Poll: How many straight birth-gendered females are on the Escapist?

[MrFalconfly]

I think you are conflating the word "normal" with words like "common" or "average".

Well, seeing as "normal" is synonymous with "average", it's a pretty common comparison.

If you really want to make "normal" a dirty word, then why not make it THE dirty word that it is?

Normal means boring. It means average. It means you disappear into the background.

I'd be willing to bet 95%+ of the people here and in general had their first experience with the word "Cis" not for a scientific use, but to be used as an insult against them or someone else.

If that's the case, then I'm in the lucky 5% whose first exposure to "cis" and "trans" would be through an introductory high-school class of cis-trans isomerism.

 

[Cati]

I am not the planet Uranus so I don't really care what it's called.

You're missing the point. What a word (prefix in this case) sounds like doesn't mean anything. I'm Welsh, I live in a country called "Wales" which of course sounds exactly the same as "whales". I don't get offended because it sounds like I reside in the bellies of large aquatic mammals.

Normal is actually pretty context specific, you can be normal about some things while still being abnormal about others. It's just a numbers game. I'd say nobody is completely normal, but neither is anybody completely abnormal. I myself am abnormal in many aspects, but I also have many aspects that fit the norm.

And I've heard civilians be called normal people, I'm pretty sure neither the military nor the police cared. Being in law enforcement is abnormal, they are different, out of the majority.

I think you are conflating the word "normal" with words like "common" or "average".

There's more to be offended by with "Wales" than what other words it sounds like.

I'm with OP on "cis", and "birth-gendered" is a much clearer change that is less alienating discussion-wise for people not familiar with the subject of gender identity.
Also don't see the need in general conversation onlinea to use "trans" either. Gender-wise, a woman's a woman, a man's a man, and people who don't fall into either of those are, well, still people (I assume someone not identifying as either male or female has a term they use to identify when the need arises). The specifics are nobody else's business.

 

[Something Amyss]

No complaints on the thing itself, it was just unexpected to see such a numerical skewage.

You're going to find a higher than usual concentration of trans individuals in most nerdy activities. It's almost like we share the same experiences, despite being branded as intruders.

 

[DemomanHusband]

1: "Normal" is a factually correct term for people who are born male/female and are interested in the opposite sex.

Quite aside from the problems with labelling people as abnormal, in of itself "normal" doesn't mean that, you have to specify you mean the word to mean heterosexual and cisgender in context. Cis, (or in this case, cishet) is a much simpler and clearer way to do this.

2: The LGBT community poisoned the well on the word "Cis" from the word go. I'd be willing to bet 95%+ of the people here and in general had their first experience with the word "Cis" not for a scientific use, but to be used as an insult against them or someone else. And not a mild insult either - every time I've personally seen the word or heard of other people being called it, it looks as if its being used on the same level as "******" or "*****" - something that is supposed to be a very vulgar and crude slur against the target.

Its likely to never be an acceptable word to use generally because of the connotations it has already.

Any word which implies that cis people aren't the only kind of people is going to have those connotations, at least according to those threatened by the idea. Tell a privileged group that their viewpoint, their existence isn't the only one that matters, and you'll find a bunch of reactionaries who are deeply upset at this.

In any case, even assuming that cis is an insult (which it is not), it's no way comparable to something like ****** or *****.

So are we going to say that all that 'down with Cis'/'die Cis scum' stuff doesn't exist? Sure, the general term cisgender has no bile behind it when used clinically, which it really shouldn't be considering that we have the phrase 'born male/female.'

I've seen both of the phrases above get passed off as 'jokes among the transgender community,' but it enters the realm of #KillAllMen in that there is legitimately no way to tell who is joking and who is high on social justice fumes. In short, the main issue isn't that the label 'cis' implies that non-cis people exist, it's the fact that what some would call a simplifying label quickly becomes a simplified way to direct hatred toward a whole group. Almost like a racial slur, yeah?

I also find it funny how you took 'oh, they're just worried that someone else might matter!' away from 'Man, the trans community sure likes using cis as an insult.' How insensitive do you have to be to make that leap?

 

[Something Amyss]

So are we going to say that all that 'down with Cis'/'die Cis scum' stuff doesn't exist?

By that standard, heterosexual, straight, white, and so on are all also slurs.

I've seen both of the phrases above get passed off as 'jokes among the transgender community,'

Weird how nobody ever seems to be bothered by the jokes about killing gays or trans people, people who are actually extraordinarily singled out for violence. I get what you're trying to say, but it's also absolutely tone deaf to take this tack.

