• LootGoblin42@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know. I’ve just always felt like it was weird to come up with a term for “normal” people. I don’t understand why it was necessary. Maybe it’s just me, and maybe I’m getting old, but I don’t understand the obsession with labeling everyone and putting them in a well defined box. Sometimes I like to dress in girls clothes, but I hate the term “cross dresser”. Can’t we just be ourselves without all the labels?

      • Lucky Zelle ✨@mastodon.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        1 year ago

        @LootGoblin42 Well, the point is that cis people aren’t the “normal people”, just like straight people aren’t the “normal people”. Trans people, gay people, bi people etc aren’t abnormal even if they’re statistically fewer.

      • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        Would you also object if white people didn’t like being called “white people,” and preferred the term “normal people” instead?

      • Edgerunner Alexis@dataterm.digital
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t know. I’ve just always felt like it was weird to come up with a term for “normal” people. I don’t understand why it was necessary

        Would you be fine with a straight person saying “I’m not straight, I’m normal” then?

        Or would you realize that by choosing one aspect of the human experience to label as normal, instead of actually having a name for it, you are automatically labeling the others as abnormal — which means they’re not just a naturally-occuring human thing, but something that’s disordered or wrong or unnatural? If you decide to label being trans, but just call cis people “normal,” then that’s the implication.

        Moreover, “cis” is a label for understanding a way of identifying regarding your assigned gender at birth, same “trans.” I really don’t see how it makes sense for it to be okay to have a word for one option — trans — but not the other. If it’s okay to have a label for one option so we can accurately communicate about it, why isn’t it okay to have a label for the other one, just because it’s more common? That doesn’t make sense. We have labels for all sorts of common things. Moreover, having a word that designates someone as not-trans is extremely useful for linguistic clarity: now instead of saying “normal” and having to infer from context in what respect the person is “normal”, since that could refer to a million things, cis gives us a way of actually saying what we mean. Scientists label both common and uncommon options for things all the time.

        Maybe it’s just me, and maybe I’m getting old, but I don’t understand the obsession with labeling everyone and putting them in a well defined box… Can’t we all just be ourselves without the labels?

        This talking point always hurts me deeply. Taking away the words and concepts we use to understand ourselves and communicate with others about that, find common ground and community and understanding, is the perfect way to erase us. That’s why conservatives and TERFs so often say the same thing.

        Unlike for conservatives, labels for the LGBTQ community aren’t about putting everyone inside a well-defined box at all. Unlike conservatives with their traditional gender roles and expectations, our labels are actually not rigidly defined like that, they’re fuzzy, socially constructed, often with multiple shades and versions of meaning and ways they can be understood. Neither are they supposed to be normative — if you associated with a label once, that doesn’t mean you have to always do so (or have to have always done so), and if you don’t perfectly fit a label, that’s totally fine, you don’t have to “live up to it.”

        (Except, I guess, in terminally-online Tumblr “discourse.”)

        And the fact that labels, at least how the queer community uses them, are not “boxes to put people in” is a function of how we use them: they’re crucial tools to be able to communicate aspects of the incohate mess that is our experiences to others, and therein find community and solidarity with others, to know you’re not alone because there are others that share those experiences, who can comfort you and even guide you, and so you can use those words that helped you make people able to finally understand you as a rallying point.

        We need the words to describe ourselves.

        Taking away our language, the language we need to explain some important part of who we are or the lives we life, is fucking horrible.

        Do you know how painful it was to grow up without labels like trans and cis so I could understand what was happening to me and why I was different from others? The first moment I found a word that seemed to describe what I was feeling, even though it was a wrong one (crossdresser), I clung onto it desperately. And then, when I finally found the word to describe what I actually was, it was a watershed moment.

        Have you stopped for a moment to listen to the queer people who will tell you that finding out there was a word to describe what they were going through was one of tbe most powerful moments in their lives? Remember, without words for things, its difficult to have concepts for things, and that means its almost impossible to think them.

      • Master@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I had this same feeling towards CIS… Someone explained it to be as why the word is important. The mentality is “I’m not cis, i’m just [normal] straight.” But what that implies is that trans is abnormal. You shouldnt have one term that has a connotation of being normal and the other with a connotation of being abnormal. Both should be explained in a way that gives equal credibility. Thus we have Cis to equalize the term on the same grounds as trans and etc.

        I’m still a little weird because I feel that’s not my term for me but “their” term for me which is insulting on a level somehow. But I acknowledge it’s a strange situation and cis helps bring parity to the situation.

      • scamper@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Should there be a word for ‘white’ or ‘straight’ or ‘monogamous’? Should there be a word for ‘able-bodied’, or ‘hearing’, or ‘sighted’?

    • GraceGH@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the same etymology as Transylvania, or, the Forest on the Other Side.

      This begs the question, where is Cisylvania?

      • meteorswarm@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        You might consider cisalpine gaul and transalpine gaul. Regions where the Gauls lived either on “this side” (the Italian side) of the Alps, or the France side.

      • Cybrpwca@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Transylvania doesn’t mean “forest on the other side”. It means “on the other side of the forest”. In this case on the other side of the forest from Hungary. So Cisylvania is Hungary.

        • GraceGH@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Damn, I knew I should have looked it up to be sure first. At least we’ve discovered Cisylvania.