that word too?

I...haven't said the word needs to change? Merely pointing out - in context to the topic at hand of people's perception of the usage of cis - that it could gain a negative association via the more surly groups of people that may use it, exactly as you said.

Realistically, all it means is more awareness of the term is required.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

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.

I'll certainly concede that point. But it is largely perceived as an insult and non-transgendered conveys the same point inoffensively.

The problem is that non-transgendered and non-transgender and any permutations there of are kind of othering terms and can be seen as insulting by either side. By that I mean non-transgender can be exclusionary language. Besides that cisgender is easier to say, and type. Plus cisgender is actually better in a comparative context when brought up than any similar terms and words once people know what it means.

Edit:

Huh I've noticed a trend of people saying they think it's an isult using examples of it being paired with an actual insult, but then saying it's the "cis" part that's insulting. For example, "cis scum".

Pretty sure it's the "scum" part that's the insult there. You can say "trans scum, "black scum", "straight scum". Pretty sure you wouldn't say it's the trans, black or straight part that's the insulting part, so I don't get why cis is viewed differently in this context.

Well, as broached in this thread, how many people do you think know what cis actually means without it being specifically explained to them? I know it took me a while to understand what it was supposed to mean. So if you have someone utilizing a phrase constructed as , is it really that odd that they'd infer that the unknown word is also a negative?

In actuality, of course, cis on it's own isn't insulting, but if you see a word you don't know used in an obviously negative context, your perceptions of the word are likely to associate it to the insult.

Yeah and the underlying problem with this is the reactionaries who use it with an insult, "cis scum" aren't always trans. Sort of the case when I see supposed trans allies who are cisgender using it to insult another cisgender person. As long as the loudest voices are the ones using the word out of context as an insult we're gonna have a problem with perception around the word. Hell I've seen transgender used as a slur, does that mean we need to change that word too?

I...haven't said the word needs to change? Merely pointing out - in context to the topic at hand of people's perception of the usage of cis - that it could gain a negative association via the more surly groups of people that may use it, exactly as you said.

Realistically, all it means is more awareness of the term is required.

Actually that was exactly the point I was trying to make too, but you made the point better than I did. Basically I want it's vernacular use to be more in line with the actual definition, too bad wanting is rarely having.

 

[Lightknight]

1.) To be blunt, thanks for the etymology of Sane, but it's a pity you didn't check the etymology of Cis and Trans. It's not like this is forced... Trans has been used for trans people for a while now, and the opposite of Trans is Cis.

Trans is a common term used for a variety of every day things like transit. Cis is not. It's an old latin term that only chemistry majors would have used until 2010 when it was applied to cisgender.

2.) Yeah, but we do for this.

Ok? In acknowledging that we don't need a distinct counter term for every condition you are acknowledging that this term is not strictly necessary. That's my entire point. It is viewed as an insult and isn't strictly necessary. The logic in maintaining it is the same logic used in maintaining other slurs that were also medical terms.

3.) For circular reasoning see: Circular reasoning

Repeat: 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?

 

[Dizchu]

Now, as for why Cisgender is considered inflammatory? Perhaps because it's also used as an add-on term for insults regarding privileged people who don't know what they're talking about in discussions about transgendered individuals or any minority discussion. An insult used in conjunction with steamrolling our opinions and thoughts out of discussion.

The same can be said for the word "white" though? SJW types often use "white" as a catch-all term for everything bad about people (I once saw a Tumblr post that blamed homophobia on white people). People regard "white, cisgender, heterosexual, male" as oppressive groups that they can fling their anger towards. Just because they're idiots doesn't mean that the terms "white", "cisgender", "heterosexual" and "male" become invalid.

 

[Politrukk]

Huh I've noticed a trend of people saying they think it's an isult using examples of it being paired with an actual insult, but then saying it's the "cis" part that's insulting. For example, "cis scum".

Pretty sure it's the "scum" part that's the insult there. You can say "trans scum, "black scum", "straight scum". Pretty sure you wouldn't say it's the trans, black or straight part that's the insulting part, so I don't get why cis is viewed differently in this context.

Well, as broached in this thread, how many people do you think know what cis actually means without it being specifically explained to them? I know it took me a while to understand what it was supposed to mean. So if you have someone utilizing a phrase constructed as , is it really that odd that they'd infer that the unknown word is also a negative?

