I know this topic sorta came up before but I heard a conversation last night which got me thinking about it again. To be clear I accept the use of it within the trans community as a lingual convenience.
I was at a bar where I meet with a group of friends regularly who are all older than me. A couple of newer people have joined the group recently. They are both highschool teachers. One of them had to attend some sort of information session by the school board where one of the topics specifically introduced them to the term "Cis-gendered". (He was already aware of the term "transgender" and I did not ask his opinion on that matter.) He thought "cis" ridiculous because no explanation was given as to why the term wasn't completely redundant. Everyone else in the group agreed, none of whom had ever heard the term before then either. They continued to make jokes periodically about it throughout the evening.
I wasn't sure how to take this. It felt like I should have been offended by the way he spoke about it but at the same time understood his point. And since I am not "cis" it didn't even apply to me anyway. So the question I ask is, as the use and knowledge of "cis" spreads into the general population is this likely to be the attitude about it and will it be twisted into a ridicule of the trans community for using it?
I personally hate the terms "cis" and "trans" they seem derogatory to me and a way of classifying and segregating people. We already have enough ways to categorizes people, why introduce more ways. I'm not transgendered, I'm just a human being.
Well, I think that the term "cis" is an OK term to use while in the trans* community, in that it's very useful to identify those who would indeed fit under that term. Just like we, ourselves, use terms to identify ourselves in a way other people can understand. And I'm not saying that every trans* or andro or queer person does use terms to identify themselves and others. Anyways, I think outside of talking between ourselves and the community, it's not exactly necessary. As you pointed out, OP, a lot of cisgendered people don't know what it means, because they don't have to know what it means. However, I think it was very rude of them to make jokes about it. Did you perhaps ask them to stop? A lot of people who don't have gender issues sometimes don't realize they could be being offensive. :-\ But I guess it's just lack of knowledge? Not sure.
Quote from: Hippolover25 on September 19, 2012, 06:41:14 PM
I personally hate the terms "cis" and "trans" they seem derogatory to me and a way of classifying and segregating people. We already have enough ways to categorizes people, why introduce more ways. I'm not transgendered, I'm just a human being.
But I AM different from cis people, in very definable ways. So why can't we have terms to describe those two very definable phenomena? Wouldn't it make discussion difficult not to have terms for them?
Well there has to be some term. I don't think that terms like normal gender or whatever are fair to trans people. I don't think we are abnormal-- we are different. I know that this term is controversial in some quarters as I don't think people in the majority are used to the minority using a term to describe them. They want to define themselves, and the term they won't to use is "normal". Normal is a dryer setting.
I actually think that some people don't like it because they don't know what it means. "Cis" what's that. It's just Greek for the same or matching. I think some people imagine it might be cissy gendered. Hey I'm no cissy gendered. :) I say the later in jest. I am not entirely sure it's not true though.
--Jay J
Where did the term "cis-" come from, anyway?
As for the word debate...I'm with agfrommd, we have to have words to make a distinction between people born in the correct body, and those who are in the process of changing their bodies...why? Because the "trans" people have different struggles than the "cis" people.
Surgeries, for one.
Acceptance--by themselves and others--for a second.
Work and social issues, for a third.
If I were to say, "Hey, I'm a woman and I have problems at work being a woman; they won't let me use the ladie's room", a cis-person would ask "Why?" I'd have to explain it's because I am not accepted as a woman, because I was born in a male body. So, we need terms that are universally accepted to identify people born in the correct body, and those transitioning to the correct body.
To deny it is to make communication difficult, if not impossible.
Myself, I would've asked why the group thought it was funny to make light of what is really a serious matter. (Would they have made jokes about African-Americans insisting on being called "blacks" instead of "Negroes"? Respect can only happen once acceptable names are used, imho)
All I said to him was that I had heard the term before and I new what it meant. (One guy couldn't even believe it was for real.) I didn't challenge him on it because I understood why he would feel that way. I also wasn't prepared to get into a discussion about ->-bleeped-<- either because I'm a lousy liar and would have likely been found out by my concern on the issue. I've gotta get my own mind sorted out first before I get into a heavy-duty discussion about it - I was asked at the first support meeting I went to recently whether I was trans or genderqueer. I paused and then had to admit I didn't know yet as I'm not far enough along in my journey to know for sure. The people at the support group accepted that as a healthy answer. I'm not sure the result would be the same if I was challenged on that by a non-trans group.
