Cis is not an “academic” term
I’ve seen this a bunch of times recently in the various threads trying to make sense of the various trans/feminist blog thrashes. “What is this cis term? It seems so academic.” etc
Well, the thing is. It’s not. I’ve seen it used by Julia Serano, and Riki Wilchins, and not much else. I suspect that the academic usage will grow given the influence of Serano in trans communities, but the point is – it’s not a bloody academic term. As the wikipedia article states, correctly as far as I know, “cis” emerged as a primarily internet usage amongst activists in the mid 90s, a full decade before it appeared in academia. Even now this is overwhelmingly the truth.
So why this perception that cis (and I prefer cissexual than cisgender, given that it places the institutional dimensions of cis privilege with regard to legal sex front and center, rather than those related to gender presentation) is an arcane, academic term? More importantly, what is this resistance to the term, especially in threads specifically demarcated as not 101–and to just fucking googling it–doing?
Now obviously, cissexual isn’t a common, everyday term. But neither are other terms commonly used in feminist discussions online, like essentialism and heteronormativity. None of these are very difficult to make sense of, to read around, or to just fucking google it. For those unaware, Julia Serano in Whipping Girl describes cissexuals as “people who are not transsexual and who have only ever experienced their subconscious and physical sexes as being aligned” (p. 12), and cissexism as “the belief that transsexuals’ identified genders are inferior to, or less authentic than, those of cissexuals.”
More commonly, cissexual just means people who are not transsexual, and cis means people who are not trans. It’s terribly complex, you know.
But see, ignorance is a tool of the powerful (just ask Dubya). It takes no work to remain ignorant, to restate the dominant positions of the day as “common sense”–you know, the kind of common sense that is being placed in position to the inscrutably academic trans people. So, the point is not that it’s very difficult to understand, but that there’s an active resistance to having trans knowledge be allowed as legitimate. “Academic” is a way of dismissing us for evolving a vocabulary of our own that doesn’t Other and objectify us like cis-normative (ooh I invented a word, how academic) feminist writings do.
In short, Buffy, it’s about power. The inequity involved in people saying things like “I’m not cis, I’m a woman” whilst firmly denying trans women the woman part of the equation should be obvious. Until we live in a world where trans women are accepted as women whose identifications, histories and bodies are as legitimate as their sisters, there will be a need for the term cis. Because when you use “women” and “trans women” you know what you’re saying? That trans women aren’t women, that we’re a separate group. And that’s just not acceptable, and it doesn’t take a PhD to work that one out.
So hey cis readers, the next time you want to de-rail a thread about trans rights, you know actual rights for actual people, just click here instead.
saying it’s “academic” absolves Ignorant Cis Person from actually engaging in rational, critical thought: “If it’s “academic”, then I’m not going to bother trying to learn”, “I’m no academic, therefore I’m not going to bother trying to understand”.
It’s the “you do the educating for me” trope in a new guise, and it’s just as boring and stupid as it ever was.
z
April 25, 2009 at 5:08 am
Worse than “It’s academic” is the “It’s an insult” nonsense that dirtyratbag and her sockpuppets routinely dredge up over on Livejournal.
Jessica
April 25, 2009 at 6:04 am
as a cisperson, everything i can think to say feels horribly priviledged, so i’ll just shut it.
thanks though, this post is thought provoking.
depresso
April 25, 2009 at 6:17 am
I had something of a row with a “dont’ call me cis” cis woman the other day who insisted, “But I don’t identify with the term cis! Why should I have to define myself by whether or not I’m transsexual! – I’m sure some transsexuals feel the same.”
I ended up just leaving the argument, because I have to work with this woman, but it’s still festering.
snakeyjack
April 25, 2009 at 6:21 am
Ahahaha!!! Esp. the last link is priceless – did you know it translates to your language, even, and it’s definitely suitably condescending, too.
Carto
April 25, 2009 at 6:43 am
snakeyjack: The Normals don’t need to be named, its only those freaky deeky Trans folks that have to be named so they can be rightfully stereotyped and ostracized don’t cha know?
Weird how people in privileged situations REFUSE to acknowledge that they are part of a group at all. “Only minorities are part of a group, I am an INDIVIDUAL!11!one!!”
Stella
April 25, 2009 at 8:12 am
but remember, the term “cis” is all “academic” and all when it comes to trying to derail trans people making valid points…but when it comes time to make broad generalizations about trans people using shitloads of theory, that’s just fine.
algormortis
April 25, 2009 at 8:26 am
A few days ago I wrote up a blog entry explaining it and now whenever I write anything on a feminist blog I’m just going to stick “STOP: BEFORE YOU READ ANYTHING MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT CIS MEANS.”
I know it’s more spoon-fed education and all that but honestly I’d rather do it of my own accord and on my own terms than have a bunch of whiny cissies derail the conversation.
Ellie Glasheen
April 25, 2009 at 8:57 am
that last post was me, for some reason it defaulted to an old personal blog
Ellie
April 25, 2009 at 9:01 am
er the “Ellie Glasheen” post not the algormortis, shit I’m fucking it all up
Ellie
April 25, 2009 at 9:02 am
yeah, i was kind of curious…i mean, i think you’re pretty gosh darn cool, ellie, but we’d have one hell of a fight club situation on our hands were that the case.
(then again, i am Jack’s raging bile duct…hmm…)
algormortis
April 25, 2009 at 9:24 am
If they take the time to look at the definition of cisgendered there should be no problem “identifying” with it. The issue is that many cis people don’t want to take the time to get their 101 on. They look at learning as a hardship simply because they want to wallow in their privielge.
