04/07: Is CIS Stigmatizing
There is a heated debate at Pam's House Blend and other places about the use of 'CIS" as in cissexual and cisgender.
It is summarized here:
http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/cis-is-hostile-terminology-really/
http://gudbuytjane.livejournal.com/9562.html
and here is the comment that sparked it all.
http://pamshouseblend.com/showComment.do?commentId=147378
What is interesting to me is that I'm beginning to see cisgender/cissexual used more in academia and in journal papers. At first I was confused by this the term cis is used to parallel trans and is generally neutral in intent. "Its just used to describe a particular population" is what I thought.
I then thought about the use of terms like "homosexual transsexual" and "autogynephilia" aren't people using those in a similar way, to describe a particular population. The distinction I see is the difference between what a researcher is thinking versus what the research subject is thinking. The terminology like "homosexual transsexual" is fundamentally contrary to how the research subject may view themselves (as heterosexual). So I wonder if Cis can have similar interpretation.
Cisgender/cissexual are used instead of nontransgender or nontranssexual. The goal is to move away from discussions that refers to a normal population (cis) and a nonnormal population. Much like heterosexual and homosexual. The only alternative to CIS is to refer to people as nontrans, which gets us back identifying one group as the norm and the other as deviant rather than as 2 equivalent groups. What about hetero? Removing it from use removes discussions of heterosexism and heteronormativity. Removing cis and also disallows a discussion of similar forms of oppressions because it makes a nontrans perspective as normal. The usage of CIS has greatly expanded the discussion of the social oppression faced by trans people. Is this what the person was objecting to? Of having his privilege being pointed out to him?
That is not to say that cis and trans are without valid criticism. Much like hetero and homo focuses attention away from sexuality that is not binary, cis and trans does tend to take attention away from discussions of gender and sex that is not easily one or the other.
I personally will continue to use CIS as well as trans, but I will need to remain conscious of their use and their limiations.
It is summarized here:
http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/cis-is-hostile-terminology-really/
http://gudbuytjane.livejournal.com/9562.html
and here is the comment that sparked it all.
http://pamshouseblend.com/showComment.do?commentId=147378
What is interesting to me is that I'm beginning to see cisgender/cissexual used more in academia and in journal papers. At first I was confused by this the term cis is used to parallel trans and is generally neutral in intent. "Its just used to describe a particular population" is what I thought.
I then thought about the use of terms like "homosexual transsexual" and "autogynephilia" aren't people using those in a similar way, to describe a particular population. The distinction I see is the difference between what a researcher is thinking versus what the research subject is thinking. The terminology like "homosexual transsexual" is fundamentally contrary to how the research subject may view themselves (as heterosexual). So I wonder if Cis can have similar interpretation.
Cisgender/cissexual are used instead of nontransgender or nontranssexual. The goal is to move away from discussions that refers to a normal population (cis) and a nonnormal population. Much like heterosexual and homosexual. The only alternative to CIS is to refer to people as nontrans, which gets us back identifying one group as the norm and the other as deviant rather than as 2 equivalent groups. What about hetero? Removing it from use removes discussions of heterosexism and heteronormativity. Removing cis and also disallows a discussion of similar forms of oppressions because it makes a nontrans perspective as normal. The usage of CIS has greatly expanded the discussion of the social oppression faced by trans people. Is this what the person was objecting to? Of having his privilege being pointed out to him?
That is not to say that cis and trans are without valid criticism. Much like hetero and homo focuses attention away from sexuality that is not binary, cis and trans does tend to take attention away from discussions of gender and sex that is not easily one or the other.
I personally will continue to use CIS as well as trans, but I will need to remain conscious of their use and their limiations.