Quote from: agfrommd on September 19, 2012, 07:11:04 PM
But I AM different from cis people, in very definable ways. So why can't we have terms to describe those two very definable phenomena? Wouldn't it make discussion difficult not to have terms for them?
Sure I think it's valid. The problem is that a lot of cis people feel they already have a definition for themselves and it is "simply existing". Perhaps this is a bit selfish on their part but you can understand why a cis-man would find it silly to be called a cis-man rather than just a man. Basically it's like asking someone cis to change their name just because a trans individual wants to exist as different. It doesn't make sense to the cis individual because they see the trans person as the only new and different thing. To them it's sorta like if aliens were to come and co-habitate and integrate and we suddenly all had to call ourselves cis-human. The cis often look as us as 'alien' anyway.
Mmm, it is redundant when not talking about trans issues.
Quote from: aleon515 on September 19, 2012, 07:16:39 PM
Well there has to be some term. I don't think that terms like normal gender or whatever are fair to trans people. I don't think we are abnormal-- we are different.
I disagree. Yes, we are very abnormal, and there's nothing wrong with that. Personally, I think terms like "bio", "natal", are "normal" are perfectly fine. The only reason we have "cis" is because some transgender people are very sensitive to any terms that imply "weird" or "unnatural".
I dunno, some trans people are weird, but that doesn't make the group as a whole abnormal. I see some as people who merely lived through a mentally traumatic experience. I would not call everyone who lives through something like that abnormal. Says the person who wishes he was like everyone else...
I find the term cis to be quite helpful. It provides the non-trans community an acceptable (to me) way of talking about non-trans people when they talk with me. It helps them avoid using terms like "regular" or "real" when they are trying to tell me about a non-trans person they know. This is just my opinion.
I had never encountered the terms cisgender and cissexual before I came to this web site.
I am a woman. But, I am not a woman in the same way my daughter and ex-wife are. They were born female. They don't have to get their estrogen and progesterone at the pharmacy the way I do. But even then, my daughter is not a woman in the same way her mother (my ex-wife) is because my daughter is genderqueer. Sometimes, she's my son.
One of my son's best friends is with me under the trans* heading because he's FTM. But, he's pre-everything. While cis* my son's body produces testosterone, his friend, a trans* man who isn't on HRT yet, doesn't have any T in his system.
I like terms like cis* and trans* as these words are descriptive vocabulary. My son and ex-wife are cis*. My daughter and I are trans*. She has no intention of transitioning, but she's under the trans* umbrella with me.
There does seem to be a stigma around these words. I try to use them in a way that "normalizes" them in an effort to remove the stigma.
I don't think cis* is redundant at all. It's far better than saying "normal" or "regular." Hell, it's safe to say that I might not count as a "normal" or "regular" trans* woman.
To me, cis* and trans* are specific and descriptive. I will concede, however, that specific and descriptive vocabulary can be used in a damaging way. But then, many tools can be used as weapons.
I'm personally a bit uncomfortable with the need to use some of the common terms to describe myself to the general public because words like transsexual and queer often get twisted into something sinister or fetish-like. The problem of course is knowledge, but then again our own community is often either confused about or can't agree on a lot of the definitions. Trying to explain to yourself what part of multiple spectrums you exist in can be difficult enough - then try to explain it to a cis who can barely get a grip on the polar definitions. So many people still believe the various LGBTQ individuals have made a 'lifestyle choice' or are mentally ill or acting out rather than simply living by their natural-born biology. As I said earlier I'm not even in a state myself yet to clearly and confidently define myself to the outside world. Just think how difficult this would get if part of my definition was fluid.
Cis is a perfectly useful term within the trans community, and I suppose it wasn't meant to expand beyond it. It seems inevitable though that it will spread into general use, certainly now that a board of education has deemed it important to train their teachers on the use of it. Cis people will not understand or appreciate why they need a label applied to them when they consider themselves the default state. Maybe it will only be a problem until the gender spectrum becomes an accepted measure of existence. In the short term I fear more responses like what I heard in the bar where a term people see as redundant to them indirectly and perhaps unintentionally has them making a mockery of our trans struggle. It is specifically that the cis folks find the term redundant that is the root of the problem. Perhaps this was why I initially put up my guard when the topic came up.
I'm not strongly for or against the term, it just got me thinking because had I not identified as trans this year I probably wouldn't have seen the need for the term either. I figured it would spark an interesting discussion on this site so that is why I brought it up. It seemed like an important and timely societal observation and a weird milepost on my journey.