 

[DemomanHusband]

By that standard, heterosexual, straight, white, and so on are all also slurs.

If used in a context that attempts to make them a slur, sure. The words themselves are just words, but it's the context and intent behind the word (not to mention history in many cases) that makes a word a slur. What are you trying to say? Cis can be used to properly identify born males/females, but the fact that it is so often used to express irrational hatred toward average people makes it a loaded phrase.

Weird how nobody ever seems to be bothered by the jokes about killing gays or trans people, people who are actually extraordinarily singled out for violence. I get what you're trying to say, but it's also absolutely tone deaf to take this tack.

Forgive me, but I've yet to see any #KillAllGays or #KillAllTrannies in a context that was anything but mockery of #KillAllMen. The issue is that the social climate of today makes it popular to mock a whole group that is perceived to be privileged. Just take Bernie Sanders' recent debate quote where he agreed with a protester in saying that 'when you're white, you don't know what it's like to be living in a ghetto. You don't know what it's like to be poor.' I probably shouldn't have to explain how tone deaf that quote is.


Now, I'm not denying that minority groups have experienced many, many hardships. But in the western world, advances are being made to help those minority groups live better lives, and it seems like all many of them care about now is shaming majority groups for existing as some misguided form of payback, as if descendants of bigots should have to answer for their ancestors. I'm certainly not above chuckling at a bigot in the present being brought low, but the kind of people who insist that all men are rapists or that anyone born male or female are transphobic aren't doing anything to help their cause.

 

[The Ditz]

snip

I'm not sure where you're hearing this anti-cis sentiment, but I doubt its from a majority of trans.

...and forgive me, but the reason you probably don't hear much from #killalltrannies and #killallgays is probably because the people who feel that way are too busy killing gays/trans to check twitter or whatever.

maybe, I'm just crazy and I only hear more about attacks on trans as apposed to the suffering caused by #killallmen... maybe you're just paranoid, looking for a way to rationalize your irrational fears.

I can say this though, I feel a lot safer walking down the street looking like a regular guy.

 

[DemomanHusband]

snip

I'm not sure where you're hearing this anti-cis sentiment, but I doubt its from a majority of trans.

...and forgive me, but the reason you probably don't hear much from #killalltrannies and #killallgays is probably because the people who feel that way are too busy killing gays/trans to check twitter or whatever.

maybe, I'm just crazy and I only hear more about attacks on trans as apposed to the suffering caused by #killallmen... maybe you're just paranoid, looking for a way to rationalize your irrational fears.

I can say this though, I feel a lot safer walking down the street looking like a regular guy.

See, you're touching on exactly what I'm talking about, though. Minority groups have dealt with, and still today deal with incredibly inhumane things done to them, but you'll be hard pressed to say that the western world hasn't at least made steps toward something about it. Large swathes of land with many diverse cultures like Africa and the Middle East still hold much prejudice toward anybody not of standard gender identity or sexuality, yet activists insist on antagonizing societies that have made steps forward. Their concern isn't the improvement of life for all those like them across the world, their concern is getting back at the bullies, even if the 'bullies' they antagonize aren't even bigots.

On a side note, you're doing the classic modern-feminist tactic of claiming someone being afraid/paranoid of a group that gleefully promotes the use of #KillAllMen on a public platform while selling Male Tears mugs is irrational. I've seen more LGBT activists claim with gusto that men cannot be raped than I've seen LGBT activists cheer for the opening of an abuse shelter designed specifically for male victims.

 

[Something Amyss]

How about just tossing back the "Thicker skin" or "Take a joke" or "Ignore it" lines? What's good for the goose is good for the gander after all.

It only really works if the person in question has said it.

Also, as satisfying a "take that" as it might be, it rarely helps anything, because rather than getting people to think it instills defensiveness.

If used in a context that attempts to make them a slur, sure.

Aplogies, I thought when you were quoting thaluikan you were following the same context. That the term is poisoned because it's been used as a slur on the one hand, and the rebuttal that it is not in itself a slur. Since this is not the case, I will move on. However, it's a bit confusing, as you quoted someone in context and seem to have been making a case to that end.

But then, 'cis" is still no more a slur than any of those words, in that it's only a slur when used in the context of a slur. Tautologies are tautological and all that, but apples to apples, it seems your argument is pointless.

