Do we need a word like "cis" or "cis gender"?
-
I woke up a bit ago, sat down to read the online news with my first few cups of caffeine with a gorgeous blue sky visible from my window – ready to take on the day! -- when my eyes are assaulted with someone ranting about "cisgender" this and that.
Talk about killing the mood.
I think I'm one step out of touch with western thinking on this, or am I? Is there really a need to distinguish cis from trans? What am I missing?
-
I woke up a bit ago, sat down to read the online news with my first few cups of caffeine with a gorgeous blue sky visible from my window – ready to take on the day! -- when my eyes are assaulted with someone ranting about "cisgender" this and that.
Talk about killing the mood.
I think I'm one step out of touch with western thinking on this, or am I? Is there really a need to distinguish cis from trans? What am I missing?
The word "cisgender" is very popular recently. It means that one identifies as being the gender they were born with (opposite of trans).
I think the reason it's suddenly so popular is that it is widely mentioned in the new Southpark Game "Fractured But Whole" (which I completed and didn't like), and the new Southpark Episodes. -
It's coming out of the same thinking that brought 'hetero/homosexual' into use.
Fun fact - heterosexual used to mean gay men since their sexuality was 'other'. There was no term for people who were attracted to the 'opposite sex' since it was viewed as being so normal it didn't need a definition. It would be like saying 'eyes' implies brown eyes - which is the majority but always specifying blue eyes, implying that it's an oddity rather than normal variation.
-
Fun fact - heterosexual used to mean gay men since their sexuality was 'other'. There was no term for people who were attracted to the 'opposite sex' since it was viewed as being so normal it didn't need a definition.
Did you mistype heterosexual for homosexual? I'd never heard of this before so I did some Googling but couldn't find anything. What I did find is that for most of human history we didn't think about heterosexuality but when we did we thought of sex, the procreative function then later sexuality, the mode of sex for pleasure, not procreation. According to what I read heterosexuality had to jump the first hoop to land upon the second.
-
CIS translates into (basic definition) that you identify with what you sex is.
As we have seen over the last 5+ years, it's been used to demonize "cis" people and not as an academic phrase. "Die CIS scum!!!" became an internet thing when that thing shaved her head and put on black make up. Oddly, the girl in that video was CIS, but hated all CIS people for whatever reason.
CIS white males (even gays ones) were banned from diversity events in the UK, despite it being illegal. HOWEVER, and as usual, nothing was done about this but there would have been mass arrests if the reversed happened.
Minorities can break the very laws designed to protect them.
We see the same kind of shit with the "white people go around" event at Berkeley. (go fuck yourself, you can look it up for yourself, as it's been talked about so much here and you should know what it is).
Even with SJWs redefining "racism", the shit we are seeing matches their definition, but not in the way they (SJWs) intended. Anti-white racist events/incidents are being protected by ALL levels of the government.
The Obama administration dropped the charges against the 2 New Black Panthers who were brandishing weapons and threatening white voters outside the Philly voting place in the 2008 election.
Berkeley police were at the anti-white racist event to prevent uppity whites from trying to cross the bridge. They were not there to enforce equal rights laws. The city and university, also, fully supported this anti-white racist event even though it's against equality laws at every level. Obama and his administration didn't give a fuck because it was done to honkeys. No one was arrested for setting buildings on fire. No one was arrested for beating and stomping those 2 already unconscious men to a bloody pulp because "Hey, they look like Nazis" as can be heard in various videos of the incident.
Evergreen College had similar things and no one was arrested, even though the President of the college admitted in the state Senate hearing that lots of laws at all levels were broken. Gangs of black students and their cucks roaming the college campus with baseball bats looking for disobedient whites and no one was arrested. The only criminal charges being looked at are the ones for the person(s) who reposted the various videos the freaks uploaded themselves committing the various crimes, like holding the college President and other staff hostage, telling them they can't go to the bathroom and that if they had to, to piss themselves. There's no question who the guilty are, they are on video that they themselves uploaded bragging about what they did.
-
Did you mistype heterosexual for homosexual? I'd never heard of this before so I did some Googling but couldn't find anything. What I did find is that for most of human history we didn't think about heterosexuality but when we did we thought of sex, the procreative function then later sexuality, the mode of sex for pleasure, not procreation. According to what I read heterosexuality had to jump the first hoop to land upon the second.
Not a typo but a mistake. I tried to follow up where I had gotten that misconception that 'heterosexual' originally meant 'contrary sexuality' as a contrast between gay vs an unnamed 'normal'.
I used to live in Germany and found that the first description of 'homosexuality' as an identity rather than as an act was by Karl Friedrich Otto Westphal in 1870 as 'contrary sexual feeling'.
I apologize, I think I got caught up in an Urban Legend.The rest of what I was saying is still relevant. The unnamed norm is treated as if it were 'normal' while a term is needed for deviance. Creating a term for both allows for them to be treated as varience within a range of normal.
-
The unnamed norm is treated as if it were 'normal' while a term is needed for deviance. Creating a term for both allows for them to be treated as varience within a range of normal.
Here's what bugs me. There are all kinds of dysmorphia that we classify as mental illness. Two that stand out in my mind are the people who feel they should be disabled going so far as to amputate limbs or blind themselves. Another is the person who feels they are an animal. With both, scientists can identify parts of the brain where there's a deviance; others can point to trauma to explain the behavior. Both arguments exist for transsexual people, though more and more people are searching for the biological and trying to exclude the environment.
If you're going to put transsexual on one end of a continuum then you'd need to have those other dysphorias on their own continuums as well, otherwise transexual vis a vie cis is an artificial characteristic our societies are selecting for cultivation.
Another example comes to mind, the push to recognize sexual attraction to children as a sexual orientation. Recognizing it as legitimate creates another dichotomy with the potential of a continuum as an attempt to explain why someone is attracted to people of different ages.
All of this seems wrong.
The distinction between cis and trans seems arbitrary.
-
As I already pointed out, CIS came out of the textbooks and into the mainstream as a way of abusing normative people.
You can go back about 5 or so years and see it explode on to the scene and used a weapon against people whose identity matches their sex.
