| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
]It would be interesting to see if there's any discernible pattern with trans-people's brains? You might be able to tease out things that are more likely to track with physical sex and others that correlate with gender identity. You'd need a much larger sample and a lot more study of course.
Some day "its a boy" may have to wait for a brainscan....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would just like to say, if we focused on seeing each other as unique individuals rather than simply members of one or more specific (and often opposed) groups to our own, life on earth would be much better.
That said, putting other humans into nice neat little boxes we can understand without really bothering to interact or understand the Other is something we do very well, but, it is also something we can consciously try to not do, and given enough effort, we could likely succeed.
After all, "That this government, of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from this earth." uses the word PEOPLE, and that is one term we indeed all are, good, bad, trans, straight, seems to me, all of those are still just PEOPLE. As imperfect, biased, self-involved, and self centered as we are, I think Pink Floyd sings it best with "together we stand, divided, we fall."
Feel free to belittle such a stance as foolish and impossible, but when I say I am a humanist, I MEAN it! We really should be knocking down walls, not building more of them between all of us.
(not pointing this comment at anyone or any group in particular, just wanted folk to get a sense of where I am coming from, and try to show why I would be so angered by my being by default included in a term such as cis scum)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part 1: Yes, you're right. It would and will be great when we reach a place where we can do that. For the moment, in the world we live in, people's lives and experiences are very often shaped by which groups they're lumped into.
... and they're always going to be shaped by what they ARE. What group they're lumped into isn't so radically different from that that we need to do away with the concept entirely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True. Saying an event or community is "for people of color" has a much better connotation than saying "white people not allowed," even if they have essentially the same literal meaning.
Saying an event or community is "for white people" has a much better connotation than saying "people of color not allowed," even if they have essentially the same literal meaning.
Wait... I think that's actually not right.
Another point that I, and I think everyone else discussing it missed, is that "cis" doesn't really mean "not trans". That's a false binary that ignores the various gender fluid, non-binary or other gender identities that don't fit neatly into either cis or trans.
Much like defining heterosexual as "not-homosexual" would leave out bisexuals and asexuals at least.
At which point "cis" looses all relevance as a term because it was literally adopted to identify that which is "not-trans." At the point you decide that "cis" means something other than "not-trans" it's time to toss that term out the window.
At which point "cis" looses all relevance as a term because it was literally adopted to identify that which is "not-trans." At the point you decide that "cis" means something other than "not-trans" it's time to toss that term out the window.Another point that I, and I think everyone else discussing it missed, is that "cis" doesn't really mean "not trans". That's a false binary that ignores the various gender fluid, non-binary or other gender identities that don't fit neatly into either cis or trans.
Much like defining heterosexual as "not-homosexual" would leave out bisexuals and asexuals at least.
Except that it doesn't mean that, it means "people whose assigned gender matches their gender identity".
It may have originally been coined as just "not-trans", though I'm not at all sure of that, but if so our understanding of gender identity issues has expanded since then.
That's my point: It has a meaning and a definition that isn't "not-trans".
Then the term is outdated an needs to be tossed out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great. Then we could coin another term to fight about.
We could just go to emojis...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At which point "cis" looses all relevance as a term because it was literally adopted to identify that which is "not-trans." At the point you decide that "cis" means something other than "not-trans" it's time to toss that term out the window.Another point that I, and I think everyone else discussing it missed, is that "cis" doesn't really mean "not trans". That's a false binary that ignores the various gender fluid, non-binary or other gender identities that don't fit neatly into either cis or trans.
Much like defining heterosexual as "not-homosexual" would leave out bisexuals and asexuals at least.
I just don't understand this thought process. "Cis" is the opposite of "trans" because of language roots. Just because "cis" and "trans" are not the only two options doesn't mean that they are not descriptive.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nonsense. Cisalpine Gaul and Transalpine Gaul got their names because the Romans strictly segregated people with different gender identities into different provinces of the empire.
Actually... Who would it be correct to call cis? Assume someone who has not claimed to be cis him/herself. It strikes me that the applicable situations are few enough. The guy you just called cis, is that someone who managed to pass to you? Worse, do you have a clue about if someone wants to transition? I mean, I can see someone saying "cis people" or something to mean generally... But used to describe one person?
I just don't understand this thought process. "Cis" is the opposite of "trans" because of language roots. Just because "cis" and "trans" are not the only two options doesn't mean that they are not descriptive.At which point "cis" looses all relevance as a term because it was literally adopted to identify that which is "not-trans." At the point you decide that "cis" means something other than "not-trans" it's time to toss that term out the window.Another point that I, and I think everyone else discussing it missed, is that "cis" doesn't really mean "not trans". That's a false binary that ignores the various gender fluid, non-binary or other gender identities that don't fit neatly into either cis or trans.
