Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Sara Sharick's avatar

I came across a comment on Threads which asked (probably not in good faith, given the phrasing) why “cis” people felt term didn’t represent their “lived experience.” I pointed out that it’s not that people who dislike it feel it doesn’t represent them; it’s that the term is redundant. For a woman who is “cis”, “woman” encompasses everything you already need to know and all those things are reasonably assumed. The term adds no new information *except* that the person isn’t trans. And there’s no reason to know a person’s trans status unless they are trans.

I argued that this redundancy is actually inherent in the phrase “trans women are women.” “Woman” and “cis woman” are synonymous already. “Trans women are women” is the argument that “trans woman” should also be synonymous with “woman.”

But if it really is the case that trans women are women, then why are such qualifiers required at all? It’s not “cis” women insisting on it; it’s trans women. So, what gives?

I suspect it’s because trans identified people know perfectly well that this qualifier is required for them. It absolutely represents new and vital information about a person that man or woman by itself doesn’t. This feels awkward; it sets them apart from the group they want to be a social part of. So insisting on the use of the qualifier “cis” for everyone else makes it seem like a qualifier is normal and necessary for *everyone* when it isn’t.

This used to be the out loud argument for announcing your pronouns too. If everyone does it, it’s less weird for the people who feel like they *have* to.

But ultimately the ask is too big. It’s one thing to ask me to call you a different name; no big deal. It’s something else entirely to ask me to think about and call *myself* something different just so someone else can manage their own emotions about themselves.

Expand full comment
mogfitz's avatar

Helen, you always make us think. Thanks for the posting by Chanel, and the one by Sam Harris which shows that giving a name to non-belief is an insidious attempt to tar it with the same brush as having beliefs. It took me only a moment to recognize a similar intent in the word ‘cis’. I agree we shouldn’t ban the word ‘cis’ even though it’s used like a ‘scarlet letter’. But we can refuse to wear it.

Expand full comment
37 more comments...

No posts