Forgive me, but I've yet to see any #KillAllGays or #KillAllTrannies in a context that was anything but mockery of #KillAllMen.

Right, so are you saying you need to have a hashtag in front of it for it to be real? Almost a quarter of Americans think transgender individuals should not be allowed to exist, so I'm not particularly worried about specific hashtags. Especially when tranny and ****** jokes are pretty ubiquitous, as is the antipathy, which is more akin to the complaints thal was replying to.

This seems less like honest discourse and more an attempt to game the system and ignore the very real problems trans individuals face at the hands of such "jokes" while still maintaining there might be some legitimate threat to cisgender individuals.

Now, I'm not denying that minority groups have experienced many, many hardships.

You are, however, downplaying them.

And dismissing them. You literally just did that.

So the rest is kind of irrelevant.

On a side note, you're doing the classic modern-feminist tactic of claiming someone being afraid/paranoid of a group that gleefully promotes the use of #KillAllMen on a public platform while selling Male Tears mugs is irrational.

Except it is irrational, as the context of the hashtag is easily understood, and there's no evidence of systemic violence against cis individuals. You just a few sentences before also accused people of essentially wanting revenge, even though there's no real evidence of that.

That's why it reads as paranoid and irrational.

 

[The Ditz]

See, you're touching on exactly what I'm talking about, though. Minority groups have dealt with, and still today deal with incredibly inhumane things done to them, but you'll be hard pressed to say that the western world hasn't at least made steps toward something about it. Large swathes of land with many diverse cultures like Africa and the Middle East still hold much prejudice toward anybody not of standard gender identity or sexuality, yet activists insist on antagonizing societies that have made steps forward. Their concern isn't the improvement of life for all those like them across the world, their concern is getting back at the bullies, even if the 'bullies' they antagonize aren't even bigots.

See, we here in America have this problem of fixing 80-90% of a problem and then sweeping what remains under a rug.
We freed the slaves, de-segrigated, and voted for a black presedent, so racism is a thing of the past....right?

As to solving other countries' lgbt problems, It's unlikely we would be able to get far, especially considering that countries with such problems also generally have an oppressive government and a wide variety of groups stigmatized and threatened by those governments/ the people's long held beliefs.
We can't wave a magic wand and fix it all, its going to require time... and while we wait, perhaps we could get our own house in order, our rug seems rather lumpy.

On a side note, you're doing the classic modern-feminist tactic of claiming someone being afraid/paranoid of a group that gleefully promotes the use of #KillAllMen on a public platform while selling Male Tears mugs is irrational. I've seen more LGBT activists claim with gusto that men cannot be raped than I've seen LGBT activists cheer for the opening of an abuse shelter designed specifically for male victims.

I'm not saying someone shouldn't be fearful of a group like that, I'm saying they aren't in much danger.
As I said before, I feel safer walking around as a guy, and that's what I do, waltzing around with my Y chromazone and whatnot... because It seems a lot more likely that I'd get stomped to death by a group of angry guys for dressing effeminately than getting killed by a female supremacist for acting like an ordinary male.

And also, let me just say anyone who says men can't be raped, are awful human beings, plain and simple.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

So are we going to say that all that 'down with Cis'/'die Cis scum' stuff doesn't exist? Sure, the general term cisgender has no bile behind it when used clinically, which it really shouldn't be considering that we have the phrase 'born male/female.'

I'll get to the anti-cis sentiment after the next slice of the post. Still 'born male/female' is essentially the same thing as assigned male/female at birth, AFAB/AMAB for short. Everyone has a birth gender, even intersex people(though in the case of intersex folk it's alway an assumption and often incorrect), trans people aren't born some ambiguous, or third physical sex, usually(intersex folk are a different matter), like cis folk, us trans folk are assigned a gender at birth. That means 'born male/female' is appallingly innaccurate especially because trans folk tend to say things like; "I was born male/female", as a method of identifying being trans. Cisgender folk on the other hand don't have to make that distinction, because they identify as the gender they were assigned at birth.

I've seen both of the phrases above get passed off as 'jokes among the transgender community,' but it enters the realm of #KillAllMen in that there is legitimately no way to tell who is joking and who is high on social justice fumes. In short, the main issue isn't that the label 'cis' implies that non-cis people exist, it's the fact that what some would call a simplifying label quickly becomes a simplified way to direct hatred toward a whole group. Almost like a racial slur, yeah?