Another thing that gets me is the way that conversations continually have to revert back to 101 because so many expect to be spoon fed like they’re feaking infants. Get over yourself head a library and educate your damn self and allow people to move on. I could not agree with you more in this. It is a way of continually centering themselves in the conversation if the oppressed are constantly put into a position where they have to teach.
Renee
April 25, 2009 at 9:30 am
To me, there’s a huge difference between “what my theory says genders are tells me I don’t identify with them, so don’t call me ‘cis,’ you meanie!”
and “Everyone around me treats me like something I’m not” and/or “I need to change my body.”
One of those is an academic (hah!) argument about the precise semantic use of words (which isn’t even correct because it fundamentally misunderstands what they mean anyway), and the other is about real life.
Trin
April 25, 2009 at 10:02 am
Thanks for this post.
plain(s)feminist
April 25, 2009 at 10:10 am
Ugh. Yes.
This week I’ve had some running exchanges with this stuff in it. “But I’ve never run into the term before, and it doesn’t fit the way I think of myself, and who are you to label me?” “I’m a trans woman talking with you about gender issues. ‘Trans’ describes my gender identity and ‘cis’ describes yours. It’s not a distinction you needed to think about before, but here I am.” “You’re just making up academic words to confuse me! Why should I have to do anything?” “You’re not trans, right?” “Right.” “And you don’t want to describe me as abnormal, just unusual.” “Right.” “So, ‘trans’ for me, and ‘cis’ for you as someone in the part of the population that isn’t trans.” “But I’ve never run into the term before, and it doesn’t fit the way I think of myself, and who are you to label me?”
At this point I go off to pet my cat and dream dreams of solar-weapon satellites.
cericonversion
April 25, 2009 at 11:10 am
I do not get all the ignorance around the term ‘cis’. It’s a great term, it’s a geeky chemistry joke and it provides a simple way to discuss gender issues without othering trans people (by suggesting they are not real or bio or genetic) or invisibilising them (by ignoring the specific issues trans people face).
Oh wait, unless you are invested in keeping out those troublesome trans people and making sure they don’t think they actually count as real people.
Emily
April 25, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Academic feminist here… in my experience “biologically female” is still the most common term used for cissexual women in academia, and obviously that term has a boatload of it’s own issues. I use “cis” in the classes I teach, and explain to my students why “biologically female” is problematic. But introductory texts and articles on feminist theory and trans/cis issues are all over the place as far as the vocab is concerned. So calling it “academic” seems like a bit of a stretch, and another way to be dismissive.
Rachel_in_WY
April 25, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Why don’t people google? They’re on the internet anyway. When I first heard the term, that’s the first thing I did.
michelle
April 25, 2009 at 2:16 pm
This is probably an extremely stupid question, and i apologise in advance for derailing, if that’s what this is (i’m actually not sure)…
Is it generally accepted that a person can be cissexual but not cisgendered?
I am undoubtedly cissexual; i feel no dissonance about, nor desire to change in any way my (male assigned at birth) body. And i undoubtedly have cissexual privilege. However, as someone who (as far as i can tell) entirely lacks any kind of “internal” gender identity, and feels extreme dissonance with the social gender role that someone with my physical appearance is supposed to have, i’m not sure i’m comfortable with calling myself cisgendered (although i’m not sure i’d call myself transgendered, either – ungendered would probably be the nearer fit, if that was a term that anyone used (which it probably isn’t)).
This may, of course, not be my call. But i would appreciate perspectives on it (and whether being cis/transgendered is objective or subjective).
shiva
April 25, 2009 at 2:26 pm
And that came out looking much more angsty and me-centred than it was meant to. Really, it’s not that i have any massive internal conflict, just that i want to make sure i’m describing myself in accurate terms, and not appropriating anyone else’s identity.
shiva
April 25, 2009 at 2:34 pm
shiva,
Isn’t there cisgender, transgender, and then gender queer for anyone who doesn’t fit the binary? That was my understanding.
Erin
April 25, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I’m not sure that transgender cisgender rightfully qualifies as a binary…
Lisa Harney
April 25, 2009 at 5:35 pm
It seems very spectrum-y to me. But when I’m talking with people accustomed to “normal people”/”weirdo freaks” as a spectrum, getting them to acknowledge a second valid category is a big step. Once they get that, filling in the gap isn’t so hard.
cericonversion
April 25, 2009 at 5:56 pm
If cis means body sex = gender identity, and one has no gender identity, then one is not cis.
z
April 25, 2009 at 6:41 pm
cissexual to me means “I am comfortable with the way my body was identified at birth, and what those labels mean and signify” and cisgender means “I am comfortable with the gender associated with my assigned sex”.
Clearly, one can be cissexual but not cisgender, if one is fine with one’s physical body but not the gender associated with it. And one can have access to cissexual privilege if one doesn’t desire to pursue medical technology to alter one’s sexual characteristics, and one doesn’t portray one’s body in a way that indicates that. There are a lot of genderqueer people who don’t identify with the sex assigned to them at birth, but don’t medically alter their body. They may well not identify themselves as fe/male, and may have an entirely different way of relating to their body, but while they may not view themselves as cissexual, they have access to cissexual privilege when dealing with the establishment.
This is why when I use cis, I generally mean someone who is cissexual and cisgender, and when I feel the need to make the distinction, I use the appropriate term – because there is a difference. And while I think we often need to center cissexual privilege, talking about cisgender privilege is important at times, as well.
