Because I happen to love honest and productive intellectual discussion, I am going to go ahead and open up one of "those" threads to foster such.
So, I will start this bad boy off with something that has been bothering me lately.
That is the term CIS, and, as it so happens, I am CIS. I am a straight white man, and therefore have no choice but to be identified as CIS, or CIS SCUM.
I would like to point out here, that the entire idea that one can boil down a very diverse group of people (straight white individuals) to a short and derogatory acronym is exactly the behaviour that members of other groups decry (and rightly so).
Thus, is it not feasible to think that calling all straight white people CIS or CIS SCUM is in fact projecting that same type of abominable behaviour that members of other groups endure onto another group?
I dare say, yes, it very much is. To reduce my thoughts, perspectives, and yes, feelings (as a man, we do have these) to the baseline of, he is white, he is straight, thus he is CIS SCUM and must identify readily as such is hypocritical in the extreme.
I judge people based on one thing, their own personal merits. Colour, gender, sexual orientation, and any other trait that an individual does not control should not, and for me, does not, factor into my opinion of the person.
Thus, if I, a person identified as CIS SCUM, works from such a non-biased thought space, is it perhaps possible that I am due the same from others?
Thus, the crux of today's little coffee talk here. I can think of nothing that is as self-defeating or absurd than people who feel (and often are) oppressed, degraded, and generally poorly treated, supporting a form of double think that informs them that dong the exact same thing to another group is not only permissible, but justified.
(please note, in no way shape or form am I implying this is the official view of all LGBT folk, or feminists, or anyone else, but there is a subset of those groups, and others, that do hold this view, and should you not believe that, search the internet, the proof is in the videos, as they say)
I welcome any and all thoughts, feelings, comments, and feedback you, the population of the internet have to offer, as above, discussion breeds knowledge, and knowledge is the true power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Knowledge = Power = Energy = Matter = Mass. If a discussion goes on long enough, it becomes a black hole.
Anyway, as I understand the term "CIS", it refers to someone who sexually identifies in a way that matches their body (i.e. they're like most of humanity). To the best of my knowledge, it's not inherently offensive, but is often used in a derogatory context.
Which, of course, is one of the major problems. Simultaneously demanding acceptance and deriding most members of the group you want acceptance from is a self-defeating strategy. If someone says "You are cis scum who doesn't understand me", my reaction is not "Oh, I'm so sorry". It's "Yeah, and I don't want to understand, because you're not acting like an adult yet. Why don't you try explaining things instead of attacking me?"
Similarly, non-violent protests as a whole seem more effective at creating social change (see Gandhi, MLK Jr., etc.). When people insist on aggressive, failing strategies despite better techniques being widely known, I honestly wonder if they really want change, or just an excuse to lash out and hate others. Or if they're plants sent in by others to attack and undermine the movement - also a possibility. o_O
I don't mind it if people want more equality, to be understood for who they are, and an opportunity to demonstrate their worth to society. That's a good attitude to have. However, name-calling and insults are never an appropriate way of dealing with the issue. They're actively counterproductive - and in general, I'm not going to take the time to support any cause whose members are busy ensuring their own failure. I'd much rather help people who want to make a positive change and actually know how to do it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think most folks who use terms such as cis simply because they don't want to call someone normal. Calling someone different to yourself makes you abnormal, and they get enough of that crap from other places that they don't want to have to to do it themselves.
Some people will use it as an insult. A lot of the time, though, if you see it in the middle of a rant it's simply someone venting frustrations that could be physically dangerous for them to vent in real life. I'm not sure it's a good way to vent it, but it's safer, so I can certainly see the appeal. Mostly, unless someone is using it to obviously insult a person rather than an angry way, I'll just ignore it and move on.
According to Dictionary.com, both words seem to have originated in the 1892 edition of the Psychopathia Sexualis, a forensic reference book. So the idea that heterosexual was coined to contrast with homosexual probably isn't wrong - if you're going to describe something that's "different" than any kind of measure, it makes sense to also have a word to describe that measure.
I just don't like using the term because thats not how english generally works. You don't mention a 4 legged dog, or a furred bear, or apples with seeds. Yes, that comes with the implication that cis is normal and everything else isn't, but why does not normal have to be not good? Have you met normal people? They're boring.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very much so. But I'm not trans. I don't get the fact that people consider what I am not-normal every day. I don't get told it's weird to feel the way I do, or do the things I do.
