I've seen this a few times, enough to think it's developing into "the definition".
Here it is:
We'll call you cis-gendered because <insert some reason here>, except when you specifically request that we don't call you, specifically, cis-gendered.
Rebecca, in what started as an interesting and relatively fair survey that rapidly devolved into a purely partizan piece, makes this point in the most eloquent manner I've seen so far. [Added] But, again - she clearly starts out with her opinion already firmly held; once you realize that, the initial fairness simply comes across as a nothing more than a rhetorical device. She sets you up, and you think you're going to read an impartial survey and: wham! Any hint of impartiality is tossed out the nearest (very high) window.
Yet again, an opportunity to truly understand why it's offensive to so many was lost. I wish Rebecca had done the community the favor of an impartial review. Ah well. It seems to be one of those issues that doesn't have any impartiality!
Carolyn Ann
Heya. I agree that I end up pretty biased, and maybe the piece needs an update at the beginning to acknowledge that, but I honestly didn't set out intending to write such a biased summary of events. I'm really sorry it came across that way. Rather, I tried to go through and make a timeline of what had happened, so that I could better understand how such a crazy multi-blog debate (at the best of times) -slash- petty-name-calling-fest (at the worst of times) could develop.
ReplyDeleteAs I was writing the piece, though, I realized that I did side more with the "cis is a valid term" side than the "I have a right to self-identification" side. (And here, at least, I'm intentionally trying to phrase both sides in a positive light. When it's stated like that, of course I agree with both sides.) I also got tired of wading through all of the posts and comments and responses to comments and posts about posts about comments about posts. That, coupled with my growing realization that I myself wasn't objective, resulted in my unfortunate drifting from objectivity to partisanery. (Which, if it's not a word, should be.)
So, in what I'm aware is an ironic reversal of the usual "ignorant individual who does not identify as trans asking inappropriate questions of one who does," can I ask why cis was offensive to so many? I've tried Googling it, I've tried to stomach wading back into the threads I linked to, and I'm trying to wrap my head around it.
The best I can do is to parallel the for/against cis camps with discussions around the use of 'white,' in that I (as a white person) don't particularly identify as white, but understand the value and use of a term that doesn't reinforce the idea of white as normal. And, as someone who does identify as trans, I can sympathize with not wanting an identity (cis, in this case) imposed on me by others when I don't find meaning in it for myself.
Likewise, from looking over some of the things I quoted, it seems a general thought is that cis "lump[s] everyone into one category," which the commenter found offensive.
But, at the risk of being offensive myself, I don't understand how cis, as a descriptor meaning "one whose gender identity matches the identity which they were assigned at birth," is a problem. There is a group (the majority of people, I'd imagine) who matches that description, so I guess there's something I'm missing. I'd honestly like to understand, and am trying to engage in and continue discussion, so any help in knowing where my blind spot is would be appreciated.
First, my apologies - I put this blog on moderated comments because a single individual (who claimed to be many...) was mad about a poem I wrote, insulting them after they insulted me.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason, the blog software seems to pick and choose when to apply moderation. It was certainly not my choice to moderate your comment.
Your blog post was misleading, and it was offensive as such. It was poorly written - if you intend to maintain objectivity, maintain it. If you don't, don't. A virtual tongue-in-cheek comment is not a license to suddenly become partizan. You, basically, came across as being fair, but then reveal you actually have an agenda. Why should the reader trust you?
Why should I trust your naivety?
Why should I, yet again, explain, why the imposed prefix is offensive? Is it not enough to state that the prefix is imposed, simply to demean? Because "trans" is self-imposed, to differentiate, and to support an ultimately unsustainable argument - that the self-proclaimed guardians of gender have decided that not-trans people should be called "cis"? How do you feel when someone imposes a label upon you?
You have made the decision that "cis" is not offensive. The grounds for such a decision are not clearly explained. At best it's something to do with "because you're labeled as trans". The trans community labels itself as trans. If it didn't, it would find some other prefix, adjective or non-sequitur.
Just because you are differentiated doesn't mean you have to differentiate everyone else. Or is relative labeling the name of the game?
Why should I trust you, or your proclaimed naivety? You have made up your mind - that much was clear from your partisanship. You impose labels upon those who find those labels demeaning, and claim to not know why. You want others to explain what you should be thinking about, what you should be thinking of, for yourself. You also betrayed the trust you built in the first part of your blog post. You went beyond disappointment. That would have been arriving at a dubious conclusion, or a self-serving one. No, you went further than that - you actually had the gall to proclaim your allegiance to one side, in the middle of a piece your writing promised would be fair, non-partizan and even about the arguments presented. Once you made up your mind, you didn't even try to be any of that. You would have been better deleting the first part, and admitting your bias. Not revealing your bias half way through.
