sophiaserpentia: (Default)
sophiaserpentia ([personal profile] sophiaserpentia) wrote2009-07-23 12:24 pm

the term cis; and maybe we need three or more terms

There's been a lot of discussion in the blogosphere lately around the word "cis." It was coined 15 years ago so that there would be a word that means, basically, "someone who lives as a member of the sex they were assigned at birth." Why do we need such a word? Because those who are not cis are discriminated against horribly in this society (by families, friends, strangers, the law, schools, employers, social clubs, and religious institutions) and we deserve to not be the only people whose gender identity is given a name: trans.

[livejournal.com profile] wildeabandon posted a poll yesterday, the results of which match what I have seen in other discussions about "cis" in recent weeks: many or most of those who recognize that the term is meant to refer to them do not really object to it, though they often find it odd or awkward. But the objections are interesting, and it is those to which I wish to respond today.


A. General linguistic objections.
1. "Cis" sounds like you are calling me a sissy.

I've seen this objection cited several times in the last few weeks, entirely (as you might imagine) by men.

2. "Cis" is too clever.

"Cis" as opposed to "trans" is a terminology arising out of chemistry (or Classical studies, take your pick), a sort of accidental tribute to the general geekiness of the average trans person. So, 9 out of 10 times it's used, it has to be explained; it is only intuitive to those who are familiar with chemistry or Latin.

1 & 2 are not really objections to the assertion that there is a need for this term, merely objections to the actual morpheme in use. What term might we use instead, and in what way would it be an improvement?


B. Philosophical objections.
3. You're imposing an identity on me and I don't consent.

"Gentile" is a word that means "someone who is not a Jew," and it describes most of the human race. The term does accurately represent me, but it is not a part of my identity. I don't identify as a gentile, but I don't deny that I am one.

There are other terms that describe people which we do not incorporate into our identity and worldview. For example, I do not identify as "a person of medium height." But I chose "gentile" here because of what I see as an obvious parallel to the term "cis:" they are both terms that describe most of the human race which have been introduced by the minority for whom the term does not apply.

I'm not sure why those who are described by the term cis would assume the term's existence means they have to incorporate it into their identity. Is it because society sees "trans" as an identity? Is it because of political parallels to "gay," "straight," "white," "black"?


4. If you call me "cis," that implies that I am comfortable with the sex/gender I have been assigned by society. I've always felt uncomfortable with the gender role imposed on me, so it is not fair or accurate to associate it with me.

Being trans has very little to do with being uncomfortable with sex or gender roles. To put it bluntly, I am not trans because I am uncomfortable with the male gender role, I am trans because I am a woman. I am a woman whom most of the world insists is a man.

Everyone chafes against gender roles. Some people respond by acting or dressing in unconventional ways: a man might wear eyeliner; a woman might shave her head and refuse to wear skirts. Transition is fundamentally different from this. It's not simply gender-bending taken to a higher degree. Someone gender-bends because it's interesting or exciting or sexy; someone transitions because they are looking for relief.

I didn't petition the court to change my name because I am a nonconformist, I changed my name because my parents gave me a man's name by mistake. I needed to have a name that didn't increase my stress every time I had to answer to it.

I had my facial hair lasered off because afterward I could finally recognize the person I see when I look in the mirror. After puberty I had very excessive facial hair that made it likely that people would mistake me for a man. Getting rid of it has been a tremendous relief.


5. If you call me "cis," that implies that I identify strongly with the way my body is shaped and/or the politics that go with having a particular body shape.

This is an objection I've only seen from women. I suppose it's not impossible that a man might feel the same way, but I've yet to see it.

The women I've talked to who feel this way describe having lived their lives with a sense that womanhood is an artificial construct that people around them expect them to identify with and act like. Womanhood is imposed on them because of the shape of their body, even though their body is itself alien and disconnected.

The sense that one's body is not who one is, is far more profound than basic chafing at gender roles. On the face of it, this is rather like what it feels like to be trans, with an important distinction. Relief for this dissociative dysphoria would not come from transition, because manhood is just as alien and artificial to them as womanhood.