Much like defining heterosexual as "not-homosexual" would leave out bisexuals and asexuals at least.
The term "cis" was chosen because of its language roots. At the point that our understanding doesn't match that choice then the term is outdated. It is by definition not-descriptive.
If we agree that gender is not binary then we must agree that trans/cis are wholly inadequate terms as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually... Who would it be correct to call cis? Assume someone who has not claimed to be cis him/herself. It strikes me that the applicable situations are few enough. The guy you just called cis, is that someone who managed to pass to you? Worse, do you have a clue about if someone wants to transition? I mean, I can see someone saying "cis people" or something to mean generally... But used to describe one person?Unless they've outed themselves, you're probably right.
But then it's really most used in scientific or sociological discussions.
And in arguments about how it's a horrible word.
In scientific discussions it is rarely seen as derogatory, and is almost always defined as to how they are using the term. I see it in common usage ALL THE TIME. I see it in blog posts, hear it regularly in conversation, and almost invariably there is someone present who takes offense to the term. It derails potentially useful conversations and conveys unintended meanings. Not to mention the fact that it is regularly intentionally used derogatorily in those contexts.
|
|
I just don't understand this thought process. "Cis" is the opposite of "trans" because of language roots. Just because "cis" and "trans" are not the only two options doesn't mean that they are not descriptive.At which point "cis" looses all relevance as a term because it was literally adopted to identify that which is "not-trans." At the point you decide that "cis" means something other than "not-trans" it's time to toss that term out the window.Another point that I, and I think everyone else discussing it missed, is that "cis" doesn't really mean "not trans". That's a false binary that ignores the various gender fluid, non-binary or other gender identities that don't fit neatly into either cis or trans.
Much like defining heterosexual as "not-homosexual" would leave out bisexuals and asexuals at least.
The term "cis" was chosen because of its language roots. At the point that our understanding doesn't match that choice then the term is outdated. It is by definition not-descriptive.
If we agree that gender is not binary then we must agree that trans/cis are wholly inadequate terms as well.
To say that "cis" was chosen ignores a whole lot of natural language. Because the "cis-" prefix is the opposite of "trans-", once "transgender" became a term used to describe someone whose gender does not match their body, "cisgender" was always going to naturally follow to describe a person whose body does match their gender.
Gender may not be binary, but it does have a spectrum, and that spectrum has directions. The cis/trans distinction may be inadequate to describe all of gender experience, but that doesn't make them useless. They describe what they do, and exist as part of a whole family of terms to express the human condition. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In scientific discussions it is rarely seen as derogatory, and is almost always defined as to how they are using the term. I see it in common usage ALL THE TIME. I see it in blog posts, hear it regularly in conversation, and almost invariably there is someone present who takes offense to the term. It derails potentially useful conversations and conveys unintended meanings. Not to mention the fact that it is regularly intentionally used derogatorily in those contexts.I agree about the scientific discussions. I rarely see it in common use. Mostly in online discussions about trans/gender identity issues. Incredibly rarely in Real Life(tm).
And rarely have I seen it intentionally used derogatorily, though I've seen people take offense.
And here we see how one person's lack of exposure to derogatory statements leads them to believe it is not a problem, despite another person's exposure to derogatory statements.
This is part of the "talking past each other" problem we experience. "I don't witness ______, thus you're wrong to claim you experience it."
(Which, incidentally, is the primary original theme of this thread: that is, "I have a logically-created emotional view of these words, but someone else's might not match mine, in which case we're not communicating." Yay, meta-discussion back on track!)
I've seen a lot of people take offense to the word itself, which makes me suspicious. And the word itself isn't tied to the kind of persecution and abuse that would apply to offensive terms used in the other direction. There's no implied threat, no history of abuse and murder tied to the word.
Yet we have retired the use of terms which were far more descriptively accurate than "cis" is, with similar lack of persecution and violent history. Simply because those populations expressed a desire to drop the term.
Added to the fact that this term isn't particularly descriptive on its face in any meaningful way, and that a non-trivial portion of that group do not appreciate being identified by it, it seems to be time to let it go.
I've seen a lot of people take offense to the word itself, which makes me suspicious. And the word itself isn't tied to the kind of persecution and abuse that would apply to offensive terms used in the other direction. There's no implied threat, no history of abuse and murder tied to the word.Yet we have retired the use of terms which were far more descriptively accurate than "cis" is, with similar lack of persecution and violent history. Simply because those populations expressed a desire to drop the term.
