Interesting, I hadn't really looked at cis-gendered from that point of view. I've found it to be a useful word to describe the condition of having your sex match your gender, because it is a condition that so many people have but they don't even think about it as a state of being. It's merely the assumed normal. Obviously if you didn't match up *then* you label yourself. So it's helpful in the process of unpacking your privilege to be able to pro-actively label yourself, rather than simply saying 'I'm not that.'
I do believe, though, that some people use it to set up a false cis/trans dichotomy. It’s not an either/or categorization, there are many people who fall outside of it. It’s like saying you’re either straight or gay. Straight is a good, valid term for people who enjoy romantic/sexual relations with members of the opposite sex. But to say if you don’t identify as straight, then you’re gay, that leads to faulty thinking.
Although really trans itself is not a great word. What all does it encompass? Just you’re tradition transsexual? Or those who are transgender as well? I’ve seen it used trans* which I think is clever and more encompassing, but can only be used in the written word. (Unless you call it transwildcard, which is a bit unwieldy) Much like the alphabet soup that GLBTAQQ, etc has become, is there a point at which you need stop trying to include ever group (because you’ll never get them all) and simply say what you mean: ‘not straight’? Or does that bring us right back where we started as identifying everyone based on their relation to the predominant, privileged group?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-06 05:59 pm (UTC)I do believe, though, that some people use it to set up a false cis/trans dichotomy. It’s not an either/or categorization, there are many people who fall outside of it. It’s like saying you’re either straight or gay. Straight is a good, valid term for people who enjoy romantic/sexual relations with members of the opposite sex. But to say if you don’t identify as straight, then you’re gay, that leads to faulty thinking.
Although really trans itself is not a great word. What all does it encompass? Just you’re tradition transsexual? Or those who are transgender as well? I’ve seen it used trans* which I think is clever and more encompassing, but can only be used in the written word. (Unless you call it transwildcard, which is a bit unwieldy) Much like the alphabet soup that GLBTAQQ, etc has become, is there a point at which you need stop trying to include ever group (because you’ll never get them all) and simply say what you mean: ‘not straight’? Or does that bring us right back where we started as identifying everyone based on their relation to the predominant, privileged group?