Labeling those who have this experience as "cis" is probably inaccurate, though they are not trans either. We might need a new term altogether. "Iso" perhaps?


A final point: we might be well served by defining a spectrum of terms that range from "cis" to "trans" rather than having an either/or distinction. For example, quite a few people identify as genderqueer and this seems to be a relationship to sex and gender that falls between cis and trans.
(deleted comment)

[identity profile] sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 05:57 pm (UTC)(link)
Actually, "trans" was not a term coined by trans folk, it originates in the medical community. I think it's a horrible term, really; I'm just a woman, not a "trans woman." But I can't reach into people's heads and change the way they see me, and I'll never be able to undo fully the damage that androgens have done to me.
(deleted comment)

[identity profile] sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 06:08 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm not sure what you feel is being forced on you. I'll never ask you to describe yourself as a cis-woman. It's not a term of personal identity, just a term to describe people. Like the examples I used above, "gentile," or "person of average height."
(deleted comment)

[identity profile] wildeabandon.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 06:29 pm (UTC)(link)
Do you mind being described as not trans?

[identity profile] legolastn.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 06:45 pm (UTC)(link)
To me it feels less like "two wrongs make a right" and more like a question of ability to assert privilege. Regardless of what identity a trans person asserts, if your birth-assigned sex/gender is known/ discovered/ read you are subject to different treatment. It therefore seems useful to recognize this and be able to talk about it. Privilege in any particular situation is not just a matter of being a man or woman, but being a cis-man or cis-woman, and I'm not sure how else you would talk about it.

I'm not sure there is a good analogy here but what comes to mind is "colorblind" ideology. I imagine that at least some people taking on a colorblind ideology might insist on not having a racial identity. I also imagine most people who espouse a colorblind ideology are white. Their insistence on not being labeled as white does not erase their white privilege nor does it erase the system of oppression based on race.

[identity profile] legolastn.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 06:15 pm (UTC)(link)
My own personal bias is that I love the term "cis" and find it very useful, but then I'm a genderqueerish geek with a bio/chem background, so I would.

1. "Cis" sounds like you are calling me a sissy.
This makes me want to throw up a little bit.

5. If you call me "cis," that implies that I identify strongly with the way my body is shaped and/or the politics that go with having a particular body shape.
I don't object to be being labeled "cis" for the reasons you mention in response to #3 & #4, but I do identify with this statement. However, being gay, genderqueerish, and arguably intersexed, perhaps I don't count for the purposes of your prediction.

...

I have wrestled a bit with the limits of the cis/trans distinction in a theoretical paper on high femme. I think genderqueer is probably a good and already fairly distributed/understood term for this sort of phenomenon. However, I agree that "iso" seems like a good parallel term with reference to cis/trans.

[identity profile] sable-twilight.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 07:11 pm (UTC)(link)
The problem I see with the use of gender queer in such a way is that it has the potential to reinforces a perception that the term should only apply to FAAB people.

[identity profile] legolastn.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 07:50 pm (UTC)(link)
Is that in reference to my comment on high femme?

I guess I've never personally understood there to be an association between genderqueer and FAAB people, probably because my first encounter with people who I would consider genderqueer were Radical Faeries (which, at the time, was still seen as basically a gay male group), but maybe also because...well, I don't think I've ever heard anyone make such an association. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?

If anything, my impression is that the term applies to being "somewhere in-between" on a continuum of man to woman, and that high femme (and perhaps on the other end of the spectrum, such things as the leather daddy) disrupts that notion.

[identity profile] macoafi.livejournal.com 2009-07-24 07:42 pm (UTC)(link)
What's wrong with being a "sissy" again?

[identity profile] legolastn.livejournal.com 2009-07-28 01:35 am (UTC)(link)
Exactly.

[identity profile] fizzyland.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 06:41 pm (UTC)(link)
Is some sort of group identification really significant?