Added to the fact that this term isn't particularly descriptive on its face in any meaningful way, and that a non-trivial portion of that group do not appreciate being identified by it, it seems to be time to let it go.
Examples?
And have we done so without a term to replace the one we're retiring?
Edit: If this was one of a dozen competing terms and the only one that people were taking offense to, I be happy to jump on board the campaign.
Off the top of my head retard and cripple come to mind. Granted there is a history of institutional (ie, asylum) violence associated with the conditions leading to those terms, but that isn't related to the terms themselves.
Edit: I would also add that what encompasses "cis" isn't very clearly defined even under the current usage which makes replacing it somewhat problematic. I think that clearly defining what you want to label would be a really good place to start in selecting an appropriate term.
Off the top of my head retard and cripple come to mind. Granted there is a history of institutional (ie, asylum) violence associated with the conditions leading to those terms, but that isn't related to the terms themselves.I've seen a lot of people take offense to the word itself, which makes me suspicious. And the word itself isn't tied to the kind of persecution and abuse that would apply to offensive terms used in the other direction. There's no implied threat, no history of abuse and murder tied to the word.Yet we have retired the use of terms which were far more descriptively accurate than "cis" is, with similar lack of persecution and violent history. Simply because those populations expressed a desire to drop the term.
Added to the fact that this term isn't particularly descriptive on its face in any meaningful way, and that a non-trivial portion of that group do not appreciate being identified by it, it seems to be time to let it go.
Examples?
And have we done so without a term to replace the one we're retiring?
Edit: If this was one of a dozen competing terms and the only one that people were taking offense to, I be happy to jump on board the campaign.
No persecution either, right?
And we replaced the terms. We didn't just drop them.
Nonetheless those terms were clinically solvent to a degree far more than cis is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
May be worth noting that perhaps the portion of the term cis that some may find insulting is that those people are being defined by others, which in many ways infringes on a person (or groups) ability to have agency.
Easy example, a white person may call themselves "cracker" because they are using their own agency to do so, but would take offense if any other person decided they were a "cracker" for them. Generally we prefer to see ourselves from a frame of reference we create, not from those created for us by another person or group. Thus a "getting lumped into" any group involuntarily likely causes similar issues, to a greater or lesser degree.
Also worth noting that I, on a personal level, very much do not wish to be identified simply by my sexual preference or gender identity, as those are highly personal, and should not (but alas very much do) affect the way others perceive me. To be honest, sexual preference and gender identity are about last on my list of traits the influence my option of a person.
To steal from wikipedia:
Edit: I would also add that what encompasses "cis" isn't very clearly defined even under the current usage which makes replacing it somewhat problematic. I think that clearly defining what you want to label would be a really good place to start in selecting an appropriate term.Cisgender (often abbreviated to simply cis) describes related types of gender identity perceptions, where individuals' experiences of their own gender agree with the sex they were assigned at birth.That's roughly what I've been using throughout this discussion.
And that definition assumes a gender binary. Which I thought we agreed was problematic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for it being assigned by others, that's the way it works. Especially if the group doesn't have and won't put forth a term of its own.
Name another term being used civilly that the identified group does not like but gets used anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those are all fair points, returning to silence in this debate, as I feel I am officially out of my depth.
Hey, as an American, just try and stop me from giving my 2 cp :)
Actually for what it is worth, these threads have actually helped me learn quite a bit, so, well done ladies and gents, cause hey, that is something at least!
Thank you for your participation, however!
As for it being assigned by others, that's the way it works. Especially if the group doesn't have and won't put forth a term of its own.Name another term being used civilly that the identified group does not like but gets used anyway.
"Anti-abortion" vs. "Pro-life"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Anti-abortion" vs. "Pro-life"As for it being assigned by others, that's the way it works. Especially if the group doesn't have and won't put forth a term of its own.Name another term being used civilly that the identified group does not like but gets used anyway.
I'm not sure there is anything civil happening in that debate :P
I'm not sure there is anything civil happening in that debate :P"Anti-abortion" vs. "Pro-life"As for it being assigned by others, that's the way it works. Especially if the group doesn't have and won't put forth a term of its own.Name another term being used civilly that the identified group does not like but gets used anyway.
