[RD] HuffPost: "I Coined The Term 'Cisgender' 29 Years Ago. Here's What This Controversial Word Really Means."

[Gorbles]

Then why add any reference at all to the person's gender-identification category? The person is also brown-eyed (say). Why not say "Die, brown-eyed-person scum"?

Because they didn't? Because cis is a relevant qualifier when discussing the lens of trans marginalisation in greater society? It was a hypothetical in the first place. Again, "die, trans scum" by your logic would make "trans" the insult. It's not. The insult is saying you should die (and "scum"). But I keep repeating this.

Evie made a good point about "othering", but at the same time reinforces what I'm trying to say - that anything slots in the "othering" part of the phrase. The anything isn't the insult. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, "die scum" is. But again, we're going in circles. Your argument isn't getting any stronger. You're still defaulting to cis-therefore-scum to the exclusion of all else (as a part of a greater argument that revolves around trying to make "cis" sound like an insult, which has amusing connotations for "trans" that haven't really been thought through. We don't live in a utopia. We are not past labels. We can dream of being past labels, but they are still required, and can be value neutral despite being used offensively at times).

It would also be nice if you stopped othering large swathes of population bluntly with dubious words and then making alarmed faces when said population resists your labelling and insinuations. Counterproductive.

There's nothing dubious about "cis". I mean, Gori disagrees on the linguistic ground of it being lazy / cheap (or words to that effect - sorry @Gori the Grey, I'm not digging for the post at the mo). But "dubious" is a whole other thing.

Cis people overwhelmingly other trans people. sophie and other posters have described this, time and time again. You trying to say "but I feel targeted by association". Unlearn that association. Feeling targeted is counterproductive, and leans into the whole "I'll only support you if you're nice to me" instead of what should be the default "I support you because it's the right thing to do regardless of how allegedly mean any one individual is to me".

 

[Evie]

Snowygerry - I have not made the argument that "cis" is inherently othering, or that othering others is inherently good or bad. As for the idea that othering the majority is pointless, it may be, but that doesn't mean people don't do it.

Farm Boy - I'd say an othering use of a term becomes a slur when othering people becomes the main use of the word. That will in most cases involve (as Snowygerry suggested) the majority or more powerful group.

And nobody needs "nice guys" allies who are allies only to center themselves and their feelings.

 

[Gori the Grey]

that anything slots in the "othering" part of the phrase

No, only something that the speaker holds to be negative. Nobody says "Die, French scum" to a particular French person except somebody who doesn't like French people in general. There's no point in mentioning the Frenchness otherwise. Just say "Die, scum." You are saying somebody bothering to add some adjective to that phrase isn't highlighting that adjective in the person he finds to be scum and thinks should die. It's clear that the speaker is. That person could pick a zillion adjectives, or none, and picks only that one. That's the offensive thing in the person that the speaker thinks is scum and thinks should die.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

It would also be nice if you stopped othering large swathes of population bluntly with dubious words and then making alarmed faces when said population resists your labelling and insinuations. Counterproductive.

The phrasing of yours just now: “cis people actively trying to harm us”. What cis people? All cis people? Some cis people? There’s not even wide agreement in regards to your proposed terminology in the world today, even less so, when outside Your country. 99% of my neighbours never even heard of “cis people” before. It’s not a cis people trying to harm you, it’s people with dislike of transgenderism, people with trans phobia. And it would be more productive if you pointed fingers at specific people, not just declare some virtual slice (or all?) “cis people” the villain, if you expect a dialogue.

Some of those “cis people” you painted so broadly can become allies.

I would really appreciate it if cis people would, y'know, make it clear that these bigots don't speak for them nor represent them, beyond just this awkward acknowledgement of the suffering and tone policing by bad-faith actors.

Do you comprehend what I'm trying to say here? Do you understand? This isn't difficult.