I do however agree with the main point of the OP, that when we’re talking to transphobic cissexual feminists, that talking about cissexual privilege is the way to go. It’s way too easy to get derailed into a discussion of not abiding by prescribed gender roles and who counts as cisgender if one goes that route.
Erin: genderqueer isn’t between cis and trans; that invisiblizes people who could be labelled transsexual who are genderqueer, and also makes genderqueer seem like it’s not as trans as trans people, when in reality they’re orthogonal to each other. Genderqueer means not gendered man or woman, regardless whether one medically transitions or not. It’s more properly a subset of transgender (as all genderqueer people are by definition not cisgender; some are transsexual, some are cissexual, some aren’t either).
anarchafemme
April 25, 2009 at 7:33 pm
I don’t know if it’s widely accepted that it makes sense to talk about people who are cisgender and transsexual, but it seems to me to be emerging usage, at least among people I’m paying attention to. Cisgender, here, is not the opposite of transgender, but rather of genderqueer. I will also often see references to cis(sexual) and genderqueer.
There’s still some problems with this taxonomy, but it’s a start.
squirrel
April 25, 2009 at 7:42 pm
@squirrel: I’ve heard it too, and I’ll leave it to someone who identifies that way to explain what it means to them (I identify as genderqueer and transsexual).
There are definitely the issues of fuzzy boundaries, like with any taxonomy, which is why when I talk about cases on the boundaries, I talk about access to privilege rather than having privilege, as that doesn’t touch on how people actually see themselves fitting.
anarchafemme
April 25, 2009 at 7:45 pm
“Access to privilege” is one of those handy distinction. Thanks!
cericonversion
April 25, 2009 at 8:03 pm
@shiva I think so–because cissexual names a slightly set of problematics than cisgendered (at least in way I use it). But like anarchafemme says, there’s fuzzy boundaries, it’s not absolute.
I think ze’s onto something by using access to privilege, because access to cissexual privilege is something a genderqueer *might* have sometimes.. but they might not. And they might have it sometimes, or in some places, but not in others.
I mean, cissexual/cisgender aren’t supposed to be a j’accuse of a concept, though certainly a lot of people take them that way.
Having said that, following anarchafemme’s distinction between access and having cis privilege, I think that part of the issue with some gender-normative cissexual people is that privilege *is* something they have–precisely because they behave as though it’s something innate and possessed (privilege is circular in some senses I think). So we have to account for that too, I think.
queenemily
April 25, 2009 at 8:03 pm
I think part of what trips people up is the way it often gets phrased as “are you comfortable with your body?” rather than “what sort of body does your subconscious sense of yourself have?” Since we live in a culture where women are trained *not* to be comfortable with their bodies, it sounds to people who don’t get it like it’s an accusation, “You love your body!” or something like that.
That’s why I like cissexual, defined as “not intending/wanting to alter your body to conform with subconscious sex,” but that too is probably problematic.
Genderqueerness makes the precise meaning of “cisgendered” unclear to me, too.
Trin
April 25, 2009 at 8:26 pm
@queenemily: I feel like it gets used as a j’accuse kind of concept so much because the boundaries are so fuzzy and we’re still developing the vocabulary, so rather than saying that someone was privileged/had access to privilege in a certain situation, there’s a tendency to tell people to try to silence people because they’re cissexual and genderqueer, or transsexual and binary gendered.
And I think that’s one of the biggest differences between having a privilege and access – talk to butches who ID as women (or not as men in general) and pass as men, and how they react in those situations, as opposed to how people who identify as men react and act, to draw a parallel to sexism.
@Trin: that’s an excellent point about people’s relationship with their bodies. I think your definition of cissexual only really runs into the fuzzy boundaries problem with some genderqueer folk, which is unavoidable, I think.
I would consider all genderqueer people to not be cisgender, just some have more access to cisgender privilege than others.
anarchafemme
April 26, 2009 at 3:42 am
@Trin While I think that definition makes intuitive sense, it seems like it relies too heavily on medical transition as the way to transition. While of course a number of trans folks do/want to alter their bodies, is that the very definition of transsexual? And while medically transitioning reduces one’s access to cissexual privilege, not doing so can create different problems, with changing documents, being read correctly, etc. which medical transition could grant access to. Not altering one’s body doesn’t seem (to me anyway) to clearly delineate having more or less access to cissexual privilege.
But maybe that’s just another effect of the cissexual/cisgender privilege distinction being unclear.
verberantia
April 26, 2009 at 7:41 am
That ‘access to privilege’ is such a great point!
And I agree about the notion of there being both cisgender and cissexual seems maybe closer to describing more peoples experiences.
Battybattybats
April 26, 2009 at 8:32 am
Thanks to everyone, especially anarchafemme and squirrel; for some reason, i really thought i would get flamed to fuck for derailing there.
Trin: i think that’s a very powerful insight, and one that could resolve a fairly large subset of the radfem antipathy to and/or not-getting-it about transition.
I have rambly thoughts, but think here isn’t the right place for them (i’ve derailed enough already), so am going to see if i can make a coherent blog post of my own about them.
shiva
April 26, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I prefer a term I got from Sophie Siedlberg “normborn’
Suzan
April 26, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Suzan, then what are we? Freakborn? Abnormalborn?
Moreover, I was born a man; a transsexual man as opposed to a cissexual man, but a man nonetheless.