In actuality, of course, cis on it's own isn't insulting, but if you see a word you don't know used in an obviously negative context, your perceptions of the word are likely to associate it to the insult.

Are we really going to define the scope of our vocabulary by the limits of the average vocabulary? I have to tell you, that's going to make talking about anything like games and tech a bit awkward...

...Or are we going to accept that as with every word, this is easily solved by the following exchange.

"Hey, I'm not a girl!"
"No no, not "Sis" as in "sister", Cis" as in "Cis and Trans"."
"Huh"
"Two prefixes in chem and bio meaning "this side" and "that side". Opposite of transgender is cisgender."
"Oh, that seems awkward."
"Yeah, but it works."
"Hey, did you see the game last night?"

What a fucking BURDEN!

Seeing the majority vote in the polls and to take it that on a gamerforum you're probably going to find a more understanding part of society just by the looks of it.....

Do you really think it would be that easy?

 

[Lightknight]

The problem is that non-transgendered and non-transgender and any permutations there of are kind of othering terms and can be seen as insulting by either side. By that I mean non-transgender can be exclusionary language.

If you are cisgender then it's because you're not transgender. All labels are axiomatically exclusionary. You are being labeled as "this" because you're not "that". That people are insulted by labels isn't surprising, but they're there for classification. So they need to exist but they don't have to be offensive.

Consider this from my perspective, the words of yours that I'm reading, are words that I'm seeing as justification for the perpetuation of something that is now seen as a slur. I have seen truly offensive people using the same rhetoric to defend the most god-awful slurs mankind has produced. Though, you are absolutely not an offensive person and this word certainly hasn't reached anything close to that level. But it is entirely unnecessary to defend a slur unless the point is that you want the slur to exist. From what I've seen, there is a bit of smug self satisfaction coming out of enforcing the label against non-transgendered people who don't like it. As though enforcing the label is putting actual hateful people in their place whereas it's really just a slur against the benevolent and hateful alike.

Besides that cisgender is easier to say, and type. Plus cisgender is actually better in a comparative context when brought up than any similar terms and words once people know what it means.

"Fag" is easier to say than homosexual and "retard" is easier to say than mentally disabled. So what's your point?

Cis is not a better term because it has a language barrier. You acknowledging that it is not a known word is acknowledging that it does not easily convey the message. "Non" is a universally accepted term and readily understood. That's the entire point of language, to convey a point or message accurately and succinctly.

What's interesting is that people in the Trans community and specifically proponents of studies for the cause agree with me here. They think non-trans is more readily understood:

"Krista Scott-Dixon wrote in 2009: "I prefer the term non-trans to other options such as cissexual/cisgendered."[19] She holds this view because she believes the term "non-trans" is clearer to average people and will help normalize transgender individuals." (Wikipedia on Cisgender)

 

[Lightknight]

Now, as for why Cisgender is considered inflammatory? Perhaps because it's also used as an add-on term for insults regarding privileged people who don't know what they're talking about in discussions about transgendered individuals or any minority discussion. An insult used in conjunction with steamrolling our opinions and thoughts out of discussion.

The same can be said for the word "white" though? SJW types often use "white" as a catch-all term for everything bad about people (I once saw a Tumblr post that blamed homophobia on white people). People regard "white, cisgender, heterosexual, male" as oppressive groups that they can fling their anger towards. Just because they're idiots doesn't mean that the terms "white", "cisgender", "heterosexual" and "male" become invalid.

And yet white isn't perceived as an insult, but cis is.

I'm not saying that I know the logic of it, but it's that word that has been latched onto as a slur. Perhaps because all the other terms have a long history of being useful whereas cis was first combined with gender when? Pretty recently from what I've read. Before like 2006 Cis was almost exclusively used in chemistry for entirely unrelated things. So it had no prior experience to this and is largely unknown. So when people first encounter it, it's entirely possible that they encounter it as a slur the first time. That's how I first saw it and perhaps that's formative in my opinion of it. Probably, anyways.

