Why is there a 'cis' distinction in genders? I mean I get it from I guess an organizational standpoint, but doesn't a term like that only serve the purpose of highlighting that there is a distinction between someone born one gender verses someone who identifies as that gender? It seems like it creates a needless divide. Born or identified I feel it'd be a million times less insulting to just say woman or man in reference to one's gender instead of saying trans of cis along with it. Trans and cis seem only to serve as a "Well they are man or woman, but it's different" kind of thing. just a thought that popped into my head.
You do need to distinguish trans people from cis people in certain cases. Especially when it comes to health care, as a post-op trans woman lacks a uterus and could also develop prostate cancer, for example. Having only the trans distinction would not be useful because a trans woman is still a woman and a trans man is still a man, so a distinction has to be made for cis people as well. If we did not have the cis distinction in a case where this information is important, you would end up having "trans women" and "women", and "trans men" and "men". This would be both confusing and to me, offensive. I don't identify as a trans woman, and only chose to display it on these forums because it is relevant to the discussions regarding gender identity. If there is the option of trans woman and woman anywhere where it's not relevant, I choose "woman".
I'm under the impression that no matter how you try to phase things somebody, somewhere is going to be offended. A necessary distinction is as likely to offend as if the distinction didn't exist in the first place. I mean, what else are we going to say, "transgender and normal." Granted, we are abnormal, but to directly say so can offend people. I suppose we could just settle for "trans women," "women," "trans men," and "men," but is there really a difference? It comes down to the simple fact that we have to describe cis-gendered people as something other than "normal" men and women, and no matter what it's still going to rub somebody the wrong way. So hey, forget about it; they're just words.
I think that our need to distinguish genders and gender identities is both sad and but important. If we need to distinguish trans, I feel like it's important that we distinguish cis as well. Both trans and cis women are women - so if one title is important, than the other is as well.
I feel like it only needs to be specified in certain cases, but usually not. That's why it bothers me that facebook added trans and cis distinctions for binary genders, all it does is separate us from our true genders even more. Unless it needs to be specified, it's irrelevant
For me, the "cis" distinction actually creates less of a divide than the lack of a "cis" distinction would. Before the term cisgender was a thing, trans was the only distinction. Which makes it out like if you don't fall under the trans distinction, you're "normal", and if you do, you're "abnormal". I like the term cisgender because it suggests that there are different kinds of people walking the same path in life (ex: that of "woman") without suggesting that either group is normal. That being said. Women are women, and men are men. And I don't think you really need to specify cis or trans in most social instances.
That's what I meant by 'organizational' was for medical and technical purposes the distinction would be needed. I was mainly referencing in general society. I hope that helps my thought make a lil more sense. ---------- Post added 17th Sep 2014 at 05:37 AM ---------- Well my point was ( unless for medical or other technical purposes ) why add the 'trans' or 'indentified' piece at all? Why not just refer to the person as whatever gender they indentify with? If someone says they feel they are a woman you could just say "She" and "Her" and "Woman" instead of saying "Trans woman". That feels to me like it'd help better create the mindset in people that there is no reason to treat a trans person differently than you would someone born into the gender. I guess. I'm no expert, this is mostly just a thought that popped into my head. ---------- Post added 17th Sep 2014 at 05:39 AM ---------- I was saying 'unless medical' why make the distinction on either side? I don't consider someone who identifies female any different than someone born female. I'd prefer to just let people be happy and live out their lives however they choose to ---------- Post added 17th Sep 2014 at 05:40 AM ---------- Agreed. I don't see the need for it other than sticking a name tag on people to make sure everyone knows how they're different. ---------- Post added 17th Sep 2014 at 05:41 AM ---------- ^ That's kinda what I'm getting at here. My point was dropping all the prefixes and just saying male or female ( based on how one identifies ) and try to treat everyone like they matter and are human.