Drakyn
April 26, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Verberantia: Yeah, that makes sense. :)
I really don’t know how to define these things, other than “are you trans?” “NO, THOSE PEOPLE’S POLITICS OFFEND ME! GYYAAAAH!” “er, then you’re cis.”
Trin
April 26, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I don’t think it’ll resolve a fairly large subset of radfem antipathy, because I’ve already tried to have that conversation, and I’m not sure I see it phrased as “are you comfortable with your body” all that often, and I’m pretty sure transphobic radfems disbelieve in anything that could validate trans experience.
Whether you talk about comfort with your body or at least congruence between body and mind as to body’s sex, many will tend to instead write something as offensive as this, or perhaps the same sentiment with a great deal more hostility.
The problem isn’t a matter of tone or phrasing, but a matter of cis people who are opposed to the existence of trans people. There isn’t a special argument that will jolt most of them out of their transphobia or trans misogyny – not because there are no arguments but because some people are truly invested in maintaining their unreasonable hatred.
Lisa Harney
April 26, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I was born in-between with transsexualism. I like ‘normborn” for the same reason I used to call straights “breeders”
It is very in your face.
As for “Freaks”… I lived in the Haight in the 1960s and when everyone was blithering on calling us flower children and hippies we embraced the term “freaks”
But back to normborn… More and more evidence is coming to light that puts transsexualism in the category of being an intersex condition, a genetic abnormality that affects how our bodies deal with hormones.
Suzan
April 26, 2009 at 4:10 pm
I and a lot of other trans people see ourselves as normal, so are not comfortable with terms like “normborn.”
Lisa Harney
April 26, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Umm… “Breeders” sounds like an insult to straight folks while “normborn” sounds like an insult to trans* folks. So that comparison does not really work at all.
And while I am fine with being a monster, me being transsexual has only a tiny bit to do with that and there are plenty of trans* people who see themselves as quite normal. Moreover, I see being trans* as being just as ‘normal’ as being cis*; it’s the transphobia and cissexism of the kyriarchy that labels trans* folks as monstrous.
Drakyn
April 26, 2009 at 4:38 pm
@Lisa: yeah, I think transphobic radfems ideas are pretty self-sustaining. No matter what we say, it only feeds into their ideas because they always have a way to twist and invalidate it. I think phrasing it in terms of subconscious sense of self rather than comfort with body might help with getting people on the fence to understand.
@Suzan: in addition to, as Lisa and Drakyn point out that a lot of trans people see themselves as normal, I think the argument and attempt to support transsexual people by appeals to biology only supports the idea that people have a real, true sex, rather than just certain desires for how they want their body to be, and how they want to be identified (none of which, no matter how they line up with what society says, are any more valid than any other). I’m also terrified of there being more severe gatekeeping because there’ll be some sort of medical test.
Well, that, and I’m not a fan of western allopathy in general.
anarchafemme
April 26, 2009 at 4:38 pm
The discovery that ulcers are microbial is an example worth keeping in mind. The model of ulcers as stress-caused had real, serious research behind it, and a lot of experience in treating it…and was still wrong. Stress reduction is a good idea anyway because global financial capitalism is terrible for a lot of people’s health, but it wasn’t actually curing many ulcers.
cericonversion
April 26, 2009 at 6:22 pm
@Suzan
I’ve read you on your own blog say that you use “normborn” to annoy “gender activists.”
http://womenborntranssexual.com/2009/04/22/a-couple-of-acronyms-to-file-away/#comments
Concern troll is concerned.
queenemily
April 26, 2009 at 6:24 pm
@cericonversion: yeah,that (on both stress reduction is a good idea) and the fact that medical science can find a bunch of evidence for something…and then turn out to be wrong. Respect and autonomy aren’t ever going to be disproven.
@queenemily: apparently we don’t get the subtle appeal of lateral hostility and racism, classism, heterosexism, ablism, and selling out.
anarchafemme
April 26, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Anarchafem said: “yeah,that (on both stress reduction is a good idea) and the fact that medical science can find a bunch of evidence for something…and then turn out to be wrong. Respect and autonomy aren’t ever going to be disproven”
It’s a correlation Vs causation thing.
Stress effects the immune system etc so that made people more susceptible to the microbial infection and made it harder for their normal commensal gut flora to wipe out harmful infection and reducing stress increased the small chance the bodies normal systems could deal with it so stress was a minor factor.
But now the cause has been identified it can be dealt with directly and vastly more effectively.
So previous studies had good data but erroneuos conclusions, studying a correlation but not the causation.
Much as treating plenty of neurological things as psychological when in fact they are physical neurological things like Schizophrenia, Autism, Aspergers or Transsexuals. And of course not so long ago Gays too, I expect the rest of Transgender will follow.
In fact I’m reminded of Dawkins comments of the ‘god ofthe gaps’ argument where Gods area of alleged intervention shrinks further as science finds naturalistic explanations for more of the natural world. I’m not wanting to debate the theology but I think the notion may very much cover most of psychology and psychiatry, that its a ’science of the gaps’ shrinking as neurobiology takes its place with more verifiable and measurable data.
And I think the radfems opposed to TG are likewise the ‘feminism of the gaps’ shrinking fast in respectability and usefulness and accuracy and validity as what they argue to be causation is shown to be correlation or outright falsehoods.
@suzan. In an alt community or subculture whether Hippies or Ferals or Goths a term like ‘normborn’ would definately be an insult as ‘norm’ has the meaning of banal, ugly, conformist, imprisoned, hateful of difference etc. Like the term Sheeple.
