As a total layperson, I popped "cis-" into my firefox dictionary search engine and it returned a definition that let me easily infer what it meant in relation to one who is transgendered.
I do understand nit-picky preference for correct usage/terminology, but isn't that ease of inference for as many laypersons as you can hope for the most important part?
1: on this side (cislunar) (cisatlantic) 2 usually italic : cis (cis-dichloroethylene) — compare trans-
I read the first definition, then my gaze skips all the way to "compare to trans-" and I can at least figure I'm dealing with a word that refers to those who aren't transgender (for some reason when I link it, it leads to this (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cis-) definition though).
I suppose it's your prerogative to have those priorities, it just comes off as needlessly belligerent, I suppose? A marginalized group has a word that does what they want and isn't so obscure that most moderately intelligent people can find the intended meaning of it without much difficulty - I know you're not saying that your priorities should or do overshadow that, but it's really easy to read that way.
Actually you're phrasing it quite well :D and that's about all you'd need to find. If you take the biological sex, cis– is on that side of the spectrum, and trans– is across the other side of the spectrum. It's simplifying for etymological highlighting but you see how you get there.
The goal, in a general case, is to have terms that can have equal connotation--instead of a "good" and a "bad", or a "normal" and an "other". So like, normal person vs. trans person isn't far from person vs. trans person, to take a Fish example from above.
So instead of "straight" and "fag", the latter of which has all sorts of bad connotations and denigrations, we have "heterosexual" and "homosexual" (and bisexual and asexual and and but that's beyond scope here) where the terms are more or less equal and you can use them as descriptors without hating on someone. At the same time, instead of "normal person" and "(the other weird freaky) trans people" we have "cisgender" and "transgender" (and genderqueer and gender-fluid and and and, again).
It's also about trying to highlight privilege in language (because most of us think in language, and creating terms is one of the first steps in framing discussions). Just because a non-gender-variant person is the default doesn't mean it's the correct or only way; it's just one of many options.
Oh god Professor Cow is apparently teaching sociology again. :D But I wanted to sum it up because you and Gibb were always so awesome for me, and hopefully this can be useful. Plus I really wanted to say HI JYUU but I don't seem to be able to say anything in under two pages. :D
Exactly - the point is having an identifiable word that works as a comparable, nonjudgmental term for those who are not transgender. It might not be the most correct word, but I have yet to see an alternative, and given the transgressions of tons of other words in the English language this seems like a pretty acceptable vocabulary tweak (for most, anyway).
HI COW :D I'm glad I can sound decently coherent! And d'awww, if we helped at all then I'm immensely glad and fuzzy feeling-ed. ♥
![[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}
no subject
I do understand nit-picky preference for correct usage/terminology, but isn't that ease of inference for as many laypersons as you can hope for the most important part?
no subject
And no, while it might be the most important part to some people, I have different priorities.
no subject
2 usually italic : cis (cis-dichloroethylene) — compare trans-
I read the first definition, then my gaze skips all the way to "compare to trans-" and I can at least figure I'm dealing with a word that refers to those who aren't transgender (for some reason when I link it, it leads to this (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cis-) definition though).
I suppose it's your prerogative to have those priorities, it just comes off as needlessly belligerent, I suppose? A marginalized group has a word that does what they want and isn't so obscure that most moderately intelligent people can find the intended meaning of it without much difficulty - I know you're not saying that your priorities should or do overshadow that, but it's really easy to read that way.
Sorry, I know I'm not phrasing this well at all.
no subject
The goal, in a general case, is to have terms that can have equal connotation--instead of a "good" and a "bad", or a "normal" and an "other". So like, normal person vs. trans person isn't far from person vs. trans person, to take a Fish example from above.
So instead of "straight" and "fag", the latter of which has all sorts of bad connotations and denigrations, we have "heterosexual" and "homosexual" (and bisexual and asexual and and but that's beyond scope here) where the terms are more or less equal and you can use them as descriptors without hating on someone. At the same time, instead of "normal person" and "(the other weird freaky) trans people" we have "cisgender" and "transgender" (and genderqueer and gender-fluid and and and, again).
It's also about trying to highlight privilege in language (because most of us think in language, and creating terms is one of the first steps in framing discussions). Just because a non-gender-variant person is the default doesn't mean it's the correct or only way; it's just one of many options.
Oh god Professor Cow is apparently teaching sociology again. :D But I wanted to sum it up because you and Gibb were always so awesome for me, and hopefully this can be useful. Plus I really wanted to say HI JYUU but I don't seem to be able to say anything in under two pages. :D
no subject
HI COW :D I'm glad I can sound decently coherent! And d'awww, if we helped at all then I'm immensely glad and fuzzy feeling-ed. ♥