It's becoming apparent that a few people object to this term being applied to them. I can't think why...
Here are a few links:
Questioning Transphobia (have a guess what their take is... No, I didn't have to guess, either.)
and last, but not least:
Julia Serano on the subject.
The basic issue is that "cis" is an identifier, even though some writers claim it isn't. Julia Serano makes this point:
Cis is not meant to be an identity. Rather, it simply describes the way that one is perceived by others.Really? Ms Serano basically says it's not about identity, it's about identification. Hmm. Telling someone they are a "cis woman" is not about imposing an identity? It's the imposition of a descriptive label: if that's not saddling someone with an identity, I'm at a loss to explain why it isn't! As I suspect Ms Serano would be, too, if she thought about it.
Ms Serano, and a few others, look to race for inspiration. It's not a place to go: the term "African American" has two components to it: the former adjusts the definition of the overall phrase. The use of "African" provides an indicator of identity; otherwise, "American" would be more than sufficient to describe an identity. "African American" says "I am American, I am also black-skinned" It's a clarification to the identification, and as such is a more complete description of an identity.
The same goes for "cis woman". The term indicates that the woman in question was born female; it fully identifies her so. "Trans woman" is not quite as precise: it tells us of a history; the person was born male, but in some way has taken at least some steps to be as physically feminine as it might be possible. The prefix "cis" is used as a qualifier, and as a means of narrowing down an identity.
One aspect that Ms Serano neglects in her justification is that the black community, when it was trying to gain (and maintain) civil rights, didn't insist that white Americans be called "caucasian Americans". Besides which, the term "African American" is exclusively American; I don't believe there's any equivalent anywhere else. No one says "aboriginal Australians", for instance.
Ms Serano basically contradicts herself.
She did this earlier in her essay, too. In complaining about the attitude "why can't we just speak [plain] English?", she notes that she metaphorically (I hope) hits the complainer over the head with a "stack of George Orwell books." George Orwell used plain English to describe to us the dangers of manipulated, overly-qualified, language. When the trans[gender] community insists on a certain modifier to describe men and women, they are doing exactly what George Orwell warned us about. In an effort to prevent offense, they offend.
I like plain English. I do not feel any burning desire to write "Trace Adkins, a cis country and western singer"; indeed, I resist such language. It is ridiculous, arbitrary and complicating. But according to what I have read about this debate, I should write that, just to comply with the trans[gender] community's insistence on unreasoned exactness. When then trans[gender] community insists that "cis" be used as a differentiator, they also insist that we modify our thinking. Just as in 1984, the goal appears to be to prevent anyone from saying anything that might be offensive to someone else. Ms Serano might do well to rethink her invocation of George Orwell.
The prefix cis is often used to denote someone who is not trans[gendered], in academic, or wanna-be academic, trans[gender] writing. It seems to be used to "de-centralize the dominant group" (Emi Koyama; link from Ms Serano's essay). The trans writers who insist on its use seem to decentralize the dominant group, just so they can place themselves front row, center.
The QT folk seem to think that denying the identity "cis" is about power. It's not, but since when did the QT writers ever stop to really think. They prefer profanity-laden invective, which can be construed as a childish way of asserting their own power. Queen Emily makes the point:
More commonly, cissexual just means people who are not transsexual, and cis means people who are not trans. It’s terribly complex, you know.
I am astounded: something she and I can agree on! It's truly astounding. I can live with "cissexual" being those who are not transsexual. It's when the prefix is applied to describe someone like, oh, a mother. A "cis mother"? Please, get real.
"Cis" is not an attempt to "decentralize the dominant group". It is an attempt, a blatant attempt, at redefining an entire conversation so that it can't stray into areas that might be uncomfortable. It's being able to cry about "cis privilege"; it is not about leveling the linguistic playing field.
Any civil rights cause needs articulate, reasoned argument. It needs impassioned speech, and it demands a proper feeling of being oppressed. It doesn't need people saying that they are "oppressed" because women talk about some exclusively feminine issue, and they, as a trans woman, don't, can't, have that same experience. The debate about trans discrimination does not need the unwanted, unwarranted, imposition of a prefix onto those who are not transgender.