But thats not so useful outside those communities especially in textform so the scorn and mockery of the usage doesn’t carry easilly or where the term can be easilly turned around. Compare: ” *snark* ‘Norm’-born *snark*” to “Cissexual”. I think it’s pretty easy which is typed faster.
Added to that norm-born is either insulting the *snark* ‘norms’ *snark* or it’s insulting those not called norm-borns. It’s a polarising term that will undoubtedly be insulting to one side or the other is not both.
While Cis is not intrinsicly insulting. I can call mainstream friends Cis with a quick explanation and all is fine but if I were to call them *snark* ‘norm’-borns *snark* they would definately be offended.
Which would make the term ‘normborn’ intrinsically inflamatory, divisive, hostile, useless and harmful. If thats not your aim I think it’s best to stick to Cis outside of Hippie, Yippie and Feral (and ex-those) communities. And if it is your aim.. *90’s stereotypical Goth monotone* How very *snark* ‘Norm’ *snark* of you *90’s stereotypical Goth monotone*
Battybattybats
April 26, 2009 at 9:23 pm
yeah, it’s a totally difficult and abstract and insulting term, kind of like, oh, say, “straight.” I mean! How dare you call puffball “straight?!” Puffball is not The Man, dig??
and, “gay” was a perfectly good word before the homos took it and rooooned it for everyone.
also, it’s too difficult to remember not to use “he” as the default pronoun when one means “one.” Or to call you “Ms.” Why must You People be so difficult, huh?
etc. etc. etc.
belledame222
April 27, 2009 at 1:22 am
personally I don’t love “breeders;” it’s not just an insult to straight people, it’s an insult to everyone who’s ever had a kid (not to mention the “bred.”) whereas lots of asshole straight people who pride themselves on acting more childish than actual children feel free to fling it around…
/tangent
at this point when I see people doing the whole “I don’t like calling you what you want to be called, so I’m gonna call you what -I- want to call you” schtick, I just go something like, “Okay, Vern (Agnes, Eggbert, Dingleberry, whatever name that isn’t theirs that amuses me). Worked fairly well at least once. Other times it’s like talking to blogwarbot anyway….
belledame222
April 27, 2009 at 1:27 am
(“it” in the first comment referring to “cis” off the OP)
belledame222
April 27, 2009 at 1:29 am
More and more evidence is coming to light that puts transsexualism in the category of being an intersex condition, a genetic abnormality that affects how our bodies deal with hormones.
uh, yeah, Suzan, please stop coopting being intersexed. seriously, you don’t need a *reason* to be trans; it’s a normal and natural thing. some people are trans, some people aren’t. the sooner you get on-message about that and you get off the coopting train, the happier we’re all going to be. or, uh, can you co-opt all the other things about being intersexed, too?
seriously, 1973 called, it wants its theories on gender identity back.
algormortis
April 27, 2009 at 9:07 am
my unresearched feeling is that internet activists in the mid-90s and academics are largely the same group. maybe some of them were in high school then but they were still of the ilk who would be likely to go to college. there was a fair portion of the 90s when the internet was (almost) all college students or people who could afford to pay AOL by the minute to dailup from their house.
Cis works for me because it does point out the privilege that non trans people have. I am particularly against the habit of many cis people of my acquaintance who feel the need to specify a ‘trans woman’ when ‘woman’ would convey all the relevant information, except that they are ‘in the know’. in the very (very very) few cases where there is a reason to differentiate, the best way to phrase it imo, is ‘woman who is trans’, since it reinforces woman in manner that doesnt make it different from a woman who is cis.
kaa
April 27, 2009 at 2:13 pm
On a side note, I never got the whole “breeders” thing as a derogatory term for straight people. At least half of my gay friends/acquintances either have kids or plan to have kids at some point. Are they included here?
rachelinwy
April 27, 2009 at 2:57 pm
It’s kind of surprising to me now that people look at the mid-90s as being primarily academics and wealthy, but as someone who’s participated on the internet since 1990 or so, I think this is not entirely accurate.
In that time period, multiple ISPs were coming into existence – ISPs that would charge an onerous and terrible fifteen dollars/month for access. Many claim that AOL’s addition of usenet/e-mail access to its services didn’t help discourse much, but I think it was a bit deeper than that.
Anyway, by the mid-90s, the Internet was well on its way to becoming far more commercial than academic. It wasn’t a haven strictly for the AOL wealthy and academics. A large number of people (nowhere near what it was like a few years later, true) were finding their way onto the internet, and then finding their way to meeting people with similar interests and concerns.
And also: Cis still isn’t an academic term. It’s as accessible as straight, it’s just that a lot of cis people hate to be described in relation to trans people, and the academic argument is just one way to try to dismiss the term’s validity.
Lisa Harney
April 27, 2009 at 3:49 pm
beautifully written!
i figured out the difference between cis- and transgender/-sexual via inference through chemical terms (which use cis as “on the same side [of a molecular structure]” and trans as “on the opposite [or sometimes just 'other'] side”). it’s frustrating and unfortunate that even among culturally aware, scientifically educated peoples, there’s still so much ignorance, so much inadvertent cissexism, as serano puts it.
we’re getting there. SLOWLY. but surely. we’re (cis women) not all like that. everyone’s a little bit gender fucked sometimes. ;)
danimo21
April 27, 2009 at 5:19 pm
On the subject of terminology, the peer counsellor at my first support group used the term “factory model” when he was talking about non-trans people. It’s sufficiently irreverent that I adopted it.