Personally, I go for being unusual, but I'm also 6ft 3 and look like an angry bear violently assaulting a hedge. People tend to not annoy me. I can get away with these things. Most trans people can't. The last thing they want or need is for even talking in a conversation to constantly remind them of there, likely very real, problems.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't like using the term because thats not how english generally works. You don't mention a 4 legged dog, or a furred bear, or apples with seeds. Yes, that comes with the implication that cis is normal and everything else isn't, but why does not normal have to be not good? Have you met normal people? They're boring.
Because we live in a world where we denigrate people who aren't "normal".
The words we use and how we talk about things is important and matters.
Two examples:
1) In cultures where there are no words for right/left, they use the words north/south/east/west to denote differences. If you're facing east and your "right" shoe were untied, someone pointing this out to you would instead say your "south" shoe is untied. If you were facing West, they would say your "north" shoe is untied.
People raised in these cultures have nearly perfect direction sense. They always know which was is North, largely because they think in terms of North (or whichever direction they happen to be thinking in at that time).
2) In a Latin American country (I forget which, I can look it up if absolutely necessary) a dictator took power. His wife had a family member with a congenital mental disorder. The country had not previously had a school for people like this to attend, so the dictator made one to make his wife happy.
A by product of this was that deaf children were included in the school. They had grown up with a few crude signs for basic necessities, but no one had taught them any form of sign language. At the school, they still didn't any form of sign. Now that dozens of deaf kids were congregating daily, they started to develop their own language. As the years have gone on, the language has gotten more and more developed.
Some researchers have made some observations and done some testing with these kids. One test was a simple cognitive test. You're shown a comic strip with two kids. The older brother is playing with a train set. He finishes and puts it in the toy chest, then tells his brother not to play with it. The younger brother takes it out, plays with it, but then puts it back under the bed. The question is: where does the older brother look for the train set?
Very young children always get this wrong. They can't separate their knowledge from the older brother's knowledge. Their brain can't imagine the possibility being otherwise.
The earliest deaf graduates from this school, some well into their 20's also failed this test. They didn't have a development disorder though. 5 years later when the test was re-administered, they started to pass.
What is thought to have happened is that the language at the school now had words to talk about thinking. It had developed enough to deal with abstract thought. Then as the kids continued to graduate, the new developments in the language would filter into the broader deaf community. Once the previous generation had the new words they also gained the ability to engage in abstract thought.
The words we use and how we shape our language is very important. Changing the words we use is simpler, and more effective, than trying to adjust the behavior alone. Changing the words will change behavior.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a straight white male, on the winning team all my life, I could give a rat's bum what the folk who got the short end of the stick call me.
Honkey, white-eyes, gaijin, breeder, CIS. Makes no difference to me. I still get paid more and treated better and nobody watches me like a hawk when I'm taking clothes into the fitting room or touches my hair and says 'oh, it's so soft!' like I'm their poodle. The world pretty much bends over backwards to cater to people like me, so I'm not terribly concerned that the people it hasn't catered to are trying to get some of that action. I wish them luck with that, 'cause there's a lot of inertia to overcome there, from people like me who are afraid that more respect for you somehow means less respect for me.
You want to bug me, call me something that refers to a quality or trait I'm *not* happy with, like my thinning hairline or my weight.
Like having words like "heterosexual" or "straight". We could ditch those too and just use "normal".
Probably. Or just not bring it up unless you need to.
"Cissexual" exists for exactly the same reasons. It's just more recent.
And much much larger portion of the population. What percent do you need to reach before everyone else gets a label? Can therins call everyone else cispeciest? How long do you need to spend identifying your normalities as a whitecispeciestcissexiststraitmeateatinggluteneatingpeanuteatingbluegreense etingmobilewhitemale ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't like using the term because thats not how english generally works. You don't mention a 4 legged dog, or a furred bear, or apples with seeds. Yes, that comes with the implication that cis is normal and everything else isn't, but why does not normal have to be not good? Have you met normal people? They're boring.Like having words like "heterosexual" or "straight". We could ditch those too and just use "normal".
"Cissexual" exists for exactly the same reasons. It's just more recent.
Or right-handed. Or healthy. Or asian.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to point out here, that the entire idea that one can boil down a very diverse group of people (straight white individuals) to a short and derogatory acronym is exactly the behaviour that members of other groups decry (and rightly so).
