sophiaserpentia (
sophiaserpentia) wrote2009-07-23 12:24 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Entry tags:
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.
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.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
*smiles*
no subject
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?
no subject
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.
no subject
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 ;)
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
I don't know. I don't feel very comfortable speculating on what terminology (if any) would work.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
http://monja-alferez.livejournal.com/32571.html
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
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.)
no subject
So... alternatives. How about "genderstraight"?
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
no subject
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?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
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.