Jessica
April 27, 2009 at 6:02 pm
I’m honestly curious: when and why did “cisgender” and “cissexual” start to supplant “non-trans?” I’m not saying it shouldn’t have, just that I remember when I first became aware of trans issues, people said “non-trans” instead.
Trin
April 27, 2009 at 6:25 pm
anarchafeme: My entirely personal discomfort with the terms comes from much the same place as the old bi/pan/omnisexuality language wars. Everyone recognized that “bisexuality” wasn’t the ideal term for talking about our experiences of different levels of privilege in different contexts and with different kinds of partners. (And along with that was the awareness that being heterosexual and being seen as heterosexual were two different things when confronted with homophobia.) But at least, that third option was something that allowed us to see ourselves as not alone in a politically polarized environment.
CBrachyrhynchos
April 27, 2009 at 7:34 pm
@Lisa Harney
perhaps the way i remember it back then is skewed by my interests at the time and parts of the net i visited but i remember feeling like the there was not much diversity when i first got online in 92. it improved alot but heres a thing from 98
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/survey-1998-10/graphs/graphs.html#general
showing usage was heavily white, male, college educated, making $50-70,000 a year. the women in tech jobs i know now, sys & net admins and the like, still deal with a lot of shit.
maybe academic is not the exact right word to use and anyone saying the term is *too* academic as method to silence people who are trans, like someone described above, is a transphobic idiot.
the term is needed and good, i think, but i also think it did come from a group of people with a lot of privilege and maybe that some of the critics are trying to keep that in mind. maybe i am giving them too much credit?
i am trying to google usage of the word straight instead of going to bed and i’m getting a lot of porn. heres someone implying it came from the ‘criminal subculture’
http://www.glbtq.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=310
kaa
April 27, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Kaa, I’m about the same net vintage as Lisa, and saw a bunch of the same things she did. And in fact I was involved in some debates several years about surveys like that and the problems of systematic undercount. (It was fun: I got to trot out a lot of the research methodology I’d learned in college and not gotten a lot of chance to use.) By the early to mid ’90s there were a lot of very active communities that didn’t show up on general-purpose radars. I was a regular in the newsgroup where administrators and users discussed (and, later, voted on) the creation and reorganization of newsgroups and sub-groups, and it was pretty common for the most obscure subjects imaginable to turn out to have hundreds or thousands of regulars, who’d show up, take part in the discussion about their thing of interest, get the administrative changes, and go back to their own business.
And of course people in marginalized groups are systematically less likely to take part in general polling without extra confidence in what the pollers will do with the data gathered.
I’m not trying to say that the ’90s Internet was a paradise of equal access, but there was a lot going on that’s not well reflected at all in many big-picture snapshots.
cericonversion
April 27, 2009 at 9:42 pm
good point. i was just thinking about the many problems with that survey, and undercounting wasnt even something that occurred to me.
i also dont think that general internet usage demographics would accurately apply to the activists who began using the term, i would guess that minorities were much higher represented.
but i still think there some kind of privilege in that group that ‘academic’ is being used (incorrectly?) to express. class?
perhaps i am in over head now and talking about things that i dont know enough about, also relying too much on personal slant of the time. unfortunately, i wasnt using my net access back then to change language to help even out power imbalances as these ppl were/are.
kaa
April 27, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Kaa: As nearly as I understand it, what happened in the ’90s is that scattered groups of activists and individuals with the right kind of drive to have pursued individual efforts started talking to each other, and vocabulary emerged in the newsgroups and then spread into some off-net usage, too. The Wikipedia page on “cisgender” strikes me as plausible, though I wasn’t reading alt.transgendered at the time.
There is something about early net usage that isn’t quite a class thing, but related. Getting net access at that point took (if one wasn’t in academia) some kind of personal connection, or enough technical aptitude to know where to look for an independent net provider, or both, plus an interest in written communication including both debate and conversation, plus the determination to keep at a topic in the face of opposition…a set of features that tend to be reserved for males, and the possession of which subjects a lot of women to harassment for not being feminine enough.
In a lot of ways it’s a good set of features – it’s one of the sets that motivates people to act, that gets movements going. But it can also go bad by rewarding some kinds of bullying and dominance games. Some old-timers – by no means all, and probably not even close to most – get used to being The Experts and figuring that their conclusions just must be the ones. Regaining the ability and willingness to learn from others can be hard work.
This isn’t the same rigidity that can too easily afflict academic work, but it is related.
cericonversion
April 28, 2009 at 12:16 am
Um, I have the feeling I’ve either waxed too introspective and reminiscent, or am about to. Sorry about that. It’s mental inventory season here inside my head and sometimes it slops over.
cericonversion
April 28, 2009 at 1:12 am
I read that essay from Miriam Heddy and don’t find it too offensive if not offensive at all (Version 3). In fact it gave me some answers where the anxiety that often leads to transphobia stems from. And as you can see in the improvements of the text, she is open and this is not her final statement, but the protocol of an ongoing process.
sarahsbadhairdays
April 28, 2009 at 5:53 am
I’m not going to deny that internet access is a privilege, but I’m not sure that calling out that or other privilege is relevant when you’re talking to oppressed people who are naming their oppressors. It becomes an attempt to establish a hierarchy of oppressions or playing the oppression olympics. Lots of people have privilege in some ways and are oppressed in some ways, and it’s really frustrating to deal with people trying to arrange them like beads on a string – and privilege, by itself, doesn’t make anyone a bad person. It’s not an accusation.
