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

[sophiaserpentia]

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.

Comments

[sable-twilight.livejournal.com]

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.

[akycha.livejournal.com]

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.

[beachpsalms.livejournal.com]

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.

[akycha.livejournal.com]

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.

[fall-of-sophia.livejournal.com]

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.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

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.

[sable-twilight.livejournal.com]

Myself, Tobi, other butch and gender queer transexual women, various effeminate or very queer transsexual men.
*smiles*

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

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?

[sable-twilight.livejournal.com]

*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.

[macoafi.livejournal.com]

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 ;)

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

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.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

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.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

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.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

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.