Fourth Wave Feminism

[SummerRain]

3. It seems odd to me to put a particular adjective on people that constitute 99 to 99.75% of the population, to distinguish them from the .25-1% of the population that is different in that one respect. It's sort of like saying "a cat with a full length tail" every time you talk about a cat, to distinguish him from the cats who don't have full length tails. (I use that as an example because in my household, only 92.3% of cats have full length tails.)

Is that odd though? I don't have any strong feelings on the word cis, but I think it's usually useful to have descriptive words. Vegetarians make up about 2% of the UK, and vegans a much smaller %, yet we have words to describe non-vegetarians (omnis, meat-eaters), and non-vegan vegetarians (lacto-ovo). Having a word to describe non-vegetarians is useful sometimes, especially in vegetarian communities/groups where the topic is going to come up a lot and it's long-winded to say non-vegetarians, hence how often "omni" gets used (especially online) - despite the fact it isn't even accurate.

 

[AeryFairy]

3. It seems odd to me to put a particular adjective on people that constitute 99 to 99.75% of the population, to distinguish them from the .25-1% of the population that is different in that one respect. It's sort of like saying "a cat with a full length tail" every time you talk about a cat, to distinguish him from the cats who don't have full length tails. (I use that as an example because in my household, only 92.3% of cats have full length tails.)

But if you want to have a conversation which requires a distinction to be made between cats with full length tails and cats without full length tails, then you will need terms for each. Both groups are cats, so the word 'cat' is not enough to define either group in that conversation, even the group which makes up a majority.

 

[Mischief]

But if you want to have a conversation which requires a distinction to be made between cats with full length tails and cats without full length tails, then you will need terms for each. Both groups are cats, so the word 'cat' is not enough to define either group in that conversation, even the group which makes up a majority.

Well, when the subject comes up (which it only does if someone who hasn't seen them before comments on the shortness of a cat's tail), I generally refer to the short tailed cats as such, without having to specify that the others have full length tails. It's a perfectly natural form of conversation. I don't think we have a specific word for people who can use their legs rather than a wheelchair, or people who do not have albinism, etc. But maybe we should? We could be "walkers", but that's already in use for people who are actually walking, rather than just have the ability to walk.

 

[AeryFairy]

Well, when the subject comes up (which it only does if someone who hasn't seen them before comments on the shortness of a cat's tail), I generally refer to the short tailed cats as such, without having to specify that the others have full length tails. It's a perfectly natural form of conversation. I don't think we have a specific word for people who can use their legs rather than a wheelchair, or people who do not have albinism, etc. But maybe we should? We could be "walkers", but that's already in use for people who are actually walking, rather than just have the ability to walk.

But if there were various political/philosophical discussions to be had about the cat tails (as there are with trans issues), then this would not be sufficient. 'People' and 'trans people' doesn't make sense. And from what I've seen, in discussions regarding issues with disabled people, people who are not physically disabled are usually referred to as typically abled or similar, and people who are not mentally disabled/ill are referred to as neurotypical.

 

[Mischief]

I think you just reinforced my point - we have not made up specific words for people who are not in wheelchairs, have the expected pigmentation, etc. Why not call the general population "typically gendered" or something like that? That would be clear and in keeping with how we discuss general populations vs. exceptions generally.

 

[kibbleforlola]

Oh look, a dude telling us Laydees how to do feminism right. That never gets old. Hello, dudes!

Anywho, the reason "cis" is such an important word is because it forces a cis-person to confront their privilege. When one says "woman" or "man", one usually thinks about a person who's bits they were born with correspond to their gender identity. We use transgender to identify those who do not. This is a needless calling out, does it matter that she has a *****? No, it doesn't, yet it makes it into every conversation, every news article about a transperson, everything - even (and it usually isn't) when it isn't relevant. By prefacing cisgendered people with "cis", we are notonly pointing out how unnecessary that is, we are also opening up the definition of "woman" to include ALL women.