[identity profile] sable-twilight.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 07:04 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes, particularly when discussing topics such as cissexual privilege.

Additionally, other terms - such as woman/man born woman/man, genetic boy/girl, bio girl/boy - tend to imply trans identities as being less real, natural and/or desirable. The use of "cis-" helps to eliminate hierarchical implications of other commonly used terms.

[identity profile] liminalia.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 08:28 pm (UTC)(link)
If a group has no tag, it is assumed to be the default, and thus that groups' privilege goes unremarked.

[identity profile] sable-twilight.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 06:56 pm (UTC)(link)
I often feel much of the problem is there is not enough distinction between cisgender and cissexual.

Argument number five might be lessened if the differences between the two were more clearly pointed out. Such women might well fall under the category of transgender, but cissexual.

[identity profile] akycha.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 08:21 pm (UTC)(link)
This is very interesting, and I agree. I've made the argument elsewhere that "proper" gender performance and heterosexuality are so closely linked in the United States that those who fall into the category of queer sexuality are actually transgressing on the same vector -- although not to the same extent -- as openly transgendered, genderqueer, and transsexual people.

Other ways of not being "properly female" or "properly male" are, as Sophiaserpentia pointed out, things like refusing to wear skirts for a woman (or shave your legs! Quelle horreur!) or wearing chandelier earrings for a man -- both of these things impact gender. However, they're not the same thing as completely moving from one gender pole to the other.

Part of the problem, of course, is the (still persistent) idea that there is a "proper" way to be female or male.

I like your proposed double terminology; I think it helps get at some of the complexities of gender choices a little more closely. I do think that it's not a binary, though: I think that gender tends to be more of an arc of individual (constrained) choices.

[identity profile] beachpsalms.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 08:36 pm (UTC)(link)
I've made the argument elsewhere that "proper" gender performance and heterosexuality are so closely linked in the United States that those who fall into the category of queer sexuality are actually transgressing on the same vector -- although not to the same extent -- as openly transgendered, genderqueer, and transsexual people.

This morning I was reading Kate Bornstein making a similar point: that the visual cues we use to identify "queer" on the street (and would provoke violent, punitive reactions such as bashing) are often gender transgressive cues; effeminate guys, butch women.

[identity profile] akycha.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 09:09 pm (UTC)(link)
There have been studies which suggest that more gender-transgressive queer people run a greater risk of queer-bashing. And certainly these types of visible gender transgressions have long been associated with queer people.

However, I also think that the act of same-sex sexuality is itself also seen as transgressing outside one's proper gender sphere. That is, I think that in the U.S., "proper" gender expression is heterosexual. For example, one can be a very femme woman -- dress, makeup, body discipline -- but as long as one is still sleeping with other women, one is not performing femininity "properly" according to Western gender norms.

[identity profile] fall-of-sophia.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 08:46 pm (UTC)(link)
yeah, this. and some of this is because we never really got a coherent definition of transgender in the first place. there are a lot of people who I'd never call transgender OR cisgender, but they definitely have a cissexual experience.

[identity profile] sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 09:56 pm (UTC)(link)
Argument number five might be lessened if the differences between the two were more clearly pointed out. Such women might well fall under the category of transgender, but cissexual.

That's an interesting thought. I'm not sure I'm quite clear on how intersectionality works here. As I understand it, under the current word usage I am cisgender transsexual. That confuses me a little, but what confuses me a LOT is, I have a hard time picturing what "transgender transsexual" would look like.

[identity profile] sable-twilight.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 10:24 pm (UTC)(link)
Myself, Tobi, other butch and gender queer transexual women, various effeminate or very queer transsexual men.
*smiles*

[identity profile] sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com 2009-07-24 03:53 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, here's why this relatively new usage confuses me. I live full-time, have taken steps to feminize my appearance, but I am no-ho non-op and relatively okay with that, so under the "old" terminology of 5-10 years ago I would be called "transgender" and not "transsexual."

