I've got no problem with cis-gender as a word; it seems to me the meaning is obvious to anyone who knows a little bit about human sexuality and latin prefixes, and anyone who doesn't know at least a little about those things is likely to need *any* term having to do with the subject explained. Trans-gender is "across the gender spectrum; (body one gender, self-image anoher)"-if that makes any sense at all (and I think it does) then cis-gender is "on the same side of the gender spectrum" (or "divide" if you prefer to think of it as a binary.)
English has a long history of pickpocketing other languages for spare vocabulary, so latin prefixes are perfectly appropriate for English words. Chemistry uses latin prefixes and that's fine, but it doesn't have them copyrighted.
I think gender is *far* more than reproduction--good grief; if I'm infertile, am I genderless?
I don't much care for "gender incoherent" as a term; it seems to me that it makes it sound like transgender people can't even talk. But if a majority of trans people start using it, I'm willing to reconsider my position.
I'm used to the accusation of "elitist" meaning "the previous speaker thinks she is better than other people because of some personal characteristic." I don't see how this could be applied to the term "cis-gender"--if anything it seems to me to be *less* elitist than having no term for the concept because it includes a recognition that being cis-gender is like being trans-gender: a characteristic rather than the only normal way to be. Unless the accusation means "the previous speaker thinks she is better than other people because she knows this specialized term" which is an accusation that can be directed against anyone who uses any new or unusual word. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what was meant?
The 'elitist' comment as I saw it explained yesterday is basically a combination of reactions like: 'this is not a sociology community, stop using jargon'*, 'remember we don't all have degrees', and 'I don't know that word and it would help if you explained it but you're too arrogant/rude to bother' (because it's not actually in many dictionaries, and apparently looking up the prefix separately does confuse some people - the threads above seem to bear this out somewhat!). I'm not convinced but I do see where the commenters are coming from, at least, if not where they're going with it!
* The definition of racism as "prejudice plus power" often triggers this one, as it's a specialised sociological one, not the common dictionary definition. It seems to be only US-based commenters who use it (in the community I'm thinking of). Ethnocentrism is another manifestation of privilege, of course. ;-)
English has a long history of pickpocketing other languages for spare vocabulary...
The full quote:
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." -- James Nicoll (1990)
"cis-gender" holds no malice for me. It's who I am, but it's not a value judgement - just as I hold no value judgement for or against transgender people. A few of them are friends of mine, and part of why I get uppity about the rights of all people to associated with whom and how they wish. (A few others of them are.... not as much worth my time. Just as with cis-gender people.)
Now, when you start throwing *connotation* into the mix, that's when things get ugly. Of course, most folks who start throwing connotation and judgment into the mix wouldn't use a word as ... non-confrontational? that's not right, but it's in the right direction... as "trans-gender".... and if somebody's using "cis-gender" and looking down their nose, perhaps their own knapsack needs upending.
Not that I think gender is precisely completely an either-or thing, either, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
A lot of responses crammed together.
English has a long history of pickpocketing other languages for spare vocabulary, so latin prefixes are perfectly appropriate for English words. Chemistry uses latin prefixes and that's fine, but it doesn't have them copyrighted.
I think gender is *far* more than reproduction--good grief; if I'm infertile, am I genderless?
I don't much care for "gender incoherent" as a term; it seems to me that it makes it sound like transgender people can't even talk. But if a majority of trans people start using it, I'm willing to reconsider my position.
I'm used to the accusation of "elitist" meaning "the previous speaker thinks she is better than other people because of some personal characteristic." I don't see how this could be applied to the term "cis-gender"--if anything it seems to me to be *less* elitist than having no term for the concept because it includes a recognition that being cis-gender is like being trans-gender: a characteristic rather than the only normal way to be. Unless the accusation means "the previous speaker thinks she is better than other people because she knows this specialized term" which is an accusation that can be directed against anyone who uses any new or unusual word. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what was meant?
Re: A lot of responses crammed together.
* The definition of racism as "prejudice plus power" often triggers this one, as it's a specialised sociological one, not the common dictionary definition. It seems to be only US-based commenters who use it (in the community I'm thinking of). Ethnocentrism is another manifestation of privilege, of course. ;-)
Re: A lot of responses crammed together.
The full quote:
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
-- James Nicoll (1990)
"cis-gender" holds no malice for me. It's who I am, but it's not a value judgement - just as I hold no value judgement for or against transgender people. A few of them are friends of mine, and part of why I get uppity about the rights of all people to associated with whom and how they wish. (A few others of them are.... not as much worth my time. Just as with cis-gender people.)
Now, when you start throwing *connotation* into the mix, that's when things get ugly. Of course, most folks who start throwing connotation and judgment into the mix wouldn't use a word as ... non-confrontational? that's not right, but it's in the right direction... as "trans-gender".... and if somebody's using "cis-gender" and looking down their nose, perhaps their own knapsack needs upending.
Not that I think gender is precisely completely an either-or thing, either, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.