Fourth Wave Feminism
- Thread starter das_nut
- Start date
Freesia
not my business.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Reaction score
- 7,866
- Lifestyle
- Other
Ableism issues effect me the most, followed by feminist issues and trans issues, and also body positivity issues.
FortyTwo
Custom Title
Okay, even the people I agree with usually are bugging me in this thread? So I'm not going to address anyone specifically, and just say this:
All language is made up. Descriptor words are important in the context of conversation. Sure, if you're talking to someone who you know to be cisgender about someone else who you know to be cisgender, you're not going to say "hey, you know Ted, that cis guy?" because that would be redundant. But when you're talking about trans* issues, that word needs to exist, because it defines the lines of privilege.
One doesn't need to know another's life story to know that privilege exists. Someone who is cisgender will have privilege over someone who is transgender in almost every conceivable situation.
If someone calls you "cis" and they mean it contextually as a slur, I don't know what else to say other than "boohoo," because as cis people we have literally the entire world, excluding trans* safe spaces, to live comfortably and not have our gender identity questioned and picked apart. Maybe the person who called you "cis" was being an *******, but that's it. You're not the victim of some massive ploy against cisgendered individuals. Also, as was demonstrated by our lovely friend Gittles, the word being tossed around might have been "sis," as this is short for "sissy" which is, in most contexts, a homophobic slur.
In conclusion: Having the word "cis" is important, privilege is a thing, and calling someone "cis" harms them to no degree.
All language is made up. Descriptor words are important in the context of conversation. Sure, if you're talking to someone who you know to be cisgender about someone else who you know to be cisgender, you're not going to say "hey, you know Ted, that cis guy?" because that would be redundant. But when you're talking about trans* issues, that word needs to exist, because it defines the lines of privilege.
One doesn't need to know another's life story to know that privilege exists. Someone who is cisgender will have privilege over someone who is transgender in almost every conceivable situation.
If someone calls you "cis" and they mean it contextually as a slur, I don't know what else to say other than "boohoo," because as cis people we have literally the entire world, excluding trans* safe spaces, to live comfortably and not have our gender identity questioned and picked apart. Maybe the person who called you "cis" was being an *******, but that's it. You're not the victim of some massive ploy against cisgendered individuals. Also, as was demonstrated by our lovely friend Gittles, the word being tossed around might have been "sis," as this is short for "sissy" which is, in most contexts, a homophobic slur.
In conclusion: Having the word "cis" is important, privilege is a thing, and calling someone "cis" harms them to no degree.
OP
OP
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
(Strong language)
I've heard of all the **** that trans people have to go through, and it ain't easy. Just using a public toilet without being questioned should be the right of everyone, cis or trans, but I know trans get a lot of crap over that.
But all that being said, they don't have to be assholes to cis people. 'Cause y'know what. **** HATE. Seriously. Society isn't going to be improved by hating people based on how their gender identity matches their biological gender.
But all that being said, they don't have to be assholes to cis people. 'Cause y'know what. **** HATE. Seriously. Society isn't going to be improved by hating people based on how their gender identity matches their biological gender.
(Wait, so we censor some swear words but not others?)
Freesia
not my business.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Reaction score
- 7,866
- Lifestyle
- Other
I think toilet usage is just the tip of the iceberg of problems that trans men and women face. Workplace harassment, rejection/abuse by family and friends once they come out (and before that, at school), and being beaten up or killed by members of the public or harassed by police...
Last edited:
OP
OP
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
Oh I agree. They get some pretty bad bigotry.
I was just using public toilets as an example. For a trans person, trying to use a public toilet could lead to them being denied usage, their arrest, or even assault. While for cis individuals, most of us don't think twice about using the public toilet, and if we do, our only worry tends to be if it'll be clean.
ledboots
Peace
I'm really sorry about the"cis" comments I made earlier in the thread. I've been reading some stuff and realize I was speaking out of ignorance and anger because of a family incident. I didn't understand a lot of things that I just learned, so I want to apologize.
Freesia
not my business.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Reaction score
- 7,866
- Lifestyle
- Other
That is ok ((((((ledboots))))). And street harassment is never ok no matter who it is directed at.