But under the "new" usage, I am not transgender at all because as a woman I am consistently femme and not androgynous or butch or genderqueer.

Thinking this through, I suppose the benefit of the "new" terminology is to de-center away from "social-norm-conforming performance of gender" as a marker of "success" in gender transition. IOW -- under the old paradigm, a male-to-female transsexual was judged on the thoroughness of her performance of femme femininity. I have heard horror stories of therapists ensuring that patients always wore skirts and high heels and talked only about dating men before being authorized to move further in their transition. Under the new paradigm, the "sincerity" of a MTF's transition is not doubted if her performance of gender is on the butch end of the spectrum. Does that sound accurate?

[identity profile] sable-twilight.livejournal.com 2009-07-26 11:16 pm (UTC)(link)
*nod* that sounds about right. I feel that there is another element as well.

In old paradigm, transsexual was defined as what a person had either done or intend to do with their body. This is inherently classist. In the new paradigm, the defining factor of transsexual seems to be more dependent on ones actual feelings about their body, and how one wishes their body to be perceived.

Also, by separating out the gender presentation and body sex aspects, it grants transsexual women same range of presentation options afforded to cissexual women. And thus, as you say, help to counter those stereotype expectations.

[identity profile] macoafi.livejournal.com 2009-07-24 08:01 pm (UTC)(link)
Could someone explain this? I've only ever heard "cisgender" not "cissexual" and I was taught "transgender" as an umbrella term that included "transsexual" and "genderqueer" (though I always though trans* should e categories of genderqueer).

As to the last one... mm yeah I'm probably one of those. I asked a friend who's trans "what does 'feel like a girl' mean? I mean, I was born one, but I don't understand how it could be a way to feel...it's just a label that was assigned." Didn't get a satisfactory explanation. It seems like you have to buy into the idea that there are two rigidly distinct genders for cisgender identities to work, but if you spend enough time with people outside the gender binary...

I used to say I was a genderless pan-romantic asexual. Now I just don't bother. The silly part is that I'm sort of being more "femme" now, though that's pretty much just because my sex is so underrepresented in my field, I'd like to make us slightly more visible ;)

[identity profile] sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com 2009-07-24 08:24 pm (UTC)(link)
While I wasn't looking, the terminology has evolved in the last few years -- probably in the wake of Julia Serano's excellent book Whipping Girl.

According to the most recent usage, as I understand it, social/interpersonal performance of gender is taken separate from personal perception of one's own sex. So there are named four states of being:
cissexual and transsexual, which refer to one's perception of one's own sex, and
cisgender and transgender, which refer to one's social/interpersonal performance of gender
With genderqueer as a kind of a catch-all term to describe those who would describe themselves as somewhere in between those terms.

As I mentioned above I am "cisgender transsexual" in that I see myself as a woman (not as a man, as I was told I was since birth) but my social performance of femininity is not notably transgressive.

Why did this come about? Because many trans people felt they were being pigeonholed (mainly by transition gatekeepers like therapists and surgeons) into jumping from one pan to another without any allowance for transgression. Transsexual women were expected to dress, act, and behave in basically hyper-feminine ways in order to be deemed "successful" in their treatment.

[identity profile] akaiyume.livejournal.com 2009-07-24 09:24 pm (UTC)(link)
I agree that cisgender and cissexual are two very different ideas.

Not sure if would totally lessen the argument for number 5, however.

I'm functionally cissexual in the sense that I feel no distress in being in a woman shaped body. I have a strong feeling (although obviously no proof) I would be just as functionally cissexual if I had a man shaped body. It just really doesn't seem that big of a deal to me.

But neither male or female in the gender identity sense really fit at all. Both seem equally alien to who I am.

[identity profile] sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com 2009-07-24 09:32 pm (UTC)(link)
You're one of the people I had in mind when I wrote part 5 above. I don't know that cissexual necessarily applies to people who don't feel particularly connected, identity-wise, to the sexual configuration of their body. But trans doesn't fit either, because to the degree that you experience any dysphoria, it wouldn't be relieved if you started to live as a man.

