I don't understand all the language and labels the transgender community uses for themselves and just regular genetic male or female born people. Any good answers and what do they all mean? Also, how does a person not offend any or all of these people? What is the ettiquete (sp)?
Why do ftm transgender men call genetic men "cisgender"?
- Thread starter dillonsport1977
- Start date
cisgender - someone who identifies as their gender assigned at birth and their physical/emotional gender.
mtf transsexual - a person with a male gender assigned at birth who now identifies as a woman.
ftm transsexual - a person with a female gender assigned at birth who now identifies as a man.
Transwoman or transman - they aren't trying to trick you, a trasnwoman is a woman and a transman is a man.
Refer to someone by their mentality, rather than what doo-dahs they have.
Hope that helps a little bit.
mtf transsexual - a person with a male gender assigned at birth who now identifies as a woman.
ftm transsexual - a person with a female gender assigned at birth who now identifies as a man.
Transwoman or transman - they aren't trying to trick you, a trasnwoman is a woman and a transman is a man.
Refer to someone by their mentality, rather than what doo-dahs they have.
Hope that helps a little bit.
Well, there's a name for transgender people, why wouldn't there be a name for people who aren't? TO call them normal asserts that transgender is unnatural, and well, more than anything else, that's a bit rude. I'd assume "cis" means something in latin or whatever other language, and thus the word for non transgendered people comes into existence.
A little like the name for non autistic, non mentally disabled people in the AS community and no doubt other disabled communities; "Neurotypical" or "NT". To some, it may be a name they assign to people because they see it as a mark of the enemy, the oppressive majority to their minority, but mostly, this is rarer. Usually it's simply meant as a descriptor bearing no particularly good or bad meaning.
A little like the name for non autistic, non mentally disabled people in the AS community and no doubt other disabled communities; "Neurotypical" or "NT". To some, it may be a name they assign to people because they see it as a mark of the enemy, the oppressive majority to their minority, but mostly, this is rarer. Usually it's simply meant as a descriptor bearing no particularly good or bad meaning.
Cis is a latin prefix meaning "on this side" and is used scientifically as a descriptor in things like Cis?trans isomerism. In this case Cis is being used a substitute for the normal biological Greek prefix homo, for the obvious reason in this context homogender is not nomenclature that is without problems.
Just out of curiosity, why is "normal" a bad word to use, when it is applied as what it actually means?Doclector said:
Adjective
Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
Noun
The usual, average, or typical state or condition.
By the very defenition of the word, beeing transexual is not normal. I'm in no way trying to imply that not beeing normal is worse, or should be looked down upon.
As i see it, the real problem lies in people assuming "normal" is better in one way or the other, which strikes me as odd in a world where everyone wanna be exceptional.
If i'm going off topic, excuse me, and if i come off as offensive, sorry for not beeing clear, i am merely trying to understand, not attack in any way.
Well, that's the dictionary definition. But in use, "normal" often has links to something overtly positive, especially from the view of those decided as "not normal". Thus, not being normal can be seen as a bad thing. Furthermore, if you give everyone else special names and just call most people "normal", it suggests that people outside of that stand out, which you may well do, but you likely don't want to, not for that reason alone, at least. Giving "normal" people a similiar name suggests that everyone's on the same level, which is a good thing, obviously.teisjm said:
And also, yes, people wanna be exceptional, but they want to be "above" other people, not below, not to the side, and most certainly not just because of something they've been since birth.
It just seems a great big fuss being made about nothing. What term can we use to describe a group without a serious negative connotation going some way?Doclector said:
Calling them the "majority" suddenly makes someone feel as though they're threatened if they're not included. "Normal" comes with the stigma you've expressed there. "Average" is synonymous with "normal" and shares the same stigma.
The reason why "normal" is often attempted to be used is that it comes with it the understanding of a normal person. How the average citizen is likely to react to a scenario. What their demographic is likely to be... and trans is certainly somewhere near the bottom of that list. I think someone has a higher chance of having a mental illness (major or minor) than being trans... and there's even some argument that being trans IS technically a mental illness anyway.