On a simple, practical note, the insistence that "cis" be used also plays, quite nicely, into the hands of those who insist that the fight for equal rights isn't about equal rights. Because it implies, bashes over the head, more like, that it is about imposing a view, a way of thinking. It becomes not a debate about equal rights, and some much-needed legal protections, for trans people, but a debate about who is imposing upon whom. And what is being imposed. And that's a debate the people who insist on "cis" will lose. Because they insistently impose language that is intended to shield one group from offense.
Attempting to change what people feel about themselves, especially via arcane language, is not just impossible - it's stupid, too.
It is enough to simply use the prefix "trans". The trans[gender] community does not have to redefine what it means to be a man, a woman, a boy, or a girl. In fact, it should stay well away from that debate - because it is one they cannot hope to win. It's one that demands exacting definitions that are impossible to supply. Stick with "trans" to describe the transgendered; don't try the impossible, and try to change how men and women feel about being men, or women. Cis is not exactly derogatory (even if it is sometimes used in such a way), but it is inexact, inexplicable, and is changing the debate from equal rights to thought-control.
Let's stick with equal rights, and legal protections for the transgendered. Let's not try to redefine the personal identity of almost everyone [else].
Carolyn Ann
The use of the prefix "cis" is not giving people an identity, it's about naming an identity that people already have but which isn't named because it is believed to be the "norm." It's such a simple concept that it's brain-numbing that there is even a debate around it.
ReplyDeleteThis in particular struck me:
"It doesn't need saying that they are 'oppressed' because women talk about some exclusively feminine issue, and they, as a trans woman, don't, can't, have that same experience."
This makes it clear to me that you are woefully mistaken as to what the actual issues are. Pray tell, what "exclusively feminine" (by which you apparently mean "exclusively biologically female") issues are we talking about here? Aside from biological issues, most of the privileges men have, trans women lose after transition, regardless of what feminists who think trans women are part of the "patriarchy" like to talk about. And those issues which are purely biological are not the ones being debated in the "cis" debate, not by trans people in general They are issues which are specific to trans people, such as being called "deceptive" when one puts their gender identity in a two-gender form instead of their biological sex (something which was used, luckily unsuccessfully, by the defense in the trial for Angie Zapata's murder).
The issue is that we as trans people are made to qualify our identities whereas others are not. And for those who can actually look at what privileges they do have that many people don't, it has been proven to me very effective in that respect. People are making this into every trans person against everybody else... it isn't and it never has been. Cis people who understand this issue have been using it just as long as we have.
As far as relying on legal rights... this is not discourse which is used only within trans discourse, and it's laughable to even suggest that. Laws and equal rights are one component of a larger puzzle, and part of that puzzle includes making people actually think. And making people think, despite what you may protest, is not "thought-control."
Erm, yeah it is. If it isn't - you'll have to explain why it isn't. You haven't done that. If "trans" is part of an identification, then "cis" is, too. And if it isn't - what is it, exactly?
ReplyDelete"Exclusively feminine" - how about periods? Pregnancy? Read Ms Serano's essay; she mentions both in there. I was trying to be reserved in my language. Because I felt it was important to be.
Has Angie Zapata's murder become the implementation of Godwin's Law for the transgender community? It sure seems that way. I'd try and dispute your point there, but I'm not sure what it is.
Your point about trans people being "made to qualify" their identities is a bit opaque. Because trans people have to qualify their identity, then people who are not trans must qualify their identities, too? Is that what you're saying? Can you clarify your point?
I enjoy a number of privileges that others don't. Should I give up those privileges, none of which I asked for by the way, simply so that someone else can feel better about themselves?
I disagree with your last point. The militants and activists in the trans community don't want to make people think: they want to dictate what people think. I have little issue with asking people to empathize, or to think about the implications of what they advocate. I have absolutely no issue with challenging some orthodoxy, because it's applied unthinkingly. What I do have an issue with is when someone tells me I can only think about an issue in the language they specify. That is thought control, and it's heinous.