How about you do something other than complaining about my tone, I have to live this **** every day, wondering when my state is going to make my very existence illegal.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'd say an othering use of a term becomes a slur when othering people becomes the main use of the word. That will in most cases involve (as Snowygerry suggested) the majority or more powerful group.

I don't use "city boy" as a slur. It's not the othering alone, can it be? Farmers are like 1.5%. There's more terms for "other" than I can think of. The slur needs an implied... heat... to it?

 

[Arwon]

I'm having fun just replacing cis with "gentile" in these bad faith "cis is a slur" type posts, don't mind me.

 

[Evie]

At that point, any word describing a person can be a slur, so long as the user of the word has a negative take on it.

Sort of makes the word "slur" entirely meaningless - it's just the same thing as an insult at that point.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think it's gotta be both parts. It's gotta be negative and, to an extent, "other." I can even use "redneck" or "hick" like I would "wetback" (and would be vastly more likely to do so), but that has it roots in the understood otherness of the origin and meaning of the term?

 

[Evie]

I dom't disagree that a slur needs that, but a slur to me remain defined by common, primary usage.

"Slur" is to me an hostility and othering toward a group of people that can be assumed from just hearing the word alone. You read that word, without any other word, without any tone cue, without any context, and hostility and a desire to other are readily apparent. And the only way a word really acquires that kind of meaning is by having it mainly used in that way to begin with. Which I would argue is not the case with cis.

A word that can be slotted in "Die, X Scum" to express hostility in that specific phrase might be perceived as an insult; the phrase as a whole may certainly be perceived as threats and possibly as hate speech, but it's not a slur.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Die, Scummy Person (and for no reason whatsoever I'm going to take this as the occasion to mention your gender-identification category).

 

[Lexicus]

for no reason whatsoever

This is very unlikely to be the case in any real-world situation though

 

[Gori the Grey]

Right, Lex, but what's the occasion that's going to have prompted it, then? The addressee being cis? Or the addressee having done something transphobic?

And if the latter, why use the word cis?

There are two answers, I think.

 

[Evie]

To other you. As I've already said.

It takes more than being othered by a word in a specific set of circumstances to make a slur, no matter how badly some people want the martyr complex of claiming some things are slurs against them.

 

[Lexicus]

Or the target having done something transphobic?

Generally this, or just being obnoxious in a way that doesn't necessarily rise to the level of transphobia.

(note: i really like Evie's distinction between othering terms and slurs)

 

[Gori the Grey]

To other you.

"Cisgendered" already has that as its job.

 

[Lexicus]

"Cisgendered" already has that as its job.

Okay, then the purpose of the word "cis" in this context is that ain't nobody got time to type out cisgendered

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm proposing that we should take the time. On the analogy that I offered earlier: that homosexual is descriptive, but homo is a slur. Cis is drifting toward slur status by virtue of its being a one-syllable word.

Edit: and by virtue of having a second meaning: person who identifies with gender assigned at birth and hasn't acknowledged the privilege that affords.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm proposing that we should take the time.

Well, no one is going to take that suggestion so I advise you not to dig in on that too deep.

On the analogy that I offered earlier: that homosexual is descriptive, but homo is a slur.

that's interesting, but I don't think the parallel really works in this case. I mean, it's just a fact that cis is not a slur the way "homo" might be.

 

[sophie]

*sigh*

Slurs are about power as much as othering. When you call me a real slur, like tranny or *****, you are othering me, yes, but you are othering me *as a member of the oppressed class*. You are saying “[you are and will always be lower than me,] tranny *****.”

This is, again, why goy, whitey, gringo, and the like do not carry the same weight. You are being othered, yes, but othered as a member of an oppressor class. You are othered upwards.

eta: really fudging funny that the slur against me as a woman - ***** - is autocensored, but the equivalent and very much equally hurtful slur against me as a trans person - tranny - is not.

 

[Lexicus]

Just a general question, am I self-hating cisgender if I have no problem being referred to as cis? Have I internalized anti-cis bigotry?