You do realize that you are here engaged in exactly the same kind of group stereotyping that you are denouncing.
Right?
People who use 'cis' are engaging in "abominable behaviour"? How? What makes 'cis' any more (or less) 'derogatory' than your chosen terms of 'straight' and 'white' above? It's a word. It has no history of negative connotation... if anything, 'on this side of' is inclusive, the individual is not 'other'. Your insistence that it is a slur (and an acronym) intended to denigrate is certainly false in most cases. It also has nothing to do with skin color.
I think you need to re-examine your assumptions about 'cis', because, to borrow a turn of phrase, 'I do not think it means what you think it means'.
A good although not perfect analogy for the use of cis in conversation is a lot of stuff I hear about in birding.
Most of the time, for instance, if I am out an see an American Robin...I just refer to it as a robin. it's not going to cause confusion if I am trying to communicate with other birders or layman, because for most of the country there is only one "robin", and so everyone knows what I mean. In fact some birders even get annoyed that the "American" part of the name exists...it's just a Robin for them, and they don't like the extra wordage
However, if I am in some parts of the SW in winter, I could stumble upon a Rufous-backed Robin, a rare visitor from Mexico. If I am birding and find one of those, than I will use the full name, because otherwise someone would be super confused on why I was excited over a (American) Robin. Similarly, if I am at a location where a Rufous-backed Robin was sighted, if I am in communication with birders I would be specific and refer to an American Robin, so not to get there hopes up.
Cis is in my mind the same thing. I won't and seldom need to label myself as Cis in most conversations, because its just a thing that doesn't come up. But in issues associated with social justice/LGBTQ rights/gender, I would label myself as a cis heterosexual male, because that is a useful label to express my identity and past experience in relation to the topic. I don't see it as any less discriminatory than referring to someone as a trans male, in similar contexts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now all I want is to go birding with Jawa (which could be a show on some outdoors network)
LOL Cap! Thanks for getting rid of some of that tension in the room.
Also, for the record, but appreciate the reminder, I am aware that CIS is not just straight white men, but as that is the only perspective I can write as an expert from, I make mention of that specifically. Mostly just wanted to make it clear that I do not speak for all folk that are identified as CIS, because I dislike pirating other peoples capacity for self agency.
(tis absurd to think that anyone can speak to or for the thoughts and motivations of another with whom they share little of nothing in common, as doing so basically, even when good intentioned, implies you do not believe that person can advocate for themselves, or needs informing on their own perspective.)
Nice example Krensky, nothing like a super convoluted language to make complex human social interactions even more difficult by overloading many common words in the lexicon with layered or multiple meanings, cause that is just what the doctor ordered. Go figure, being too smart for our own good apes ='s problems (conversely, the too smart for our own good can also be the answer TO the problem, if only we would put all that intelligence to an ethical use)
Good discussion thus far folks, nice work!
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
Cisgender is the opposite of transgender. Transgender people are normal, have always existed, and always will. Are they a small part of the population? Yeah, but do are people from Chicago.
When trans people use the term "cis scum," it's because they're frustrated with a world that frequently does physical and social violence to them. You may find that trans people are less concerned with the feelings of cis people when cis people are perpetuating systemic transphobia. There would probably be a lot less of that hurtful language if cis people stopped murdering trans people because of their gender.
It is never wise to give people fodder for behavior you do not care for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't like using the term because thats not how english generally works.How "english generally works" is generally something that changes with each generation.
Yes, but this particular aspect of "how english generally works" is not something that changes. The notion of "markedness" (to use the technical term) seems to be universal across time, space, and culture, and is probably related to the Zipfian notion of least effort.
Basically, if it goes without saying, let it. If all frobnitzes are pillicks, you don't need to talk about frobnitzes-that-are-pillicks, and if 99% of frobnitzes are pillicks, people will talk about frobnitzes generally and non-pillick frobnitzes.
The "hairy dog" is a good example. Yes, there are hairless breeds of dogs which are discussed as such, but precisely because those dogs are outliers, those are the ones that are discussed as "hairless" (instead of the other way around). Similarly, you buy "scissors" and "left-handed scissors," or "beer" and "alcohol-free beer."