But professionals in the field do prefer the term non-trans for the same reason I've listed.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

The problem is that non-transgendered and non-transgender and any permutations there of are kind of othering terms and can be seen as insulting by either side. By that I mean non-transgender can be exclusionary language.

If you are cisgender then it's because you're not transgender. All labels are axiomatically exclusionary. You are being labeled as "this" because you're not "that". That people are insulted by labels isn't surprising, but they're there for classification. So they need to exist but they don't have to be offensive.

Consider this from my perspective, the words of yours that I'm reading, are words that I'm seeing as justification for the perpetuation of something that is now seen as a slur. I have seen truly offensive people using the same rhetoric to defend the most god-awful slurs mankind has produced. Though, you are absolutely not an offensive person and this word certainly hasn't reached anything close to that level. But it is entirely unnecessary to defend a slur unless the point is that you want the slur to exist. From what I've seen, there is a bit of smug self satisfaction coming out of enforcing the label against non-transgendered people who don't like it. As though enforcing the label is putting actual hateful people in their place whereas it's really just a slur against the benevolent and hateful alike.

Besides that cisgender is easier to say, and type. Plus cisgender is actually better in a comparative context when brought up than any similar terms and words once people know what it means.

"Fag" is easier to say than homosexual and "retard" is easier to say than mentally disabled. So what's your point?

Cis is not a better term because it has a language barrier. You acknowledging that it is not a known word is acknowledging that it does not easily convey the message. "Non" is a universally accepted term and readily understood. That's the entire point of language, to convey a point or message accurately and succinctly.

What's interesting is that people in the Trans community and specifically proponents of studies for the cause agree with me here. They think non-trans is more readily understood:

"Krista Scott-Dixon wrote in 2009: "I prefer the term non-trans to other options such as cissexual/cisgendered."[19] She holds this view because she believes the term "non-trans" is clearer to average people and will help normalize transgender individuals." (Wikipedia on Cisgender)

You do make some good points, but I still don't buy that cisgender is a slur, not yet at least. Remember that as an insulting term cis and cisgender are never used by themselves, they're used in terms with a word designed to cause insult and offense. Like say "scum" "asshole" and such. Also ******, fag, and retard were never not offensive slurs to start with. Cisgender on the other hand is being branded as a slur because of improper usage, there's a difference there. Non-trans works in a general sense but as a categorical cisgender can often work better.

 

[Asita]

Also ******, fag, and retard were never not offensive slurs to start with. Cisgender on the other hand is being branded as a slur because of improper usage, there's a difference there. Non-trans works in a general sense but as a categorical cisgender can often work better.

Er..."retard" is actually derived from retardation, a term used to describe things that were delayed in development, slowed or impeded. "Excess amounts of caffeine can retard physical growth". "That material is fire retardant, it will slow the spread of the fire". "A few problems have retarded the progress of this program" This usage dates back to the 17th century, and its psychological use directly derives from that in the sense of a person's mental capacities having been retarded. The full expression is in fact "mental retardation" (the usage of which dates back to the 19th century), an impairment in the subject's mental functions. Retard as a pejorative is the weaponization of the term to imply cognitive impairment in an otherwise high functioning individual and subsequently became near synonymous with 'stupid'. It's a benign term that became a slur through improper use.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Also ******, fag, and retard were never not offensive slurs to start with. Cisgender on the other hand is being branded as a slur because of improper usage, there's a difference there. Non-trans works in a general sense but as a categorical cisgender can often work better.

Er..."retard" is actually derived from retardation, a term used to describe things that were delayed in development, slowed or impeded. "Excess amounts of caffeine can retard physical growth". "That material is fire retardant, it will slow the spread of the fire". "A few problems have retarded the progress of this program" This usage dates back to the 17th century, and its psychological use directly derives from that in the sense of a person's mental capacities having been retarded. The full expression is in fact "mental retardation" (the usage of which dates back to the 19th century), an impairment in the subject's mental functions. Retard as a pejorative is the weaponization of the term to imply cognitive impairment in an otherwise high functioning individual and subsequently became near synonymous with 'stupid'. It's a benign term that became a slur through improper use.

Fair point actually, it's like how gay has become a bad word for basically anything and everything anymore. Which is weird because before gay meant homosexual it actually meant happy. More I guess of the quest of; "good lord what is wrong with people?"