FortyTwo
Custom Title
Of course they shouldn't be assholes just for the sake of being assholes. Nobody should be attacked because of who they are, that seems pretty obvious to me. My problem is when people try to equate attacks on cis people by trans* people with harassment of trans* people by cis people, because they are entirely different given societal context. Someone who is cisgender harassing someone trans* can be extremely harmful. As pointed out, trans* spectrum people are subject to all kinds of social horrors and violence. As cisgender people, we do not have this problem. If a trans* person calls you a cishet on the internet (or otherwise, really) and implies that's a bad thing, then sure, they're being an *******, but 1.) they are probably reacting out of anger to the difficult situations they face every day with ignorant or harmful cis people in their lives and 2.) you can easily walk away from this feeling slightly annoyed and go back to any number of caring societies that don't question your gender identity/expression whereas they have to go back to more transphobia.
Basically, yeah, they're being rude, but it's not going to hurt you nearly as much as you being rude to them about being trans* will. That's not an excuse for them to do it, but just because someone does that doesn't mean that cisphobia is a real thing or that being rude to cis people is as damaging as being rude to trans* people.
Remember that we are the majority here. Every trans* person united wouldn't be able to do much damage to the transphobic structure of society. It's already taking a stupidly long amount of time for people who are trans* to obtain basic rights and even longer for them to obtain societal acceptance. There's no way to equate transphobia to a trans* person being mean to a cis person - these are radically different scenarios, and just because trans* people can sometimes be mean based on their reactions to situations they encounter in daily life (just like literally anyone else) doesn't erase privilege.
Oh, and I stopped questioning the censor software's logic long ago.
And I'm sorry if I came across as harsh. I get really passionate about this stuff sometimes and can probably be a little mean. I firmly believe that's not the way to teach people and sometimes my actions don't quite mirror that because of how upset I get.
FortyTwo
Custom Title
I think a lot of people feel that way, but in the end it doesn't really matter what you think unless you're actually a part of that group.
Like, for example, I could talk about how I think all the gay slang, like "twink" and "bear" and "faghag" and that crap, is dumb, because that's my opinion about a gay issue and I'm gay so it works out. But someone who wasn't gay, and therefore a part of that community, doesn't get to decide that for people who are gay.
By the same token, I'm not trans*, so even if I found the term "cis" to be silly (which I don't anyway, which I think I've made clear
) I have privilege in the area of gender identity so I wouldn't and shouldn't feel comfortable speaking out against that term because it's something people who are trans* use to make their daily lives more ordered and give common meaning to their frustrations with society as a group.(Not that dopey gay slang and gender identity issues are in any way on the same level, of course. Kind-of a mismatched example but it works in both scenarios, so...)
I think a lot of people feel that way, but in the end it doesn't really matter what you think unless you're actually a part of that group.
Like, for example, I could talk about how I think all the gay slang, like "twink" and "bear" and "faghag" and that crap, is dumb, because that's my opinion about a gay issue and I'm gay so it works out. But someone who wasn't gay, and therefore a part of that community, doesn't get to decide that for people who are gay.
By the same token, I'm not trans*, so even if I found the term "cis" to be silly (which I don't anyway, which I think I've made clear
(Not that dopey gay slang and gender identity issues are in any way on the same level, of course. Kind-of a mismatched example but it works in both scenarios, so...)
Oh, I think that people in whatever group have an absolute right* to use whatever name/terminology to describe themselves as they may see fit at any time and change it from time to time. But that's not the case here; I don't think that "cis", used to describe people who aren't trans, is used (or even known by) most of the non-trans population; its use within the non-trans population seems to be largely confined to people who pride themselves on being on the cutting edge of sexual and gender political correctness.
*With the proviso that terms designed to underscore one's perceived sense of superiority at the expense of others isn't O.K., for example, referring to one's race as the "Master Race", etc.
Again, I just have always found trendy terms, whether related to business, politics, etc., somewhat irritatingly superficial; they tend to give me the impression that the speaker is more interested in showing how terribly current and politically correct he is than anything else. With respect to "cis", it's an initial impression that has largely been reinforced when I've unglazed my eyes enough to read what passes for the substance of the remarks in which it's being used (by non-trans individuals, BTW).
And on a quite serious note, I think the term "cis" represents a really big oversimplification; I don't think that the human population consists solely of people who are transsexual/transgender on the one hand and those whose internal gender identification is completely in sync with their physical sex on the other hand. IMO and IME, there's a whole continuum between those two ends.
OP
OP
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
I don't buy it. Yes, I know the whole argument of structural harassment, but it seems to me that it all boils down to one form of harassment being rarer than the other. It doesn't make it an act of harassment less wrong just because the target is rarer, or that it is the "reverse" of other harassment.
Its wrong to judge people based on the gender identity and biological identity. Maybe it's time to grow up and realize that no matter who you are, you shouldn't start making assumptions of people based on their gender identity and biological gender.
And if that isn't enough of a reason, then why not this selfish reason - encourage hatred, in either direction, between trans and cis, does not and can not improve society.
