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

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.

Just threw something crude together in Photoshop as a cheeky/geeky t-shirt image:



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!