Purely, and simply: You betrayed that trust a writer has to have with their reader. If you don't understand that, I don't know what else to tell you.
Why should I trust you?
Carolyn Ann
By the way - a disclaimer? You want to avoid your responsibility as a writer with a disclaimer?
ReplyDeleteA writer needs to be honest with themselves before they can be honest with their reader. Talk to me about honesty as a writer. Tell me how your readers can trust you - as a person, as a writer.
I read some of your writing, but always with a weather eye, a slightly more experienced and jaundiced eye. Don't issue a disclaimer, but I will leave it to you to think what you might want to issue, instead. It is not my place to tell you, nor am I inclined to do so.
Carolyn Ann
You said: "Your blog post was misleading, and it was offensive as such. It was poorly written - if you intend to maintain objectivity, maintain it. If you don't, don't. A virtual tongue-in-cheek comment is not a license to suddenly become partizan."
ReplyDeleteI really want to disagree with you, but you're right. I set out to create a timeline (which implies a certain level of objectivity) and, midway through, realized that not only was I not objective, the timeline itself was becoming biased as a result. My post was, ultimately, poorly written because of its inconsistencies in tone and objectivity, and less useful as a result (and apparently worse than useless - actively misleading - to yourself).
You said: "You, basically, came across as being fair, but then reveal you actually have an agenda. Why should the reader trust you?
I do want to stick up for myself a little bit here, though. I start the post saying "...I thought I’d (once again) try and construct a timeline so that I could better understand what the heck has been going on." I really hope my blog is useful to other people, I enjoy the discussion it fosters (this one included) and obviously I want people to read it or I'd simply write a journal or a diary. But, first and foremost, it's intended as a selfish endeavor to help me process (my transition as well as the rest of my life) and to keep me writing regularly. So, while I agree with you that I gave the impression in my post that I was going to be objective and failed to live up to that standard, I had honestly never asked myself why (or why not) a reader should trust me or my writing. I was writing that piece so that I could try to understand what had happened to stir up a community I would like to consider myself a part of.
So I am sorry that I lost objectivity in that post, that I got lazy with my writing and let myself drift from my unstated/implicit goal of providing an accurate (unbiased) retelling of events. But I would respond that I hope my readers trust me because I try to be as honest with them as I am with myself, and when I catch myself drifting (as I did) I try to acknowledge it. I don't pretend to hold myself to a journalistic standard, but I am sorry if I came across that way.
(More to come.)
You said: "Why should I trust your naivety?
ReplyDeleteWhy should I, yet again, explain, why the imposed prefix is offensive?
I try, although I don't always succeed, to believe that people are ultimately well-intentioned. Often ignorant, commonly pigheaded, and there is certainly more than enough maliciousness out there. But, as part of that, it's against my nature to refuse or reject questions that are asked honestly.
I again note that I'm aware of the irony in my even asking about cis as an offensive term, as I've had my fair share of ignorant, obnoxious, and rude trans-related questions. And I'm sure I will continue to in the future. But I feel like I've done my due diligence as best I can and still failed to find an answer about cis and, more importantly, failed to find someone with whom I can have a conversation and discussion. I had hoped to find your post as an avenue of discussion, but you have every right to tell me that's not going to happen.
You said: Is it not enough to state that the prefix is imposed, simply to demean?
I'm not sure I understand. It's imposed, certainly, but I don't think that alone is enough qualification for something to be offensive. My parents may not like the terms "divorced," but that doesn't make it less accurate or less applicable.
Were cis intended to demean, as I think you're saying it is (and please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you), then yes, I would understand why it would be found offensive. And I'm rereading some of the original comments at Pam's House Blend that sparked things, and certainly some people were saying that. But, and maybe you're right and I'm just incredibly naive, I don't understand why it's viewed as intended to demean.
(More to come)
You said: "Because "trans" is self-imposed, to differentiate, and to support an ultimately unsustainable argument - that the self-proclaimed guardians of gender have decided that not-trans people should be called "cis"?
ReplyDeleteWhat would you prefer non-trans people be called? I think it's important, as reflexive of how language shapes perception, to have terms for the following: 1) People whose gender identity matches their assigned gender (I'd use "cisgender") and 2) people who do not wish to alter their body in such a way as to move from one gender toward the other (I'd use "cissexual," and ask we table any valid objections to "from one to the other," as if gender was purely binary in the first place).
Without such terms, by simply using "not trans," the implication is that the "not trans' state is normal and, by easy association, better. Heterosexual is an important term because, even if there aren't going to be any heterosexual pride parades, it establishes homosexuality as a reasonable and 'normal' spot on a continuum.
I'm open to hearing why cis, specifically, is an offensive or objectionable term, but I'm less open to hearing that "non-trans" isn't a concept worthy of its own adjective.