I don't know. I don't feel very comfortable speculating on what terminology (if any) would work.

[identity profile] akaiyume.livejournal.com 2009-07-24 10:11 pm (UTC)(link)
It works well enough in discussing many of the public/legal aspects of privilege. I mean, no is going to ask me if I feel my body is connected to my identity before giving me documents/allowing me into places, etc.

[identity profile] nationelectric.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 08:45 pm (UTC)(link)
I wasn't aware that trans (for the transgendered) originated as a chemical term. I always thought it was just a straightforward use of a common latin prefix. I mean, everybody knows what the prefix trans- means.

[identity profile] fall-of-sophia.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 08:47 pm (UTC)(link)
yea. there was once Cisjordan and Transjordan on some maps, there's cislunar, etc.

[identity profile] nationelectric.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 09:02 pm (UTC)(link)
Honestly, cis- was new to me. The first time I remember encountering it, in fact, was with the term cisgender. But trans? I mean, trans- is everywhere. Transnational, transformer, the Transcontinental Railroad, etc. A lot of Texans object to the Trans-Texas Corridor, but no one complains about being confused by the name. It's common in corporate names, as well: Transunion, Transamerica...

[identity profile] sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 10:42 pm (UTC)(link)
I wouldn't say that trans arises out of chemistry, but rather, the idea of "cisgender" as a compliment to "transgender" arose out of the chemical cis-trans terminology.

[identity profile] alobar.livejournal.com 2009-07-23 10:30 pm (UTC)(link)
I thought this might interest you.
http://monja-alferez.livejournal.com/32571.html
queenofhalves: (Default)

[personal profile] queenofhalves 2009-07-24 02:39 pm (UTC)(link)
i dislike the prefix because it doesn't immediately convey any meaning to me, as it's not similar to other words in common use. when i first encountered it -- unlike trans -- i had *no* idea what it meant, even in context. to me, that's an immediate fail for a neologism -- neologisms should always suggest at least part of their meaning on first sight, even if they still need to be specifically defined.

[identity profile] drooling-ferret.livejournal.com 2009-07-24 03:16 pm (UTC)(link)
Your response is not terribly unusual, and was the motivation behind a post by theferrett (I'm terrible with the LJ user tag, but remember the double-t if you go looking... poor theferret, single t, gets a lot of unexpected traffic from folks who forget), which I believe led to the poll that in turn led to this post.

In the absence of a better term, and as yet none seem to be popping up, I'm not sure how to respond to this sentiment.

I'm also not sure in what context you mean by "in context", because I think it's been pretty clear that when cis* is used in sentences as the clear opposite of trans*, then that clearly shows its meaning.

I'll add to this by noting that the terms transsexual/transgender meant nothing to me the first time I encountered them, because I'd never heard them before. That the prefix 'trans' suggests a crossing of some sort was not enough. I don't see them as failing as words as a result.
queenofhalves: (Default)

[personal profile] queenofhalves 2009-07-24 03:25 pm (UTC)(link)
i've done a lot of scholarly work on gender and queer studies, and i encountered "cissexual" in that context. the first time i saw it used, from context i actually thought it was related to queerness. on the other hand, the first time i saw "transgender," the general meaning was obvious.

i am exactly the intended audience for this word, and i think it doesn't work. every time i see it, i have to consciously remember what it means. if i'm doing that, my freshman students don't have a prayer of using it in a natural way. (notably, all of them have grasped "transgender" readily.)

[identity profile] sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com 2009-07-24 03:28 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, if even well-educated people are unlikely to grasp the meaning right away, it will have difficulty catching on or being effective.

So... alternatives. How about "genderstraight"?
queenofhalves: (Default)

[personal profile] queenofhalves 2009-07-24 03:34 pm (UTC)(link)
hee! it's not pretty, but at least the meaning of that one is clear.