The only way that "trans" will cease to be the marked form is if/when the trans lifestyle becomes common/dominant. This, again, is a normal part of linguistic evolution. "Watch" now means "wristwatch" and not "pocket watch," "television" now means "color TV" and not "black and white TV," "razor" now means "safety razor" (who owns a "straight razor" any more?) and "bicycle" means "safety bicycle" and not "penny-farthing." (For more examples, look up "retronym.")
And this has little to do with politics, but a lot to do with psycholinguistics and how people talk about the world.
Before reading this discussion I would have been completely happy for someone to refer to me as CIS, mostly due to my complete ignorance of the term.
I just don't like using the term because thats not how english generally works.How "english generally works" is generally something that changes with each generation.Yes, but this particular aspect of "how english generally works" is not something that changes. The notion of "markedness" (to use the technical term) seems to be universal across time, space, and culture, and is probably related to the Zipfian notion of least effort.
Basically, if it goes without saying, let it. If all frobnitzes are pillicks, you don't need to talk about frobnitzes-that-are-pillicks, and if 99% of frobnitzes are pillicks, people will talk about frobnitzes generally and non-pillick frobnitzes.
The "hairy dog" is a good example. Yes, there are hairless breeds of dogs which are discussed as such, but precisely because those dogs are outliers, those are the ones that are discussed as "hairless" (instead of the other way around). Similarly, you buy "scissors" and "left-handed scissors," or "beer" and "alcohol-free beer."
The only way that "trans" will cease to be the marked form is if/when the trans lifestyle becomes common/dominant. This, again, is a normal part of linguistic evolution. "Watch" now means "wristwatch" and not "pocket watch," "television" now means "color TV" and not "black and white TV," "razor" now means "safety razor" (who owns a "straight razor" any more?) and "bicycle" means "safety bicycle" and not "penny-farthing." (For more examples, look up "retronym.")
And this has little to do with politics, but a lot to do with psycholinguistics and how people talk about the world.
I shave with a straight razor.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And this has little to do with politics, but a lot to do with psycholinguistics and how people talk about the world.
Actually, in the case of how we talk about other human beings and the ways that language is used to marginalize and other trans people, linguistics is extremely political.
I'm not sure if my views are odd or not, but I've always been in favor of transgender rights, though I recognize that it's a difficult topic - especially for kids. "Which locker room should they use?", for example, is not the easiest question in the world to answer.
If it's their biological gender, they may feel excessively nervous and out of place ("I'm a girl surrounded by all these guys"). If it's their self-identifying gender, others might be nervous at having them around ("I know I'm one of them, but all they see is a guy who can watch them change"). If they're put into a separate area, they can feel ostracized from their peers ("Why do I have to be away from everyone else?").
Not the easiest thing to resolve - I suspect counseling comes into it somewhere.
On the other hand, I've always thought of transgenderism as "People whose mental orientation does not match their physical orientation, and the reason for that is probably not their fault". It's my understanding that transgender people often feel like their body is wrong - and at the same time, I think insulting, attacking, or otherwise degrading them for that difference is morally repugnant. Insults in general are bad, but insulting people for things completely outside of their control (and that they may not like, either!) is just childish, and I want no part of that. o_O It's much better to treat everyone with respect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ LazarX
Totally a valid point, CIS is not per say insulting or derogatory without the 2nd portion of that statement, yet it is worth mentioning, I did not chose to be a white male anymore than anyone else has the capacity to chose their gender (biological, not actual) or ethnicity.
I can only speak from personal experiences, but I have taken the most flack from other straight white men for my political and ideological views (aka refusing to join the old boys club, despite my having "legacy" to do so, that is, being of their preferred group regarding gender and sexual identity.)
Thus curious why you would think I have a chip on my shoulder, as I do not recall in my previous statements (my opinion of them of course) stating anything that particularly exposes such a stance. If folk feel the need to refer to me as CIS (rather than my name, which I would much prefer) that is just how it has to be. But, when I am lumped into the CIS SCUM category by accident of biology, I see no reason why I am not allowed to be offended to a reasonable degree. I am nothing like the people that have taken actions or made statements that have likely legitimately earned them a derogatory title (likely by being violent, bigoted, sexist, and generally jerkish).