I do understand the issues - at least the ones I think can be fully understood. Some of the issues simply are beyond reasonable comprehension. I think a lot of trans activists don't even bother trying to understand any objections to their arguments and points. They simply shout "you're a horrible transphobic" and think that solves the problem of disagreement. (Personal experience has something to do with that...)
Carolyn Ann
Being label-free is a frequently-defended privilege of those groups who inhabit the upper echelons of the hierarchy. Having equally balanced labels (such as cis and trans, which are equal opposites in Latin) helps break down the norm/other framework. And the application of the label is not "required" in each and every context, but only when it's relevant.
ReplyDeleteIsn't that quite a weak argument? I should be called "Caucasian British", perhaps?
ReplyDeleteSo what you're saying is that to ensure all are equal, everyone needs to carry around the labels someone decides to attach to them? In this case, I believe it a minority group imposing a label upon a majority, in response to some dubious thinking.
Cis and trans are not "equal opposites" in Latin. They are opposite in chemistry terms, according to my dictionary. They're not opposites in the English, nor in the context of gender we are discussing. Cis, in gender terms, should mean someone who is not trans. (It doesn't; it relies on the definition of transgender for its definition. Talk about a circular definition!) Transgender means someone who is transitioning, or not, or - you know, transgender does not have a particularly exact definition. It covers a gamut of individual expressions. Which implies that cis means, erm, what?
Cis and trans have different meanings, but are somewhat related.
Carolyn Ann
What we're saying is that nobody should have to be considered the opposite of "real" or "normal". Which is what "non-trans" says: "These here are the REAL women." "These here are the REAL men."
ReplyDeleteThere's a difference between "two categories, born and fake" and "two categories, comfortable with assigned gender, and actively uncomfortable with assigned gender", so to speak.
Cis doesn't rely on trans for a definition. It relies on GENDER for the definition. Cis gendered means what the roots imply -- that this person had no issue with what the doctor said when they were born.
Saying that cis relies on trans is simply saying that there's the "real" gender some lucky people have, where their doctor and they agree, and then there's us unfortunate freaks in the world.
Why not call hetero people "sexual"? Two options, then, and it saves the trouble of "hetero": There's normal, and then gay...just like normal, and trans.
Are we going to get rid of the term "heterosexual" merely because there's a vast pile of fundies out there who believe "heterosexual" should be "sexual" and are offended by it?
See what I mean about the language being dictated?
ReplyDeleteThat's not what cis means. I do think, however, that it is evolving (thankfully) in that direction. My point re the definition of cis is that if it means "not trans", then it is relying on a very plastic definition. And I believe one of the leading trans-activists said that cis is "not trans". See my quote from Queen Emily - it's in the text of the post.
So either it is part of a circular definition, or it isn't. If it isn't, then Queen Emily is wrong. If it is, then the definition is lazily constructed and can be challenged as such.
I totally agree that people should not be judged differently. I don't think people should be victimized, or discriminated against, simply because of how they live, or love or whatever. Judge a person by their actions, and their words.
The problem is that it is the trans community that is imposing this "cis" qualifier onto gender discussions. They are the ones who are arguing that they are "women", and (willfully) ignoring the implications of that claim. The trans community is imposing "trans" as a qualifier (on its own "members"), and not bothering to accurately define what transgender is. The majority of folk aren't even aware that they are "cisgendered"; they are aware they are not gay, or not straight, or are bi or whatever. Because people have had a few decades to understand those concepts; they're easy, and they don't redefine what the regular joe or jill feels about themselves. That's where the trans activists go wrong.
Yeah, I know *some* feminists use cis, as well. Their use seems to be based on the same lazy thinking that the trans activists use. The simple fact is: you can't impose a label onto a group if your only reason for doing so is to make yourself feel better. There doesn't have to be an opposite to being trans - this is not an either/or situation, is it?
Carolyn Ann
Plenty of things are circularly defined in brief at times, because their definitions are thorny. This is one of those times. (Much like most things said to be "one thing or another", it's not. There's a spectrum, and the circular definition is essentially correct -- but it's by no means the full definition.)