The point is that now, cis terminology is simply not inaccessible or obfuscated.
I also agree with Cericonversion about the makeup of online groups at the time. And esp. by 1994-1995, when I was finding ISPs in the yellow pages, and a lot of people were taking to the internet by word of mouth.
Sarah,
That is a lot less offensive than the original post, and I see she’s clarified her intentions. It’s not really news to me – I’ve seen other cis women basically claim much of that as reason that they don’t really have cis privilege, and her original post read very much like that, to the point that I wasn’t even sure if engaging her would be productive (and she flocked the post fairly quickly).
There was also a strong sense that she was talking about trans women as only having to deal with gender dysphoria while she, as a cis woman, dealt with a host of other body issues. Anyway, the edited post changes a lot of the context of all of those statements, so that’s a great help. Unfortunately, her dreamwidth post is still flocked, and her LJ post has comments shut off.
Lisa Harney
April 28, 2009 at 6:13 am
…so since Miriam’s totally avoiding comment and stonewalling any other voice, eh, i don’t think she’s interested in changing things much.
the last time i had to deal with someone like her, i was all “so, um, you and i, when we go to the DOL (what the DMV is called in Washington), do we have to worry about what our licenses will say?” *crickets* “So how about social security?” *crickets* Finally, she decided i was “trying to make her look stupid” when i explained the legal quagmire a lot of trans people find themselves in. she then got all defensive that i was going to talk about “immigration stuff.”
so yeah, it’s less offensive, but she doesn’t want a dialogue, and she’s making that very plain, so i really think she doesn’t give a fuck and wants to engage in navelgazing, and keeps cleaning it up so she looks better and justifies her bullshit. just my humble opinion, of course.
algormortis
April 28, 2009 at 7:16 am
You mean like how Feministing mods shut down every trans-related discussion and shoved it all into a single ghetto?
Lisa Harney
April 28, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Transitized for our protection.
cericonversion
April 28, 2009 at 6:26 pm
I often wondered about the etymology of “cis” and suspected it was an internet term – I’m especially happy to find out it’s a particularly geeky chemistry joke, that’s way cooler than I expected. I have no qualms about using it now (I tend to be leery of internet terminology generally, I never had a problem with it as in “oh my god, I’m not cis, I’m a woman!!!”).
Seriously though, what you’re supposed to do if you’re an “I’m a feminist, graaah!” feminist is constantly complain about stuff you haven’t bothered to find out about. Often there’s pride in not knowing, because anyone who knows would have to be just awful. “Oh my god, I just discovered this pop culture phenomenon, and it has boobies!!!” “Oh my god that’s just aaaawwwful!”
Another thing is you’re supposed to write in, phone up, shout at people, irritate those who are less privileged than you are, everytime someone calls you the wrong thing, “Can’t people see I’m just me?” so the idea that you in fact (shock horror) belong to a demographic is abhorrent. The only thing you’re supposed to accept is being called biologically female. Which, for people who rail against post-feminism all the time, is incredibly post-feminist, because if you’re not affected by anything around you and in fact don’t belong to a demographic at all, well then where’s the problem? What could possibly affect you enough to oppress you? That kind of feminism is actually post-feminism, it implies that people are being mean and awful when they suggest there’s still something wrong. I mean, you wonder where they think inequality comes from, at that rate. The actual self-identified post-feminists are probably a bit more on the ball, I’d say (not that I subscribe to that either mind you): there are things we do because we’re women, and it’s not necessarily an awful thing, you know, that a large proportion of the population sometimes wear lipstick, in the scheme of things.
Of course all this “don’t call me cis” stuff, and “don’t tell me I belong to a demographic!”, however much they post pictures of their lady-bits or go on about gooey bodily fluids, it’s basically hatred of humanity, and all the scary stuff that happens to you through being human, it’s trying to be this superhuman being that exists apart from being human. It’s an ideological cocoon from reality.
Now, as a feminist, I actually find all that pretty objectionable. I also think that using “biologically female” as a synonym for “cissexual” actually denies biology. In fact, all that menses-worshipping cultfem stuff is a pretty effective decoy, really, for the fact that this kind of feminism hates anything biological, and what’s more of a reminder of that than the fact that some people are trans? That and the fact that, well, some people are born with innies and other with outies, and it can actually be a matter of life and death for lots of different reasons – that everything that happens to us depends on a lot of fallible organs. That’s scary.
That we’re special beings who exist apart from all that stuff, and should protest loudly whenever we’re actually said to belong to a group of people? Oh, that’s nice and reassuring.
Anyway, there’s so much to say on the subject, and this was going to be a short comment, so I apologise for going on and on (as usual).
And yeah, going “cis is so arcane and cryptic and academic” is bullshit, it’s often perfectly easy to infer what it means just from context, without even using google. People are being willfully obtuse, I’d say.
Jen
April 29, 2009 at 2:32 am
[...] a comment » Lots of awesomesauce responses to my first post on this, and quite a few ones dripping in the [...]
Cis (2) « Questioning Transphobia
April 30, 2009 at 10:09 pm
“cisgender” v. “cissexual” v. “cis” – which is most generally accepted? As an outsider, I confess to some confusion when some trans individuals have strong objections to “transgender” (as opposed to the preferred “transsexual”), and other trans individuals have objections the other way.
I rather like plain “cis” and “trans” for the chemistry overtones, being geekish, and also short. It seems obvious to me that these identifiers are useful and necessary in discussions of gender, but not necessarily needed in discussions not focused on gender (say, discussions about protein chemistry).