I agree.
I think the term "cis" is more used by people who are part of the LGBTQ community or by people who have learned about the subject themselves and I do think it will take quite a while for the term to be used widely. Even being part of the community myself I personally hadn't given much thought to the "T" part until I read some information online. I actually find it helpful when people talk about these issues as I like to be made more aware and hopefully education will help to make society more inclusive.
I had to look up the definition and I think I agree with SummerRain and Moll Flanders.
Would this be an acceptable take on the term? Sounds logical to me and I am also trying to educate myself.
"So why do we say ‘cisgender’ instead of ‘non-transgender’? Because, referring to cisgender people as ‘non trans’ implies that cisgender people are the default and that being trans is abnormal. Many people have said ‘transgender people’ and ‘normal people’, but when we say ‘cisgender’ and ‘transgender’ neither is implied as more normal than the other.
Using the word ‘cisgender’ is also an educational tool. To simply define people as ‘non-trans’ implies that only transgender people have a gender identity. But that’s not true. Like sexual orientation, race, class, and many other identities, all of us have a gender identity.
Language is important; it defines human relationships. That is why it’s important use language of equality and inclusion."
Would this be an acceptable take on the term? Sounds logical to me and I am also trying to educate myself.
"So why do we say ‘cisgender’ instead of ‘non-transgender’? Because, referring to cisgender people as ‘non trans’ implies that cisgender people are the default and that being trans is abnormal. Many people have said ‘transgender people’ and ‘normal people’, but when we say ‘cisgender’ and ‘transgender’ neither is implied as more normal than the other.
Using the word ‘cisgender’ is also an educational tool. To simply define people as ‘non-trans’ implies that only transgender people have a gender identity. But that’s not true. Like sexual orientation, race, class, and many other identities, all of us have a gender identity.
Language is important; it defines human relationships. That is why it’s important use language of equality and inclusion."
kibbleforlola
Lola Worshiper
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 2,597
When we say "normal", or whatever for cisgendered people, it "others" transgendered people and suggest that there is something wrong and abnormal about being trans. Which of course there isn't. By saying cis, we put both cis and trans people on the same spectrum of gender identity. We're saying both are acceptable ways to express womanhood (or manhood, or whatever gender you identify with).
Freesia
not my business.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Reaction score
- 7,866
- Lifestyle
- Other
I dont think it is that way at all, and only trans people themselves can truly say how it is. For me, my experience is feeling a sense of "difference" , like being a fraud, for example, when I shop at women's clothing stores, I often have a feeling someone is going to come up to me and escort me out of the shop.
It has never happened, and it is because I have a relatively feminine appearance, but if I had a more androgynous appearance, I know I would have a lot more problems in clothing stores for example.
I have written about this before, on VB, but when I was at middle school, the boys used to beat me up as if I was one of the boys, they didnt do that to any of the other girls though. It is like they knew.
So it is kind of weird to see someone say that "these issues effect everyone" because from my point of view, they didnt effect everyone, they only effected people who were unable to hide their gender attributes in places like school, or work.
Last edited:
The fact is, many/most of us have one or more characteristics that are different from what is the expected default position (and a characteristic, such as being transsexual/transgender, which applies to .25% to 1% of the population, is not the expected default position), and we don't make up specific terms to describe the persons who don't happen to share that unusual characteristic. I used albinism as an example earlier. Depression, schizophrenia, anxiety disorders (OMG! How uncouth to even call it a disorder!) are other characteristics, as is a cleft lip, nearsightedness, farsightedness, dwarfism, eyes of two different colors, alopecia - the list goes on and on. Some of these characteristics don't negatively affect how a person with the characteristic is treated, but many do. People are hounded, taunted, bullied, discriminated against and even killed because of some of these characteristics.
Is there something wrong and abnormal about having any one of these characteristics? I don't think so, and I sincerely hope that those of you who think that it's important to have a term to describe all the people who aren't transgendered in order to avoid any such implication start getting cracking to come up with new terms to describe the people who don't happen to have a particular characteristic.
Is there something wrong and abnormal about having any one of these characteristics? I don't think so, and I sincerely hope that those of you who think that it's important to have a term to describe all the people who aren't transgendered in order to avoid any such implication start getting cracking to come up with new terms to describe the people who don't happen to have a particular characteristic.
OP
OP
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
What if I said "meat eaters" and "non-meat eaters"? Does "non-meat" imply that vegetarian people are the default?
The logic seems to be a little faulty.
I'm all for the word cis, but I'm not agreeing with that train of logic.
