"Cis" is a derogatory term... (Part 4)

The whole thing seems to be dying down. Righteous anger (?) can be sustained for only so long. Here's what has been decided, or at least as much as I can figure it out from the noise, waling and general carrying on.

"Cisgendered is offensive to many of the cisgendered. But that's okay, we don't mind. Because we're not making any real effort to empathize, we'll keep calling you cisgendered. You'll get used to it."

It's not so much that these activists and bloggers don't mind that quite a few non-trans people find it offensive: they just don't care.

Typically, these individuals hate it when someone calls them by a name they find derogatory, but have no issue with calling someone else by a name they find derogatory. Oh - they'll be happy to not apply it, individually, upon request.

Despite the protestations of many, even some on this blog, there hasn't been any real effort made to understand why so many non-trans people find it offensive. Anyone pointing out that it is offensive has generally been told their argument is insufficient. And yet simply saying that "tranny" is considered offensive was enough to get it placed on the list of words we can't use. Go figure. Oh, that's right: hypocrisy! I knew there was some explanation.

There were a couple of very reasonable comments from Linus and Graceoflarkspur on this blog. This discussion with Renee was neat, and I really thought it could go somewhere. I just took another look at the Questioning Transphobia bit that "sort of" started it all. Oy vey. Talk about self-serving. A brief review of the history of this little spat. :-)

Autumn of a blog/forum called "Pam's House Blend" decided that one of her contributers had a point when he stated that he found "cisgendered" to be offensive. As this term is almost exclusively used by trans activists, it was decided that this was offensive, too. A scathing blog post was the result. A ridiculing of Autumn rapidly ensued. It was often couched in soothing language, but it features prominently on the first few pages of comments. Other than that - the staff decided that "cis" is not a derogatory term and that the cis-population should just get over it. In so many words. Nice, huh?

The plethora of comments was intriguing for its uniformity as much as its vitriol. About half way through, it becomes apparent that it's okay for the trans community to use "cis" to describe the non-trans community - because the trannys are oppressed, and the trans community needs to insult them to make up for it. (Seriously.) This was often stated as "cisprivilege", but whatever. Lisa Harney gave this one its most eloquent airing. (I think Ms Harney is a good writer, even as I think her views are questionable.)

Overall, the tone on QT reflects badly on the trans community. Not that I'm surprised: label-wars are common in the trans community. So is shrill vitriol. I don't think the QT admins did a very good job of administration and management of the debate on their website; they rarely do. Ah well. Pam, of Pam's House Blend put a very nice letter up, with an explanation of what, etc - and was roundly shouted down. It seems to me that many a feminist blog and/or forum will be looking at this whole debacle and asking themselves if they want to include trans-women in their membership, at all. I wouldn't blame them one bit if they said "I don't need this nonsense!" and banned trans women from their sites.

But, I must hasten back to the plot! :-)

Overall, if a group says a moniker is offensive, you can be fairly certain they're telling you this truthfully. If some in the group have no problem with it, but they seem to be in the minority, you can be fairly certain that the rest of the group does have a problem with it. To persist in using that moniker, because you decide that it's really okay and those who find it offensive were simply joking - the moniker is elevated to an insult.

Simple, really. Or does that smack of cisprivilege?

Carolyn Ann