Here's one of those terms that's new for me. Since I hate ever feeling that I am locked out of conversations based on generational vocabulary...I've finally looked up this term I've been reading in gay articles.
******************************************************************
What does “cis” mean?
A “cis” person is a person who was assigned a gender and sex at birth that they feel comfortable with. Typically, cis men are men who were assigned male at birth and feel that the words "man" and "male" accurately describe who they are. Likewise, cis women are women who were assigned female at birth and feel that the words "woman" and "female" accurately describe who they are. Generally, cis people feel comfortable with the aspects of their bodies that others inscribe with a sex and gender, and do not seek to modify their bodies in ways that would change how they or others place them in a sex category.
What is “cis” short for?
“Cis” can be short for “cissexual” or for “cisgender”. “Cissexual” and “cisgender” sometimes mean different things, but there is no single, agreed-upon definition for either word. Likewise, there's no single, agreed-upon definition for the words “transsexual” and “transgender”.
*****************************************************
Hey, Tamps ~
You're not the only one who is feeling mildly disoriented over all the new terminology. . . though I suspect you're dealing with it a whole lot more equably (and graciously) than I. . . because. . . the
ENGLISH LANGUAGE is a very big fetish, for your faithful correspondent!!! LOL!
I hope I've made it clear, over the last little while, that I have full sympathy for people who are transgendered. We all love Dimitri, who ultimately disclosed that she was really, Anya. . . and her story was very moving.
I will say, though, that the use of language is never "neutral" when it comes to the expression of power-relationships. This is especially true in this circumstance, and, while this has doubtless occurred to you, Tampa - let's break it down for those who perhaps haven't given this a lot of thought.
*************************************************
The old linguistic convention was - "transgendered" vs. "male and female", in a conventional sense. That is, the sense in which (statistically speaking) most people feel themselves to be "male" or "female" in accord with their natal physical embodiment. (Sexual ORIENTATION is, of course, separate from this.)
Some transgendered activists now seem to be quite discomfited by the old dispensation, because (and I get this) it implies that they are an "unusual case", as opposed to people whose gender-identity conforms to their "birth-bodies" (if I might be so bold as to coin a phrase). To a lot of transgendered people, the conventional usage seems to imply that, being transgendered (with their gender-identity not conforming to their "birth-bodies", at least as first or immediately visible) they are somehow abnormal, or "second-class", in some way.
The coining of the term "cisgendered" ("cis" being a Latin prefix meaning, "on the same side of", as opposed to "trans", which means "across", or on the "other side of") is an attempt to level the scales, and put transgendered people on a "level playing field" with people who are (in the old usage) "male" or "female" in the previously-accepted sense of the word. It is a deliberate de-centring, or decontextualization, of the old terms, "male" and "female", in a bid to render these terms obsolete. Existentially, it amounts to an assertion that there is NO SUCH THING as "male", or "female".
Rather (on this new linguistic model) there are cisgendered people, whose gender identity is consonant with their physically apparent bodies; and transgendered people, whose gender identity DIVERGES from their physically apparent bodies. This is a way of expressing, and even ENFORCING, linguistically, the idea that gender is variable, or even perhaps arbitrary, and bears no necessary relation to the physically apparent body, particularly at birth, but also even at later stages of human development.
The TRUE measure of gender, in the "soft" version of the new gender-related lexicon, is internal and neurological - still with a biological basis, but a subtler, less perceptible one, than any visible to the naked eye. In the "hard" or militant version of the new gender-related lexicon, gender may have some neurological correlate, or it may simply be a matter of individual preference or choice, but in either case, it really doesn't matter. In short, gender ceases to be a biological thing, and becomes so arbitrary, and fluid, it really ceases to exist.
Tampa, I will 'fess up and declare, I can go some distance with the soft version, as outlined above - - - but I don't find the "hard" version (that gender is arbitrary and pretty much ENTIRELY disconnected from one's physical existence) very persuasive.
Nonetheless, the "hard version", as a way to interpret gender identity, seems to be gaining ground in the transgendered community. Whence cometh articles like this one, from Christin Scarlett Milloy - which suggest that infant gender assignment is,
per se, and
in se, child abuse:
http://chrismilloy.ca/2014/06/dont-let-the-doctor-do-this-to-your-newborn/
According to this "hard version" of gender linguistics - gender-identification must be kept open, indefinitely. The terms "transgender" and "cisgender" are equally necessary, because they mark two poles of a fluid and potentially ever-shifting sense of gender identity. And, further, the conventional pronouns "he" and "she" must be eliminated in favour of new gender-neutral pronouns such as "xe" (supplanting "him" and "her"); and "xyr" (supplanting "his" and "hers").
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/xe
********************************************************************
This is all very well and good, except, Tampa, I think it is a bit of a slippery-slope to linguistic unintelligibility. And here, perhaps I shall take a couple of brickbats, for being "transphobic" ~ I dunno.
But I'm a mean old conservative - not least, when it comes to LANGUAGE. Let's face facts:
*Transgendered people ARE, in fact, a tiny minority of the whole population.
*The great majority of human beings ARE "cisgendered" ~ that is, in terms of gender identity, they identify clearly with the physical markers of gender as "male", or "female".
*Because of this, gender-related nouns and pronouns are a regular part of ordinary life.
*To admit this as a practical matter is (I think) in no way to deprecate those who are transgendered, or of fluid or indeterminate gender.
*Furthermore, as a practical matter (I think) to up-end the English language as a political salve to soothe the self-esteem of transgendered people, is not only a pathway to everyday confusion. . . it is also to PATRONIZE transgendered people, with cheap linguistic panaceas.
*************************************************************
I disagree with this approach, fundamentally. To my mind, it is far more important to concentrate on providing physical, and emotional, and economic, and PRACTICAL support to transgendered people. So that, to take a case in point, when Dimitri explains to us that she is (and has always been) ANYA, we ought to:
*Rally around her in emotional support;
*Ensure that she suffers no discrimination at school, in the workplace, or in seeking housing;
*Ensure that she is recognized for her true self, and has access to all facilities and amenities in the community, which every citizen needs; and,
*Join her in fighting BACK against anyone who would disparage, insult, or wish to HARM her, in any way.
THESE are the crucial tasks, IMHO - not bending the English language out of shape, to flatten or negate, perceptions of gender which will, I think, always be with us.
It's a tough issue, and I am sure we ought always to err on the side of compassion. But I think some of the linguistic games-person-ship, has gone just a bit crazy.
"A" XOXOXOXOXOXO