NancyP
May 4, 2009 at 7:48 pm
I primarily stick to cis and trans.
But there are times when distinguishing is necessary.
Also, cislunar and translunar.
Lisa Harney
May 5, 2009 at 1:54 am
No, Lisa, just no.
Pericynthion and apcynthion.
Smiles waves and runs like hell….
voz
May 7, 2009 at 5:52 am
I think those terms are too academic for me. Can’t you just say “far side of the moon” and “proper side of the moon?”
Lisa Harney
May 7, 2009 at 6:21 pm
That’s the advantage of being a high school dropout. I don’t have to worry about terms like “cryoplant”, “polaplexer” and “centimeter wave Fresnel element” being too academic. I can just run off into the woods to go build the damn things.
Of course, I don’t understand why anybody can like Schlitz beer. The cans make perfect 3.8 GHz band polaplexer bouncing microwaves off the moon. The beer? Rat piss.
But, I guess liking shitty American beer is too complicated for me to get. Must be a cis thing…
voz
May 7, 2009 at 8:12 pm
“Off the moon” should be “diffracted off the apcynthion”
Ma brain had a cis moment.
voz
May 7, 2009 at 8:18 pm
I’m having a hard time fighting down the urge to add “wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more” here.
So instead I’ll note the Roman-born usages cisalpine and transalpine, and say that cis transphobia arises out of the collective unconscious, as interpreted in a psycho-Jungian fashion, with the fear of being assaulted by naked blue people riding shields through the snow. Thus, for instance, the Michigan Musical Festival’s insistence on scheduling in summer and in lowlands, so as to reduce the risk of this demonstration of trans tactical superiority.
cericonversion
May 7, 2009 at 8:26 pm
They can take our nutloaf, but they’ll never take our SACRED WYMYMNHOOD!!11!!1
queenemily
May 7, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Oh Goddess, the hypothermia we’d have to deal with if Camp took place in the winter. However we would have succeeded years ago had we had hills and snow!
But I am all up for taking Fest’s food, it’s pretty awesome, even if we have to track down a non-vegan to ascertain whether it’s vegan or just veg (workers from Fest gave us a huge bag of food last year, which was really good). And no, there was no nutloaf.
anarchafemme
May 8, 2009 at 2:12 am
A year or two ago, I got this horrible nut loaf recipe from an MWMF e-mailing… I mean, it was just awful. Like baked gravel or something.
voz,
Totally agreed re: the beer. OMG it’s awful.
Lisa Harney
May 8, 2009 at 3:03 am
Has there ever been good nut loaf, though? The food they gave us was a giant bag of pasta with veggies (like a big trash bag full), which was handy, as Camp was officially over and we had already torn down the kitchen.
anarchafemme
May 8, 2009 at 3:48 am
I do not know.
There may have been sludge along with the gravel.
I didn’t make it, the recipe worried me sufficiently.
Lisa Harney
May 8, 2009 at 7:17 am
Knowing that a recipe just isn’t right is a good, good skill. Clearly, the nutloaf recipe was a tactic to scare us away with “this is what we’re going to have to eat? No way am I going on the Land!”
anarchafemme
May 8, 2009 at 3:18 pm
“Ahoy the festival! Strike your colors and surrender! We bring not just gender diversity, but better recipes!”
cericonversion
May 8, 2009 at 3:25 pm
trackback
Censorship and radical feminist transphobia, episode # 89176
DaisyDeadhead
May 8, 2009 at 3:47 pm
i have an excellent recipe for nut loaf which does not come from Michigan, Mychygyn, or even Wisconsin. however, lisa, this does not answer my deeper question: why would you trust a recipe from someone trying to ungender you?
i’ll post it when i get my recipe box back from my friend up in Vancouver. mmm, nutloaf.
algormortis
May 10, 2009 at 11:48 am
But I didn’t trust the recipe.
Lisa Harney
May 10, 2009 at 5:41 pm
[...] is a neutral term applied to people who aren’t trans. It’s intended to decenter the notion that not being trans is the natural, default state for hu… and that being trans is a deviation, and that trans people are other. Most terminology that cis [...]
Cis is hostile terminology? Really? « Questioning Transphobia
June 29, 2009 at 1:44 am
[...] privileged enough to do so, that is): Cis is a neutral term applied to people who aren’t trans. It’s intended to decenter the notion that not being trans is the natural, default state for human … and that being trans is a deviation, and that trans people are [...]
Fun Feminist Says: Transphobia’s Not Funny! « Kittywampus
June 30, 2009 at 7:53 am
What really makes me twitch here, beyond the pretty clear transphobic elements of rejecting cis but adding trans onto our identifiers, is the fact that referring to something as academic is grounds for dismissal of it.
Is our society so in love with ignorance that the word academic is a negative thing? If anything I would say that academic definitions and terms are better then common use! These people are basically saying, “your words are too smart and educated for me.”
Face -> Desk
R.P.
August 10, 2009 at 11:17 am
R.P. much of society IS anti-intellectual.
I’ve been meaning to do a blogpost on that for ages so link is here: http://caveofrationality.blogspot.com/2009/08/anti-intellectualism-anti-thought-anti.html
Battybattybats
August 10, 2009 at 8:55 pm
[...] whose book “Whipping Girl introduced me to the term and has influenced me hugely in general, Questioning Transphobia, eminism. I could swear there was something on Taking up Too Much Space, too, but I [...]
Why I use “cis” « Bi-Furious!
November 19, 2009 at 12:29 am