Cis?

I see QueenEmily has written, ever so eloquently, about the term "cis", over on that hack, Questioning Transphobia. Apparently, it's not an academic term. Who knew?

Here's the gist of the post: if you don't know what "cis" means, you're a loser. And you need to go look up the term, loser.

With a slightly lower than predictable quotient of epithets, anyone not understanding the term "cisgender" is, apparently, obliged to look it up. She provides some links, as a courtesy (I can only presume).

The post is accompanied, at the time of this writing, by 68 comments. All in either mild, or violent, agreement with her premise. (What? You expected the QT writers to entertain disagreement? Didn't you know they reserve the right to speak their own minds, but you're not allowed to speak yours?!?) How can she cope with such adulation? Surely it must go to her head? No, she's fair -

@Suzan

I’ve read you on your own blog say that you use “normborn” to annoy “gender activists.”

Okay, QueenEmily is herself.

Heck - I go out of my way to annoy gender activists. They make such tempting statements. :-)

I have to admit, I have a problem with the entire post, and the assumption in the last sentence:

So hey cis readers, the next time you want to de-rail a thread about trans rights, you know actual rights for actual people, ... . [My emphasis]

I have no problem with actual rights bit - it's the first bit I have a problem with. Isn't the onus on those who use a term to define it? Or did that change? And don't you collect more bees with honey than vinegar? Such aggression is usually accompanied by an equivalent quantity of arrogance.

Questioning Transphobia, as usual, does more to harm the cause of transgender politics than they do to help it. Why aren't they writing about the recent vote in New Hampshire? Why aren't they working to a true understanding of what transphobia is, and how it can be fought? Why, indeed?

The QT writers would be lost with transphobia. They wouldn't have anything to say. Fortunately for them - people are people. I just wish they would apply some common sense to the issue. I don't hope they will - it would too forlorn a hope. I just wish they would. Perhaps, one day, they will realize the violent upheavals of the 1960's are long ago. These days, different tactics are needed. Not ones that play into the hands of those who oppose transgender rights.

One more thing: not all "cis" people are against the transgendered. It would be really helpful if they stopped such broad brush strokes. It might also help them formulate, and articulate, their arguments a little more clearly. Heck, it might make their arguments a little more coherent! They could stop being the Rush Limbaugh's, the Glen Beck's, or the Ann Coulter's of the transgender world, and be serious commentators of gender issues. That would be a great thing.

I'm not holding my breath for any change. Those bloggers require the perception of victimization. If it didn't exist, they would invent it. Just like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Ann Coulter. The worst of it? They don't need to invent the victimization, nor the prejudice, against the transgendered.

Carolyn Ann