You said: "How do you feel when someone imposes a label upon you?"
If it's a valid label? I'm not thrilled, but I accept it. I don't really identify with or feel strong connections to "child of divorced parents," "white," or "middle class." But they're accurate, and I understand the importance of (particularly with "white") having the label exist.
If someone used one of those labels in a way intended to hurt or demean, then yes - I would object. And rightfully so. But I'm still not making the leap from it being possible to use any label in a demeaning fashion to cis as a specifically derogatory label.
(More to come.)
You said "You have made the decision that "cis" is not offensive. The grounds for such a decision are not clearly explained. At best it's something to do with "because you're labeled as trans". The trans community labels itself as trans. If it didn't, it would find some other prefix, adjective or non-sequitur."
ReplyDeleteI'll try to explain them as best I can.
As I said above, "not-X" is can become a problematic area when describing someone, because it implies that being X is an abnormal state and not-X is so normal it doesn't even deserve a name. The disabled community is going through this with trying to push for "abled" (or, in a clever note to the fragility of health, "temporarily abled") as a label for those who are without disability. Because simply having "disabled" and "normal" as the options for identity inherently create a negative value implication on being disabled.
I'm arguing that some adjective needs to take the place of "not-trans." I don't have any particular stake in "cis." I think it's an etymologically-reasonable but silly-sounding choice, and I'd prefer something that rolls more easily off the tongue. But its use is gaining popularity and it seems unlikely to be unseated as a term for "not-trans." So I'm arguing (not deciding, just putting forth the idea) that cis is not offensive because it's an objective term.
You said: "Just because you are differentiated doesn't mean you have to differentiate everyone else. Or is relative labeling the name of the game?"
But if I'm differentiated from you as "one whose gender identity does not match one's assigned gender" then you're inherently differentiated from me as "one whose gender identity does match one's assigned gender. (Or maybe you're not - I'm using a general "you" and not intending to label you, Carolyn Ann.) Whether or not I codify the differentiating in language, it will exist. There isn't a value judgment inherent - trans is no better or worse than cis - but one concept can't exist without needing the other.
(More to come.)
You said: "Why should I trust you, or your proclaimed naivety? You have made up your mind - that much was clear from your partisanship. You impose labels upon those who find those labels demeaning, and claim to not know why. You want others to explain what you should be thinking about, what you should be thinking of, for yourself. You also betrayed the trust you built in the first part of your blog post. You went beyond disappointment. [snip]
ReplyDeleteWhy should I trust you?
Put like that? You shouldn't. I hope my above comments help explain why I don't agree with your take on my post, and convince you that I'm well-intentioned and honest - if bumbling and naive - because I don't think I can put forth anything else to do so.
As a final note, and an attempt to lay all my cards on the table, my disclaimers are used out of laziness and to avoid having to take the energy to rewrite posts/comments. I fully acknowledge their ineffectualness in resolving the larger issues in whatever I write, but hold them as the lesser of two evils when the choices are writing a disclaimer or scrapping an evening's work.
Ah, it appears that any post older than 5 days, the comments were moderated. I must not have checked the virtualized selection options.
ReplyDeleteYou lay out a reasonable argument, Rebecca. May I summarize?
I will, regardless: You feel that you need to label people who are not transgendered because, erm, well because.
Carrying your argument, and your simile, I might as well be termed "not black" as "white". Imposing the labels "cisgendered", "cissexual" or whatever is the current fancy, is as bad as any other imposition of label. The trans community stipulate, frequently, the various labels it wants used. And yet heartily laughs when others find the labels imposed by the trans community offensive?
Please: don't over intellectualize the issue. Telling someone they're cis is tantamount to saying they're a "breeder".
[continued]
You try to avoid giving offense to me - may I quote you?
ReplyDeleteLikewise, it is not my obligation to educate you.
It is not my place, apparently to do the research, to read the blog, to figure out whom I conversing with. That's what you are saying. And yet you say you want me to engage in a conversation solely in order to educate you?
Can you have it both ways?
Carolyn Ann
Oops. That should have been "with whom I am conversing".
ReplyDelete/CA
I, too, write to understand and sort out of my thoughts. Indeed, I've often stated that I really don't give much a thought to the quantity of readers my writing attracts.
ReplyDeleteThat you didn't think of your reader simply indicates a more general issue, one that is, ironically, reflected in your negligence to think that imposed labels might, just might, be offensive to those upon whom the labels are inflicted.
My gender "issues" are within my writing - they are not a secret. My thinking about writing is not a secret, either. In short: I love my wife too much to ever think about a sex-change. I put her before me, to be blunt.
I do not welcome any conversation or comments on that subject - it is between my wife and me. No one else. I state it merely because my writing demands such honesty.
Carolyn Ann