And yet, sadly common whenever trans/genderqueer stuff gets discussed on the internet. :(
It seems that people feel that defining the .. standard option? .. makes them boxed in. Which is understandable, but just as 'homo' needs 'hetero', 'trans' needs 'cis' just to construct the sentences. Not that you don't already know, but I get ranty.
It sure would be nice if, in the process of feeling boxed in, they took the time to consider how awful it must be for gender-variant people to feel boxed in by language too.
It's the opposite of trans-. I'm not sure what else is needed. (And anyway, expecting strict logic and consistency from natural language is almost always a waste of time.)
(a) It's *not* the opposite of trans- (b) transgender isn't a great term either, but it's less bad and more entrenched (c) someday I'll learn that disagreeing with the herd only gets me ad-hominem insults...
(Plus, ignoring the chemistry term--which I think fits it better--the other use of the prefix is "on the near side of". If anything, it's a more forgiving prefix that way than trans-.)
Now ad-hominem is a term that quite clearly does not mean what you think it means. Your position here is not wrong because of any property of you as a person, and none have implied such.
biological the near side genderqueer
sex --------------------|-------------------- transsexual
(cis–) (trans–)
(1) It's not marginalization to declare a spectrum. If there isn't a cis–, there isn't a trans–. It's working within the constructs of what society has already set up to build definitions one can work with. (2) It's especially not self-marginalization, but feel free to identify me in ignorance; it's always fun to watch people do that.
Nobody's claiming you're wrong because of privilege, merely that it takes a lot of privilege for one to put correcting the marginalization transpeople get below the marginalization of hypercorrect chemists.
I quite like "gender-coherent", since my bodily appearance, sense of self, and fertility all cohere to one gender. Mind you, people keep thinking "Ashley" is specifically a girls' name.
If you are inferring Peggy McIntosh's essay, the point of that exercise is that everyone has one. So not an insult (though persistent failure/refusal to examine might be worthy of insult.)
The only problem with "cisgender" is that it's a rather foisted "everyone else" term. Most people it is intended to describe don't use the word. If someone asks me, "are you cisgender", my response is likely to be "um, I guess".
It's a bit like goy actually. I'm going to have the same response is someone asks whether I'm goyishe. Being goyishe as such isn't an active part of my identity, though I suppose it might be if I moved to Israel.
But neither term bothers me, either, because I know neither are intended to be derogatory.
So one who transitions sufficiently becomes gender-coherent and we only comment on people in self-identified gender-incoherent states? I think I can get behind that.
no subject
It seems that people feel that defining the .. standard option? .. makes them boxed in. Which is understandable, but just as 'homo' needs 'hetero', 'trans' needs 'cis' just to construct the sentences. Not that you don't already know, but I get ranty.
or something. blurg tired brain.
no subject
no subject
I have a problem with that *particular* word, just like I have a problem with a lot of very-poorly-chosen neologisms / language abuse.
no subject
It also doesn't mean what they seem to think it means.
no subject
Something tells me that didn't happen, though.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(b) transgender isn't a great term either, but it's less bad and more entrenched
(c) someday I'll learn that disagreeing with the herd only gets me ad-hominem insults...
no subject
no subject
no subject
Language has done a lot of things. That doesn't necessarily mean it should be encouraged to keep doing them.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no. oversimplfying, because, well:
(1) It's not marginalization to declare a spectrum. If there isn't a cis–, there isn't a trans–. It's working within the constructs of what society has already set up to build definitions one can work with. (2) It's especially not self-marginalization, but feel free to identify me in ignorance; it's always fun to watch people do that.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
It's a bit like goy actually. I'm going to have the same response is someone asks whether I'm goyishe. Being goyishe as such isn't an active part of my identity, though I suppose it might be if I moved to Israel.
But neither term bothers me, either, because I know neither are intended to be derogatory.
no subject