Quote from: ~RoadToTrista~ on September 19, 2012, 07:36:39 PM
Mmm, it is redundant when not talking about trans issues.
I disagree. Yes, we are very abnormal, and there's nothing wrong with that. Personally, I think terms like "bio", "natal", are "normal" are perfectly fine. The only reason we have "cis" is because some transgender people are very sensitive to any terms that imply "weird" or "unnatural".
Well perhaps "abnormal" meaning out of the normal or ordinary. But it has negative connotations. I don't have problems with bio and natal but they have their issues too. If a person takes hormones, they would bio male or female (depending on the hormone)-- at least chemically. And natal, well what was I born as? Neither expresses the body/brain asymmetry as well as cis-- trans.
I think the problems people have with it is from identity politics. People who do not think of this stuff sometimes don't like to be reminded of the idea that someone *else* is defining their experience. Thru privilege they are entitled to their own definition.
There is nothing in the slightest negative connotation about cisgendered. It lines up nicely with trans as they both use greek roots. I have heard of cisgendered persons identifying themselves in this way. They are usually spouses and allies.
I think that if people just don't know the term, it can be defined for them. People who are allies could accept it.
--Jay J
Quote from: Beth Andrea on September 19, 2012, 07:23:46 PM
Where did the term "cis-" come from, anyway?
They are terms from Chemistry. Cis and Trans are isomers of the same molecule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis-trans_isomerism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis-trans_isomerism)
Quote from: brc on September 20, 2012, 02:15:32 AM
They are terms from Chemistry. Cis and Trans are isomers of the same molecule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis-trans_isomerism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis-trans_isomerism)
Oooh you beat me too it. Congrats, pretty obscure and impressive. ;D
"Technically" they're not the 'same' molecule, just the same molecular formula, structural changes can lead to pretty important differences.
But really I'm just being pedantic, kudos. ;D
Quote from: brc on September 20, 2012, 02:15:32 AM
They are terms from Chemistry. Cis and Trans are isomers of the same molecule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis-trans_isomerism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis-trans_isomerism)
There must be some way to co-opt HOMO and LUMO, not to mention SOMO. >:-)
cis- literally means "on this side of", and trans- means "across or on the other side of" - so the implication is that cis- people are on the same side of the gender drawbridge as their body is (so it's an inherently binary-reinforcing model).
I personally find the term "cis" to be tedious and I don't use it. I don't need to have a special word to describe someone who doesn't have gender/genital issues. To me it just seems odd to have a word that describes 99% of the world population. I am the exception, so of course there is a special term for me, not to mention I am transcending the physical realities my birth sex through medical intervention, hence "trans". I don't even use "cis" in conversations with other trans folks.
To put it in a different light - I explained the term to a friend of mine who is doing research about trans folks so she can gain a better understanding of our experiences (and began doing so after I told her) so she uses me as a "inside source" so to speak. After I explained it, this is what she said:
Quote
So, the T community has a word for everyone who isn't them? I mean, to me, that seems odd. I guess my hang up is this: I could have gone my entire life without ever even seeing a trans person and they would still have a special name for me. That sounds a lot like a slur to me. Don't get me wrong, dove, I'm not accusing you. But shouldn't a term for non-trans folks be created by the non-trans community?
The conversation ended up talking about (of all things) X-Men. Magneto creates two special terms - homosuperior (for the 1% of the population who was a mutant) and flat-scans for those who weren't, but it was used in a militant "We the minority are better than you". I have heard the term "cis" used by trans folks who claim that they are "transcending therefore better than those cis-scum". Seems pretty militant and too much like being a {insert group here} supremacist. On top of that, it isn't in the dictionary.
So, I don't use the term. I don't need a word that describes someone who doesn't have my body/mind conflicts. But, that's my opinion.
Quote from: brc on September 20, 2012, 02:15:32 AM
They are terms from Chemistry. Cis and Trans are isomers of the same molecule
Good, a simple and logical explanation. However the general public will consider this 'too smart' for them and therefore 'elitist' ;). Appropriate though considering the supposed high number of scientifically gifted trans people.
@Ayden - You understand a lot of what I'm getting at. Whether or not 'cis' remains a positive term is now beyond our control.