It's not at all like a racial, or other discriminatory slur, for one thing you're talking about a group that doesn't have a lot of societal power, meaning trans folk really can't oppress the majority. When someone says something like "die cis scum", or "KillAllMen" or whatever, it's usually an expression of frustration and exasperation. This is because people in socially powerful groups will treat marginalized groups astoundingly badly, then dismiss complaints, claiming to be perfectly nice tolerant people. That's what's generating these sentiments.

Now are there extremist trans folk and man-haters who actually feel this way? Sure there are, but they're a tiny powerless minority, that usually gets called out on their bs, or ignored. Extremist man-haters aren't going to be able to systematically destroy men. Moreover extremesist trans folk are even less likely to get their way. On the other hand racial and religious minorities along with LGBTQ+ folk have been subject to attempted systematic extermination in the past. These are two very different situations.

That's all leaving aside the fact that things like 'die cis scum' don't come up often at all, while those who claim to have been harassed by such sentiments generally aren't being truthful. There is a lot of knee-jerk reactionary sentiment when ever that phrase comes up, mostly it's because a lot of people feel threatened that LGBTQ+ folk even exist. Seriously every time I hear someone say something then shout 'no-homo!', I can't help but sneer at the kind of personal and social insecurity that's validating.

I also find it funny how you took 'oh, they're just worried that someone else might matter!' away from 'Man, the trans community sure likes using cis as an insult.' How insensitive do you have to be to make that leap?

Well about 99% of the time I see the term cis, or cisgender for that matter, used it's not an insult, at the same time people who react badly to such terms tend to be insecure reactionaries. Seriously I never come across people who are more insecure than people who are vocally adamant about their cisgenderness and straightness. That's the sort of thing that makes me wonder what they're hiding, or compensating for.

 

[Something Amyss]

As to solving other countries' lgbt problems, It's unlikely we would be able to get far, especially considering that countries with such problems also generally have an oppressive government and a wide variety of groups stigmatized and threatened by those governments/ the people's long held beliefs.
We can't wave a magic wand and fix it all, its going to require time... and while we wait, perhaps we could get our own house in order, our rug seams rather lumpy.

This seems like a distraction, anyway. Even if we're talking otherwise reasonable nations, this is our sphere of influence.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Why do people care if the term "cis" doesn't sounds as nice and fluffy as they believe is as necessarily accurate to describe them? Nobody else got to choose. What about the term "spinster" to describe unmarried women as opposed to "bachelor" for unmarried men? That is immeasurably worse. Why tie your self-worth to the sound of a word? Considering there are no societal complications for it, it rathers appears as needless nitpicking. In fact, this whole poll comes off as far less honourable than it claims to be.

 

[WindKnight]

Why do people care if the term "cis" doesn't sounds as nice and fluffy as they believe is as necessarily accurate to describe them? Nobody else got to choose. What about the term "spinster" to describe unmarried women as opposed to "bachelor" for unmarried men? That is immeasurably worse. In fact, this whole poll comes off as far less honourable than it claims to be.

I think its fair to say the people who object to cis are used to defining terms. They choose what terms are applied to others, how they are treated, and are generally used to media and society telling them that's their right.

Suddenly someone is doing that to them, and they don't like it, one bit, and rush to reassert their imagined right, rather than going 'hey, maybe this is how everyone else feels like when I do it, and maybe that should make me reconsider doing it.'.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this thread took the direction it did... Anyway, cisgender straight male reporting in. On the whole "normal" thing, I'd say that despite the dictionary definition being correct, this label has a lot more negative connotations for the "abnormal" than cisgender has for anyone. Yea, it's not the prettiest sounding of words, but really, what's the big deal? If it becomes the standard word to use, then it'll eventually sound normal too. Even if you are that offended by the sound of a word, it's not like it's being used frequently. For example, when I talk about one of my closest friends who just happens to be gay, I don't say "so I was hanging out with my gay friend the other day", I say "so I was hanging out with my friend the other day". Know why? Because his sexual orientation has nothing to do with why he's my friend.

Didn't really mean to go into a short rant, but it happened. My apologies if I offended anyone or misconstrued something.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

As a straight cis-male, I have a hard time empathising with other cis-men who think it's an insult. I mean, can it be used as in insult? Well, sure, what can't? It's just that I've run into so few trans individuals, especially in meatspace, that it's got no weight behind it, like a long-range nerf dart.