ReplyDeleteThe lengthy one is simple enough, in my opinion: If you are considered male at birth by a doctor, and agree with him in that (almost exclusively) binary determination, you would be considered cis gendered. If you are considered male at birth by a doctor and *make a determination that they were incorrect in a binary sense*, you're a trans woman.
If you were considered male at birth and determined they were wrong, but that you don't believe it's a binary issue, or the opposite end of the binary's not exactly where you fall either, you're on the spectrum, you're not a cis male (way over *here* where you and the doc almost completely agree), and you're not a trans female -- you're something else, and that's not up for me, or you, or society, to decide. And you fall into the somewhat defined "transgender" spectrum area.
I know someone personally who IDs as genderqueer and not only told me to forget about gender issues, but forget about surgery! I'd be better off spending my money on a self-help seminar or getting away from society or some crap, they were telling me. Because, yanno, they didn't care one way or the other! They had, they said, "transcended" their body.
By, of course, withdrawing almost completely from society. XD That's all it took for them to feel comfortable with their body! Not interacting with most of the people they might ever meet in their life.
Jill and Joe didn't know what a microwave oven was less than a hundred years ago, either -- but they learned. It takes time, and yeah -- it's damn slow -- but it's like telling people they're white. If they understand what it means, even though it's going to offend some of them, eventually the offended ones get old enough and die and it's just another *word*.
If there's not an understanding that on some level you can divide women into "trans" and "cis", the perception will be the same as using the word "real" as the opposite. And if you're using the term "normal" or "real" as the opposite of trans, Jill and Joe who don't really want to think about it (laziness is everywhere!) will simply assume we're "bizarre" or "fake".
And I'm not fake (although I am bizarre at times). I'm just another woman, who happens to be trans.
Asking "there doesn't have to be an opposite"...well, sure! We can get rid of all those pesky words that mean normal. So instead of saying someone's a "white straight male", we can just call them "normal". If that works for you, I mean.
Never mind any of that. Let's look at this another way -- you didn't just say "regular Joe". Why? I know there are "regular Jills", but you made the point explicitly, demonstrating that there's a complement, and being explicit about it helps change people's concept of what "normal" is, what "an average example" is. It's not a "regular Joe". You made a point.
We are making a point too -- we're not "freaks", we're not "those OTHER women" or "those PRETEND men". We're a subset of women and men (and whatever else.) There's a difference, we point it out, and there should be a neutral term for the people who don't have the difference we do.
I have never seen any one using the "cis" prefix the way you're describing it; i.e. using it to describe everyone who is not trans, all the time. In fact, I have only seen it used when there is a *need* to distiguish between cis people and trans people - such as in the sentance "Cis men and trans men have some different health care needs" or "This is an issue that affects both cis women and trans women."
ReplyDeleteThe alternative to those statements would be to say "women and trans women" or "men and trans men", as if we're not *really* women and men - as if we're the only ones who need a descriptor because we're weird and everyone else is normal. It strikes me as interesting that you'd object to trans writings using the cis prefix to put themselves "front and center" - because from where I'm sitting, cis people are "front and center" *all the time*. When someone says "women's health" or "women's center" or "women's music festival", it is assumed that they mean cis women. And by not using the cis prefix when it's appropriate to do so, you reinforce the idea that cis people are normal and trans people are abnormal, and thus trans people are the only ones who need a label. I wholeheartedly agree with graceoflarkspur in that this is pretty much like saying that there are heterosexual people and homosexual people - and that we have these two terms so that we don't have to say "homosexual people" and "normal people".
Seriously, if we were in some alternate universe where everything you read referred to "women and cis women" and "men and cis men" and you knew that whenever someone said "women" or "men" they probably weren't including people like you, I don't think you'd like it very much.
I feel like I understand the subtleties of the gendered language much better after reading this exchange. It's a year old, but if I hadn't read it, it would likely have been another 4 years before I grasped what you're talking about. Thank you for your civil and intelligent discourse.
ReplyDelete