Quote from: Ayden on September 20, 2012, 08:57:21 AM
I have heard the term "cis" used by trans folks who claim that they are "transcending therefore better than those cis-scum". Seems pretty militant and too much like being a {insert group here} supremacist. On top of that, it isn't in the dictionary.
This is the kind of thing that really bothers me the most and is the most counterproductive to acceptance and understanding of the whole LGBTQ community. I've heard that in Toronto there are a number of gay men that rudely refer to women as "the breeders". The isolationist camps everyone divides themselves into in my city are one reason why it's taken so long for me to come to grips with my own condition - because I've never felt like socialising with people who behave like that.
I used to use the word bio, but it just felt weird.
Thing with cis gendered its just an easy way in my own mind to say someone that was born with XX(in MtF) or XY(in FtM), or in more blunt terms the genitals they were born with. While I am a woman, reality is our bodies are quite different, otherwise I wouldn't put myself into potential harm by taking hormones if I did not have to.
I hate the word trans, only because outside of the trans community(actually sometimes INSIDE the trans community) people tend to take it as oh its a man becoming a woman, bla bla bla. Obviously that hurts a good many of us because we are not men becoming women, we are women who are trying to align their physical self with their inner self.
The reason why we separate ourselves a little is because we need help... we need to speak with people that understand what we are going though... someone born with XX probably doesn't know anything about SRS(even if labiaplasties are becoming common for everyone)
Quote from: Violet Bloom on September 20, 2012, 09:25:23 AM
[clipped]
This is the kind of thing that really bothers me the most and is the most counterproductive to acceptance and understanding of the whole LGBTQ community. I've heard that in Toronto there are a number of gay men that rudely refer to women as "the breeders". The isolationist camps everyone divides themselves into in my city are one reason why it's taken so long for me to come to grips with my own condition - because I've never felt like socialising with people who behave like that.
Well, "what goes around comes around..."
I still recall, and won't really forget, being called a "baby-maker" by the lesbian girlfriend that had started an affair with my ex...
It was not a term of endearment... that's for sure.
The next thing... "what goes around comes around..." they (lesbians) are then called "bleeders" ... never mind "breeders".
The problem as you have pointed out, if you are at the receiving end of such... it is VERY tempting to retaliate. VERY.
Axélle
Quote from: brc on September 20, 2012, 02:15:32 AM
They are terms from Chemistry. Cis and Trans are isomers of the same molecule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis-trans_isomerism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis-trans_isomerism)
Might be USED in chemistry, but both cis and trans are Latin roots (I mistakenly said Greek). So you have these words used in chemistry, astronomy (cislunar), etc. Trans is used a great deal more than cis, makes it more familiar. But there is absolutely nothing denograting about it. Better than normal/abnormal or even normative (though that's a bit better).
--Jay J
Creating a class of people who serve as 'the other' tends to rarely be a good idea, next thing you know transfolks will be thinking of them as 'those people' and 'you people'.
Quote from: aleon515 on September 20, 2012, 05:53:57 PM
Might be USED in chemistry, but both cis and trans are Latin roots (I mistakenly said Greek). So you have these words used in chemistry, astronomy (cislunar), etc. Trans is used a great deal more than cis, makes it more familiar. But there is absolutely nothing denograting about it. Better than normal/abnormal or even normative (though that's a bit better).
--Jay J
You're right. Personally chemistry is one of my pet interests and it's where I know the terms from outside the trans world.
Quote from: tekla on September 20, 2012, 05:59:05 PM
Creating a class of people who serve as 'the other' tends to rarely be a good idea, next thing you know transfolks will be thinking of them as 'those people' and 'you people'.
Heh, well we already often think of them as "Those people who think of us as 'those people'". :)
I think the term cis is important because it balances the trans-cis relationship to an extent. If there's no word for people who aren't trans other than "normal" or "natural" or whatever, then by definition trans folk are abnormal and unnatural.
Think about it this way: what if there were no word for "man," because all human beings were assumed to be male unless identified as female?
Quote from: Asfsd4214 on September 21, 2012, 11:04:36 AM
You're right. Personally chemistry is one of my pet interests and it's where I know the terms from outside the trans world.
Hmmm. Do you think you could come up with a visual molecular representation of each form of human? I'd love to be able to wear a shirt with a trans molecule printed on it and when someone wants to know how to identify me I'll just point to the picture. It will be understood as poorly as any other part of my geeky nature but I will still get the last laugh. ;D
Just threw something crude together in Photoshop as a cheeky/geeky t-shirt image:
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1262.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii607%2FSpawnedFromTheEther%2FCis-Trans-T_zpsf3300283.jpg&hash=3047dade93f5effc89c9ee314863a7b7472c365f)
Kinda "Got Milk?"-like. Nothing like smart geeky humor to scare off bigots.