However, because I share an ethnicity, sexual identity, and gender with those who have given legitimate offence, my right to be seen as an individual, separate and autonomous from any group to which I happen to belong (not by choice) seems to be ignored. That is literally making me into the Other, which is the exact thing that actual CIS SCUM does to LGBTQ folks and other groups they do not agree with, as making them Other (in the Orientalist meaning of the word, hence the capital O) in the twisted veritas style of thinking such a ideology uses allows for the complete dismissal of all those whom you deem as Other.
Is this not one of the very things that those who do earn the CIS SCUM title do to the LGBTQ and other protected status communities? Thus, for me personally, were I part of the LGBTQ community, I would want to have nothing to do with the weapons of my enemy, aka, outdated Orientalist double think. victory by any means necessary tends to be a hollow victory at best.
Actually, in the case of how we talk about other human beings and the ways that language is used to marginalize and other trans people, linguistics is extremely political.
And this has little to do with politics, but a lot to do with psycholinguistics and how people talk about the world.
Nope, although a lot of political types with no understanding of linguistics like to believe that it is, because it lends purpose to their otherwise senseless choice of windmills at which to tilt.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ LazarX,
Ok, again, fair to say, but I will argue, how is it MY niche, I did nothing to gain admittance to it other than be born as I am. I have never and will never be "that guy that is literally the patriarchy in a nut shell."
Additionally, I as an individual stand against everything that the SCUM part of cis SCUM stands for, so how does wanting me to feel the emotional pain and other negative (and yes there are many) impacts of being classified as Other help the issue, when I (again, me, not all white men, not all white men in NY state, just ME as a white man) am on the side of those who get classified by cis SCUM as Other themselves. Fighting fire with fire just makes an out of control wild fire (if you will excuse the colloquialism)
This webcomic shows a good example of what a trans person has to deal with in the troublesome issue of gender identity.
First off, let me hasten to say that a lot of the difficulties are horrifyingly real and disturbingly common.
That said, some (very few, but still some) of the perceived difficulties can attributed to language rather than discrimination. For example, a {pre-op trans biological male/identifies as female person} may declare "I AM female!" and become angry if anyone seems to question that statement. But if I identify as a god (to choose an absurd example), rather than as a mortal, and I declare "I AM a god!" -- no one will support me on that statement, even if I dress up like Osiris. Because, as a matter of communication, it's currently understood that a statement of physical/biological fact is handled differently from a statement of inner identity. So I could say, "I identify as a god," and it's all clear -- people may react in different ways, but no one gets to call me a liar. And if I undergo an apotheosis and biologically become a god, then I would "be" one at that point, and could say so without any linguistic gymnastics.
Yes, the rules of language change over time, but at the present, we still typically separate a statement of physical/biological fact from a statement of inner identity, except in the case of trans people -- and suddenly changing the definition of "am" like that can throw people who are otherwise 100% supportive (people then quibble with the grammar, rather than the identity itself).
On topic, I'm cis, and I've been referred to as such, but I've never heard "cis scum" before clicking on this thread. So that kind of says something right there.
@ LazarX,
In no way did I every say they did (none of us, that is all humans, control such things), I would kindly ask you refrain from putting words in my mouth, I did request civil discussion, and I have been nothing but, I would appreciate the same.
@ KingOfAnything,
That is a fair question to ask, my reasoning is, blanket statements and generalizations are just that, and while I am indeed not part of the scum bit through any actions of my own, I remain lumped into it exactly because it is such a broad stroke. My point, painting any group in such broad terms can be dangerous, as at least a portion of said group is going to not fall into the frame that is being painted with said broad strokes, and ignoring that alienates said members of said group that did, or may have, supported you (the general you). That is not to say I am changing my stance, I remain a liberal pagan who thinks the only ist that matters is humanist, but the topic deserves discussion (which we are having, which is good)
@ thejeff,
Pardon, I have tried to be more specific on the cis vs. cis scum concern, I apologize if I was not clear previously, if so that is my fault.
|
@Jeff Harris
Why do you think people use the term, "cis scum"? What in a trans person's experience would lead them to use it? What kinds of things do you do when you are frustrated, angry, and feeling powerless?
I know that you support the LGBT community, but I'd like to know how much you empathize with the people you are criticizing.
I don't think "cis scum" is a positive term, but I understand how and why it is used. I choose not to take offense or be hurt by it, but use it as a way to understand a little of someone else's pain.
Can I for one say this is the first time I have ever come across the term Cis Scum? It seems a generic insult attached to a generic label...I didn't know it was it's own unique insult.