Very true. But it always seemed strange to me that we call terrorist groups by their chosen names, but AP style guidelines prohibit the use of the term "pro-life," even though that's what the movement calls itself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the official stance is, if the debate has not caused a riot, brawl, or small war, it is considered civil ;)
And that definition assumes a gender binary. Which I thought we agreed was problematic.To steal from wikipedia:
Edit: I would also add that what encompasses "cis" isn't very clearly defined even under the current usage which makes replacing it somewhat problematic. I think that clearly defining what you want to label would be a really good place to start in selecting an appropriate term.Cisgender (often abbreviated to simply cis) describes related types of gender identity perceptions, where individuals' experiences of their own gender agree with the sex they were assigned at birth.That's roughly what I've been using throughout this discussion.Does it?
People who do not identify as male or female, but were assigned to one of those categories at birth, do not fall into the category where "individuals' experiences of their own gender agree with the sex they were assigned at birth." Pretty much everyone who doesn't fit the gender binary isn't going to match and thus won't be cis.I suppose you might start running into definitional problems if the gender assigned at birth stops being a binary, but that's not really a thing yet.
(1) You just used gender binary as part of your reason to say that the definition you support doesn't assume a gender binary.
(2) If we accept that gender is more akin to a 3 or 4 dimensional gradient, then it follows naturally that only an extremely small portion of the population will truly be 100% aligned. For example does some one who is non-gender role conforming fit your definition of cis or not? How does a society's expectations influence that? I expect you will find that upon digging into these issues that an extremely small population 100% fit the definition you put forward. But, I presume that you probably identify 90%+ of the population as cis.
So yes, your definition does promote a gender binary and it is a problem.
As to your comment on sex binary, you are quite wrong. Sex can be very easily defined in at least 4 categories even in humans. I would expect someone who has done research in the field could probably be more precise, but there are definitely considerations beyond plumbing.
1) Yes, I did. Not in the definition, but in the explanation for why it doesn't. Because people are assigned into the gender binary at birth.
Without that what do you think would happen? (keeping in mind that getting 100 kids to be raised in a skinner box is probably not an option after what happened to the last batch)
Hypothetically, in some entirely different science fiction culture, I could see treating kids as ungendered until puberty. It's an interesting conceit, but I've got no real idea what that world would look like. Or how to get there, if we should want to.
One of the problems with this comes from my own observations, as a father.
I've noticed my oldest... likes girls. He doesn't like those things stereotypically associated as "girly" things... and he, uh, well, he really likes being a boy... but he just likes... girls. A lot.
(A substantial portion of me dreads his teen years.)
While part may well be influenced by observing his Mommy and I, we're not exactly ribald, and there is relatively little in his life to suggest romantic interests even exist (there are some - in the few movies and such he watches), but he definitely has a strong romantic attraction to females. And he's four.
(And he most extremely certainly didn't learn how to ogle females from me... õ - O )
Now, don't get me wrong: I absolutely know there are "gendered stereotype" things that go on all over the place. But, Cars films aside, he rarely watches things with any sort of romantic anything in them. We watch Dora, Diego, and Backyardigans; Kung Fu Panda(s), Bolt, and Up more than anything else together. While Up definitively has a male/female romance, it's all of five minutes at the beginning, and that's pretty much the extent of his exposure among those films and series to that idea (while the Cars films have male/female romance, there's nothing in the anatomy of those vehicles to suggest anything other than vague nuances, sooooo...). As for toys, regardless of what he's offered, he generally prefers "boy" toys, but is not averse to some of the "girl" ones - he just doesn't care for others.
We don't specifically try to push gender roles on him. I know he receives some through osmosis, sure - from friends, or occasionally families.
But it's surprisingly strong in him.
It is quite possible that this will change over time - I don't know, I'm not a psych expert - but if, as suggested, things are part and parcel of the individual brain, it seems like both self-categorization and preference may well start earlier than puberty (though, of course, actual sexuality is from that point)... at least in some kids.
I'm honestly not sure where or how I'll stand on this in the future (as I'm trying to learn and understand topics like this), but it seems fascinating, and often seems to generate contradictory information.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My brother and his wife thought they were being so awesome when they gave their 2-year-old son a "Frozen" princess gown for Christmas and insisted that he wear it. He immediately went outside and ran around in the mud, probably ruining it, and then came in and played with toy trains. So I'm thinking their experiment was not an unalloyed success.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, heck, I know I crushed on girls when I was four, too. The interest wasn't sexual until puberty, but they were very real crushes.
I also knew I had a whole host of other proclivities that, come puberty, proved to be sexual in nature, back when I was four, as well. I've always had my sexuality, and no, those other proclivities... they most definitely were not taught to me by family or media choices.
I am quite convinced that these sort of things are most definitely nature.
(ETA: I was a good kid in my teen years, so an interest in girls at four isn't necessarily asking for trouble in your teens, Tacticslion.)