Oh, crap, this goofiness made me late for work! See you all tonight...
Thank you, Violet. That diagram explains everything.
Quote from: PrincessLeiah on September 21, 2012, 11:18:26 AM
I think the term cis is important because it balances the trans-cis relationship to an extent. If there's no word for people who aren't trans other than "normal" or "natural" or whatever, then by definition trans folk are abnormal and unnatural.
Think about it this way: what if there were no word for "man," because all human beings were assumed to be male unless identified as female?
But male and female are biological sexes, so the terms are useful and have a basis in genetic make-up, physical differences and reproductive function.
I don't think that "cis" balances anything. It just draws a line in the sand and creates an "other" and is a way to say "you don't have gender issues therefore we're irrevocably different". Making up a word for a group of people that isn't you or your group is how racial slurs get started, and frankly "cis" sounds about as weird as nearly all slurs I have heard. Why not just say non-trans? It is effective and doesn't sound like "sissy" or a slur.
As for equaling out the playing field: it isn't equal and it probably never will be. Using a weird sounding word is not going to make it happen. Its going to widen the gap by giving a name to something that doesn't need a name and saying "see, now there is a word for how different we are from eachother. Now you stay on your side with people like you, and I will stay over here with people like me."
I'm certainly not attacking you, I just don't get why people use it at all and I have yet to hear an argument for its use that was reasonable or made any sense. We are just slapping labels on people who don't need a label, didn't ask for it, may not even know we exist and using it as a divider when we have enough of them laying about. We could stand to lose a few of them.
Quote from: Violet Bloom on September 20, 2012, 09:25:23 AM
I've heard that in Toronto there are a number of gay men that rudely refer to women as "the breeders".
This is pretty much my problem with "cis". Techincally yes it is true that straight people and women are "breeders". But it doesn't make it a good term. It's petty and the gay community wouldn't have a leg to stand on when women get upset by the term.
Like my grandfather used to tell me "Words for people are silly. We're all just as nasty looking on the inside."
Quote from: Padma on September 21, 2012, 11:13:36 AM
Heh, well we already often think of them as "Those people who think of us as 'those people'". :)
Yeah it's usually the regular population which sets up an us/them. But it has its uses. For instance, the trans center does a group for cis spouses, SOFFAs. You need language to talk about stuff. I have not heard serious people use it in a denigrating way. It's not a slur.
BTW, I love the molecule. Yes it explains *everything*.
--Jay J
Quote from: Ayden on September 21, 2012, 09:40:21 PM
But male and female are biological sexes, so the terms are useful and have a basis in genetic make-up, physical differences and reproductive function.
I don't think that "cis" balances anything. It just draws a line in the sand and creates an "other" and is a way to say "you don't have gender issues therefore we're irrevocably different". Making up a word for a group of people that isn't you or your group is how racial slurs get started, and frankly "cis" sounds about as weird as nearly all slurs I have heard. Why not just say non-trans? It is effective and doesn't sound like "sissy" or a slur.
As for equaling out the playing field: it isn't equal and it probably never will be. Using a weird sounding word is not going to make it happen. Its going to widen the gap by giving a name to something that doesn't need a name and saying "see, now there is a word for how different we are from eachother. Now you stay on your side with people like you, and I will stay over here with people like me."
I'm certainly not attacking you, I just don't get why people use it at all and I have yet to hear an argument for its use that was reasonable or made any sense. We are just slapping labels on people who don't need a label, didn't ask for it, may not even know we exist and using it as a divider when we have enough of them laying about. We could stand to lose a few of them.
This is pretty much my problem with "cis". Techincally yes it is true that straight people and women are "breeders". But it doesn't make it a good term. It's petty and the gay community wouldn't have a leg to stand on when women get upset by the term.
Like my grandfather used to tell me "Words for people are silly. We're all just as nasty looking on the inside."
But isn't saying "non-trans" elitist in its own right? To say, they are "non-us", they are not apart of what we are.
The fact of the matter is, its human nature to want to name and catalog everything. Its part of communication. "Cis" in terms of gender started in the trans community because we needed a way to distinguish between those who are going through the particular struggles we are and those who are not. It is spreading out into the general public because the general public is, slowly but surely, becoming more aware of us.
