| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This article by the well known author Brynn Tannehill should finalize the debate on the use of "cisgender":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/the-new-c-word_b_5617913.html
"The use of "cis" and "cisgender" should be carefully examined. There are people who strenuously object to these words being applied to them, even if the words come from an academic background. Just as my feelings on certain subjects should be respected, so should the feelings of people who dislike these labels.
It also needs to be asked what using the words gains us....The conclusion of many organizations is that you should not use either "cisgender" or "cis" in any sort of public narrative. ...Even inside the LGBT community the words have a very negative connotation. When someone is referred to as a "cisgender lesbian" or "cis gay man" by a transgender person, it is often in a negative way. The addition of "cis" or "cisgender" is used to imply a certain level of contempt and a desire that they leave discussions on transgender issues. It also implies that they don't, can't, or won't ever understand transgender issues.
...However, using the word "cis" or "cisgender" is not necessary to do so. Just as no one ever called me "tranny" and meant it in a nice or affectionate way, many LGB people have never been called "cis" or "cisgender" in a way that wasn't accusatory. Therefore we find common ground in disliking a word because its context has always been nasty and demeaning when applied to us personally.....As a result, "cis" and "cisgender" should be used sparingly in public discourse."
I agree with the author "The conclusion of many organizations is that you should not use either "cisgender" or "cis" in any sort of public narrative." and I think it's time the Paizo boards joined this movement.
Assistant Developer
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am kind of appalled that Huffington Post would publish this kind of puff/hit piece.
The term "cisgender" exists as a counterpoint to "transgender," a term which, I feel is it's important to point out in the context of this discussion, was created by cis people and imposed on trans people to describe a wide variety of expressions. It's a variation of a term cis people created, using Latin prefixes, and exists to challenge the idea of not being trans as being "normal."
It doesn't exist as a slur or an insult, and just because some people say it with an irritated, exasperated, or angry tone doesn't make it an insult any more than black people complaining about white people make "white" an insult. We have the word "cisgender" because prior to it being coined in the 90s we didn't have a word for non-trans people (aside from fallaciously labeling non-trans people "normal"), and it's a useful descriptor. You don't want to embrace it as a political identity, that's absolutely fine; lots of trans people don't embrace "transgender" as a political identity.
"Cis" is sometimes used to remind people they should be listening rather than speaking on trans issues, because cis people are not experts on trans issues and have no first-hand experiences with these issues. Just like you wouldn't expect a heart surgeon to speak over an astronomer when we're talking about the moons of Jupiter, a cis person can be an expert on lots of things without having great insight on trans experience.
Trying to have "cis" and "cisgender" banned from the messageboards is trying to take a basic tool away from a minority. It won't change the fact that the word is necessary for some discussions; if we can't say "cisgender," then we'll say "non transgender" or something else along those lines, and eventually people will complain that they don't identify with THAT label and that it should be banned too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