 

[kibbleforlola]

I think you just reinforced my point - we have not made up specific words for people who are not in wheelchairs, have the expected pigmentation, etc. Why not call the general population "typically gendered" or something like that? That would be clear and in keeping with how we discuss general populations vs. exceptions generally.

Because gender is a made up concept. There is no "typical" gender. I suppose we could say adhering-to-gender-hegemony-in-socially-acceptable-ways, but that's a mouthful. Cis is easy, and it makes sense.

 

[Envy]

Whether you benefit from privileges or not isn't always about the state of just "being" though.

 

[Mischief]

Oh look, a dude telling us Laydees how to do feminism right. That never gets old. Hello, dudes!

Oh, look, someone assuming that they know a person's sex. That never gets old. Hello, assumers!

Anywho, the reason "cis" is such an important word is because it forces a cis-person to confront their privilege. When one says "woman" or "man", one usually thinks about a person who's bits they were born with correspond to their gender identity. We use transgender to identify those who do not. This is a needless calling out, does it matter that she has a *****? No, it doesn't, yet it makes it into every conversation, every news article about a transperson, everything - even (and it usually isn't) when it isn't relevant. By prefacing cisgendered people with "cis", we are notonly pointing out how unnecessary that is, we are also opening up the definition of "woman" to include ALL women.

I think that someone who has use of her legs is just as privileged (and IMO, more so) vis-a-vis someone who doesn't have use of her legs as your cis person versus non-cis person. Being not-albino versus albino is probably a pretty close equivalent, privilege wise, to cis versus non-cis.

If having a special name for all the things most of humanity is not is necessary in order to confront the privilege each of has by reason of not falling within a small minority subset, we'd better get cracking and come up with hundreds (thousands?) new words.

 

[kibbleforlola]

Point: missed.

Five gold stars.

ETA: The point being that we create artificial paradigms and then punish those that don't fit into those paradigms. We use "trans" in a way different from other descriptors - often in a way that is harmful to the persons it is describing. But I'm pretty sure you've already got that point.

Also, you conflated sex and gender, there.

 

[ledboots]

I have five issues with the word:

1. Every time I see it referenced, have to look it up again to see what the heck people are talking about.

2. It IS a made up word, in the context of the use we're discussing. Now, all words obviously start out that way, but the trendy made up words tend to irritate me because people seem to fling them about primarily to show how trendy, with it, cooler-than-the-rest, etc. they are. In fact, trendy words tend to irritate me for that reason, made up or not.

3. It seems odd to me to put a particular adjective on people that constitute 99 to 99.75% of the population, to distinguish them from the .25-1% of the population that is different in that one respect. It's sort of like saying "a cat with a full length tail" every time you talk about a cat, to distinguish him from the cats who don't have full length tails. (I use that as an example because in my household, only 92.3% of cats have full length tails.)

4. I think that there are so many differences in sexuality, gender identification, sexual preferences, sexual practices, etc., that if we are going to really get into all of that every time we describe someone, it would take pages to give even a fleeting description. Moreover, so much of it is not only mutable, but actually does change over the course of a lifetime.

5. I don't find what someone else does/wants to do sexually particularly interesting unless I happen to be sexually interested in that person. I'm no more interested in it than I am in your FB postings about what you just ate for dinner. The internet and social media have really encouraged the human tendency to self absorption to a remarkable degree.

I started out saying that I have two issues with the word. If I spend any more time on this post, my list will probably continue to grow.

Anyhow, carry on. My eyes will just continue to glaze over every time I see "cis" used in a gender/sexuality context.

This, plus my son was called "Cis" as a taunt when he was about 15 and just walking down the street.

 

[das_nut]

It seems odd to me to put a particular adjective on people that constitute 99 to 99.75% of the population, to distinguish them from the .25-1% of the population that is different in that one respect. It's sort of like saying "a cat with a full length tail" every time you talk about a cat, to distinguish him from the cats who don't have full length tails. (I use that as an example because in my household, only 92.3% of cats have full length tails.)