I see no issue in "cisgender" or any of its forms. I wasn't alive or at least wasn't aware of the phenomenon when it was occurring, but I feel that probably something similar occurred when the public began to refer to straight people as heterosexual as opposed to the already existing term of homosexual. The latter comparison is based in Greek and the former in Latin, but they've been applied in modern fashion in the same way.
We, as humans, have to make distinctions between things that are different, no matter how small the difference. And we have to assign values or names to these differences. Just the way we are.
Quote from: britt27 on September 23, 2012, 05:33:28 AM
But isn't saying "non-trans" elitist in its own right? To say, they are "non-us", they are not apart of what we are.
I miss typed, what I had meant was not trans. But, I don't see it as elitist. It is the same as saying someone is not Catholic, not Lutheran, not Hispanic. Saying someone isn't something is not elitist, it just means if we have to qualify it, we can say "so-and-so is not [whatever group]". That is not offensive, just like it isn't offensive to say "Hey, Ayde, you're not Latino." It is just accurate.
I understand the argument for it, I just don't think it is sound. Whatever good natured intention someone has when using "cis", it still is a word created by the trans group for people outside of it. We are creating a term that says to those who are not trans "look, we have a word for the majority!" and it doesn't really pay or help our cause. Every person I have explained the word to either thinks it is counterproductive (makes trans folks seem elitist) or are just completely confused by the word ("Why do you need a word? Can't you just say I'm not trans?"). The worst I have gotten was being asked why we had to pick something that sounds like "sissy gendered".
The only comparison I can think of at the moment would be the word "gentile". Gentile was the word that the Jews used to denote someone who wasn't from a specific tribe of Israel, and the majority of people are not ethnically Jewish. The word itself was used by a minority group to label the majority and all it did was cause a divide that was partially fostered by the Jewish community. ("We're Jewish and you're just a gentile.") To use a totally made up word, look at "muggle" in Harry Potter. If you think about it, it is a loaded term. I'm sure that wasn't JK's intention, but its a funny sounding word for people who aren't magic and I don't see the difference with "cis".
I know people didn't make up the word to be counterproductive, but when any group comes up with a special name for people outside of the group it can cause issues. People start to wonder why a small group is calling them a weird word they never heard before. It can and I am sure will cause offense and ill will toward the community even though that was not it's intention. I certainly can't behind it when I put myself certain hypothetical conversations. Like if I am talking to someone who has never, ever met a trans person:
Me: You're pretty cool for a "cis" person.
Stranger: "Cis"? What does that mean? You guys have a term for someone who doesn't transition? Why?
In my mind, I replace "cis" with any number of racial slurs and it just doesn't sit well with me. I get that people feel the need to label others, and I understand that for the most part it is short hand for "someone who isn't trans", but I can't help but see it turn into an elitist term or slur that a community I am a part of uses to refer to everyone else outside of it.
To add to all of it, what about the term "Die cis scum" that is floating around the internet? The word is already screwed as far as whatever meaning was originally intended. I personally think it is counterproductive and I don't use it. I don't encourage my friends to use it and I don't expect them to. But like I said, it is my opinion.
I think people will inevitably use words as we often think that way. I don't think it actually divides anything. The divisions are there. Yeah sure there are probably people who say "die cis..." or whatever, they'd say this one way or another using some type of words. It doesn't mean or even imply "breeder". I think THAT is very offensive.
You can use bio or nontransgender or whatever and it still divides. I totally dislike "normal". Normative is a bit better but still has the root word "normal".
BTW, I know a lot of cisgender people perfectly happy to use this term. So I think this is somewhat a matter of education and so on.
--Jay J
I've used cis with a number of people and have always had to explain it to them, as they've not heard it before. But I've not had one negative response to it from any of them. I just say: it's a scientific term in the same way trans is, I'm trans, you're cis - and they get it.
I generally go on to explain it as helping to remind us that "more common" doesn't mean "more normal" - that one just means "people whose gender identity matches the body they got" and the other just means "people whose gender identity doesn't match the body they got", and it's a handy shorthand.
One main difference between cis and trans people is that cis people (usually) have never had to question their gender identity. I think having cis around as a term (used carefully) helps make cis people less complacent, less unconsciously certain they're the default setting.
Thanks everyone for your input. I was very interested to see what sort of discussion this topic would spawn and the results made for great reading!