[identity profile] drooling-ferret.livejournal.com 2009-07-24 04:18 pm (UTC)(link)
As opposed to genderqueer (used as an umbrella for a wide range of things include transness?), this makes sense, and I may start using it in the appropriate contexts, actually.

Not sure it sits well as a balancing term to trans* in general, which seemed like the overall issue. From reading on this I see people who identify as genderqueer and not trans- anything, and transfolk who do not identify at all with 'genderqueer', but I am sure I have not has as broad an exposure as you, so I'd like to know your impression of that.

[identity profile] sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com 2009-07-24 04:43 pm (UTC)(link)
Your points are pretty good. "Genderstraight" was off the cuff, but you're right, it balances genderqueer but not trans... unless trans is a subset of genderqueer, which it is not (the relationship there is more like a Venn diagram of partially-overlapping circles).

[identity profile] drooling-ferret.livejournal.com 2009-07-24 04:53 pm (UTC)(link)
Thank you for clarifying - I was not sure whether genderqueer was intended as a superset or something slightly different but similar to the point of broadly overlapping. I should do some additional reading on that.

[identity profile] drooling-ferret.livejournal.com 2009-07-24 04:23 pm (UTC)(link)
i've done a lot of scholarly work on gender and queer studies, and i encountered "cissexual" in that context.

Sorry for not being clearer, but I was looking more for the specific context. Like, when I first read the term 'cisgendered' (I encountered cissexual later, and having learned what was meant by cisgendered, that was a no-brainer) it was clear from that same sentence that it was an opposite to transgendered. I can see that if one is writing something about cis* people and not mentioning trans* people in the same piece at all, that it would not be immediately clear at all.

i am exactly the intended audience for this word, and i think it doesn't work. every time i see it, i have to consciously remember what it means. if i'm doing that, my freshman students don't have a prayer of using it in a natural way. (notably, all of them have grasped "transgender" readily.)

I'm not entirely ready to stop trying make cis happen, but... given your extensive knowledge of the subjects, from a scholarly perspective and as an educator, what seems like a good alternative to you?

[identity profile] sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com 2009-07-24 04:48 pm (UTC)(link)
Thinking about this again, I wonder if part of the problem your students faced in comprehending the meaning of "cissexual" is, maybe they're just not used to thinking of their gender identity as having a name -- IOW they consider the only gender identity worth naming is the transgressive one ("transsexual") but not the normal, usual, default one.

[identity profile] drooling-ferret.livejournal.com 2009-07-24 03:20 pm (UTC)(link)
I have not a lot to add to this discussion, but I wanted to point out that the "too clever" bit is one of the things I like most about the use of the cis prefix.

[identity profile] sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com 2009-07-24 03:27 pm (UTC)(link)
I know, me too! My very first response was to have a little geekgasm. It is very clever. But as numerous folks have said, it is kind of obscure, and a term that has to be explained every time you use it is not very effective, ultimately.

[identity profile] drooling-ferret.livejournal.com 2009-07-24 04:15 pm (UTC)(link)
I suppose... I'm just not sure what else works that isn't just "not trans" repacked slightly?

[identity profile] stacymckenna.livejournal.com 2009-07-24 07:39 pm (UTC)(link)
accidental tribute to the general geekiness of the average trans person
Huh, I didn't realize the demographics overlapped so predominantly. I mean, I know the trans folk I know are largely geeks, but that's because MOST people I know are geeks, and some of them happen to be trans.

The explanation about #4 was very useful for my furthered understanding. Thank you!

#5 I have at least one male friend that I think would almost certainly raise his hand as identifying with this objection, possibly two.

[livejournal.com profile] queenofhalves point about the general unfamiliarity with the definition of "cis" holds true for me as well. My brain keeps trying to subsititue "gendernormative" as a replacement, but that's obviously not useful. Perhaps leaning more toward something that represents "starting" or "initial" as opposed to the trans/changed... but that still feels awkward because it implies trans people didn't start out the gender they are comfortable with, which is often not true. I know you've said you've always felt/been female.