But it's not normally used, except when a distinction is required. And I find "cis" to be less problematic than such words as "normal", implying that non-cis is abnormal.

What word would you recommend to make a distinction?

I think you just reinforced my point - we have not made up specific words for people who are not in wheelchairs, have the expected pigmentation, etc.

You mean the abled for those not in wheelchairs?

I'd assume there's a term for skin with the usual level of pigmentation, just to differentiate or describe areas of non-effected skin by dermatologists and other specialists in such cases as hypopigmentation, but I can't find it.

This, plus my son was called "Cis" as a taunt when he was about 15 and just walking down the street.

That's a shame. But from everything I can tell, the "die cis scum" crowd is a minority fringe.

 

[Mischief]

Point: missed.

Five gold stars.

ETA: The point being that we create artificial paradigms and then punish those that don't fit into those paradigms. We use "trans" in a way different from other descriptors - often in a way that is harmful to the persons it is describing. But I'm pretty sure you've already got that point.

Also, you conflated sex and gender, there.

I actually used "sex" rather than "gender" quite intentionally. You, like most people, make assumptions about people by the way they present themselves, either in appearance or manner, including how someone speaks, or in this case, writes.

Sure, "trans" is often used in a harmful manner. I gather you don't know anyone with albinism, or you might be aware of the taunts, the ostracism, and often the physical abuse such individuals suffer, including being killed for that very reason, in more than one part of the world.

But it's not normally used, except when a distinction is required. And I find "cis" to be less problematic than such words as "normal", implying that non-cis is abnormal.
What word would you recommend to make a distinction?
You mean the abled for those not in wheelchairs?
I'd assume there's a term for skin with the usual level of pigmentation, just to differentiate or describe areas of non-effected skin by dermatologists and other specialists in such cases as hypopigmentation, but I can't find it.

"Abled" doesn't tell you a whole lot, does it, except from the context of a specific sentence. It can refer to not being in a wheelchair, not being blind, not being developmentally disabled, not having one of the many conditions that negatively affect one or more abilities that most people take for granted.

I think "non-trans" works just fine if you're comparing trans to non-trans.

Nobody needs my permission to continue using "cis", but my eyes will continue to glaze over when I hear someone use it, just as they glaze over when I hear any other term that happens to be in vogue at the moment.

 

[kibbleforlola]

And that, my darlings, is the very definition of privilege.

 

[Mischief]

And that, my darlings, is the very definition of privilege.

Snort.

 

[kibbleforlola]

I'm going to leave this here: http://www.shakesville.com/2009/07/trials-and-travails-of-transness.html and then I'm done.

I have no interest in debating people who will defend and deny privilege until they are blue in the face. It is a waste of energy, and I have a house to pack up.

 

[Mischief]

I'm going to leave this here: http://www.shakesville.com/2009/07/trials-and-travails-of-transness.html and then I'm done.

I have no interest in debating people who will defend and deny privilege until they are blue in the face. It is a waste of energy, and I have a house to pack up.

The reason your last post made me snort (as does this one) is that you have absolutely no idea about me or my life, and yet you toss the word "privilege" around as though you did. I think your assumptions show your privilege, and your blindness to it, extremely clearly.

 

[Freesia]

I think that people who fit normatively into gender can afford to "gloss" over the word cis, as trans issues are not an issue for them, similar to the way hetero people could probably "gloss" over LGB discussion if they wanted to.

But for people in these groups, it is actually something that is important. It is important to me.

 

[Envy]

LGB issues aren't that important for me personally even though I am aware that there are other whose lives are more affected by them.

 

[Freesia]

This, plus my son was called "Cis" as a taunt when he was about 15 and just walking down the street.

That isnt right, to be taunted with anything. I think that that is more about the scummy people that tried to insult your son, than the word "cis".