September 2022

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
181920 21222324
2526 27282930 

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 11:52 pm
People have problems with the term cisgender? That's... I don't know what that is. Quite an impressive knapsack, I guess.
Thursday, July 23rd, 2009 10:31 pm (UTC)
There are experiences that many transgender people experience but almost no cisgender people experience. Are there experiences than many cisgender people experience that almost no transgender people do?
Thursday, July 23rd, 2009 10:42 pm (UTC)
If nothing else, trivially, the contrapositive of all those experiences.
Thursday, July 23rd, 2009 10:45 pm (UTC)
Ah, no, because one can experience X at one time, and not-X at another time.
Thursday, July 23rd, 2009 10:48 pm (UTC)
Your requirements can be used to argue against any group's experience. The don't seem very useful.
Thursday, July 23rd, 2009 11:01 pm (UTC)
The experience of feeling one's body is the wrong gender is a characteristically transgender experience. It's a part, or perhaps the defining part, of a "transgender condition". It's how we think of this concept we've named "transgender".

So is there any experience that characterises a "cisgender condition"? What about the experience of feeling one's body is the right gender? Well, no, because with sufficient surgery transgender people might have that experience too, and not thereby become cisgender.

The best one can say is that someone is cisgender if they never have transgender experiences. In other words, that they are non-transgender.
Edited 2009-07-23 11:01 pm (UTC)
Thursday, July 23rd, 2009 11:07 pm (UTC)
Breeding in a way coherent with one's sense of gender, now that's part of a "cisgender condition". But can we find experiences to cover the rest of the cisgender condition?
Thursday, July 23rd, 2009 11:28 pm (UTC)
(rolls eyes) What IS it with the breeding? If people don't breed, are they genderless?
Thursday, July 23rd, 2009 11:33 pm (UTC)
Of course they're not genderless! That's the fascinating thing. But the converse is true: if people do breed, they are gendered in a very physically defining way, that cuts to the heart of the "binariness" of gender.
Thursday, July 23rd, 2009 11:36 pm (UTC)
And so people who don't or can't breed are not gendered? Or just not in a physically defining way?

And if they're not gendered in a physically defining way that cuts to the heart of the "binariness" of gender maybe that means gender is not as binary as you thought.
Thursday, July 23rd, 2009 11:46 pm (UTC)
No, you see "breeding implies gender" is not the same thing as "non-breeding implies non-gender".

The thing is, there's a binariness in the concept of gender. We might ask, where does it come from? Why do people think of gender as being binary at all? The answer is that breeding phenomenon motivates the gender concept. Gender is defined with reference to breeding, even though one can be gendered without ever breeding.