So, for me at least, cis is an accurate descriptor that just so happened not to be chosen by me. Then again, I'm a filthy gender traitor who can empathize with the frustration that created #killallmen after Operation Lolipop and thinks that the reactions to Male Tears mugs are both hilarious and justify their existence, so...

I dunno. Maybe straight cis-men should get some thicker skins. This is the Internet after all.
-signed, a straight cis-male confused about why he has a poll option.

 

[Something Amyss]

Suddenly someone is doing that to them, and they don't like it, one bit, and rush to reassert their imagined right, rather than going 'hey, maybe this is how everyone else feels like when I do it, and maybe that should make me reconsider doing it.'.

Honestly, wouldn't it be awesome if people would stop as think that? "Huh. I don't like it when it happens to me. Maybe I shouldn't do it to other people, since they may not like it."

 

[Dizchu]

Guys if you're so freaked out by the word "cis" sounding like "cyst", do you also refuse to acknowledge that you belong to the species "homo sapiens" because "homo" is in the name?

Well, seeing as "normal" is synonymous with "average", it's a pretty common comparison.

If you really want to make "normal" a dirty word, then why not make it THE dirty word that it is?

Normal means boring. It means average. It means you disappear into the background.

"Normal" is not synonymous with "average" or "common" though. Naturally-occurring blonde hair outside of Scandinavia is uncommon, but it's completely normal. There are plenty of things that are uncommon that are completely normal.

"Normal" implies that everything is fine, there's nothing to worry about. When you describe a person as "average" you are implying that they are dull and uninteresting. When you describe a person as "normal" you don't necessarily mean that they are boring or unremarkable, you're saying that they don't pose any threat and that they are able to function in society to a reasonable standard. When a cisgender person calls themselves "normal" to differentiate from transgender people, the implication is that transgender people are inherently flawed or fail to live up to the standards of everyone else.

Calling someone "normal" when what you mean is "average" is like calling someone "strange" when what you mean is "unique", but I'm sure you're aware that while the two words may have similarities, they have very different connotations.

EDIT: Also notice how with the cliche insult "die cis scum", people have more of a problem with the word "cis" than they do with the word "scum"? It's like a gay person being called a "dumb ******" and then getting upset that someone called them "dumb".

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I think its fair to say the people who object to cis are used to defining terms. They choose what terms are applied to others, how they are treated, and are generally used to media and society telling them that's their right.

Suddenly someone is doing that to them, and they don't like it, one bit, and rush to reassert their imagined right, rather than going 'hey, maybe this is how everyone else feels like when I do it, and maybe that should make me reconsider doing it.'.

That is an excellent point, basically societal privilege summed up in a nutshell.

I dunno. Maybe straight cis-men should get some thicker skins. This is the Internet after all.

You know that highlights the hypocrisy of the situation. As a trans person, who has a lot of trans friends too, there's this culture of transphobia and we for the most part just kinda sigh and roll our eyes at it. But when we take even a little comical poke at cis folk, cis folk get all offended and scream bloody murder. Funny that, we're constantly assaulted from all sides with cissexism and transphobia and expected to just take it, we get even a tiny bit of our own back and the more privileged group acts like we're trying to exterminate them...

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Guys if you're so freaked out by the word "cis" sounding like "cyst", do you also refuse to acknowledge that you belong to the species "homo sapiens" because "homo" is in the name?

Well, seeing as "normal" is synonymous with "average", it's a pretty common comparison.

If you really want to make "normal" a dirty word, then why not make it THE dirty word that it is?

Normal means boring. It means average. It means you disappear into the background.

"Normal" is not synonymous with "average" or "common" though. Naturally-occurring blonde hair outside of Scandinavia is uncommon, but it's completely normal. There are plenty of things that are uncommon that are completely normal.

"Normal" implies that everything is fine, there's nothing to worry about. When you describe a person as "average" you are implying that they are dull and uninteresting. When you describe a person as "normal" you don't necessarily mean that they are boring or unremarkable, you're saying that they don't pose any threat and that they are able to function in society to a reasonable standard. When a cisgender person calls themselves "normal" to differentiate from transgender people, the implication is that transgender people are inherently flawed or fail to live up to the standards of everyone else.

Calling someone "normal" when what you mean is "average" is like calling someone "strange" when what you mean is "unique", but I'm sure you're aware that while the two words may have similarities, they have very different connotations.

Not using normal also isn't just a gender thing. It is standard practice to not use the word normal in relation to pretty much everything, from sexual preference to disabilities (or lack thereof).