Logik wrote:
a dude with tiny calves wrote:
The word transgender acknowledges the existence of transgender people. You do not need a word for "not transgender."
You do, if you'd prefer not to regularly use language that puts transgender people in uncomfortable positions. What's OFFENSIVE about it? You don't know. You just don't like trans people. You object to the attempt to normalize and respect them. What, do you think they should be issued some nonexistent treatment that will change their perceived gender identity? Lobotomies, shock therapies and other sadistic torture methods for the "abnormal"? Conservatives are always going on and on about how this is about "LOGIC" and "RATIONALITY". Nah, you all just take pleasure in being mean. That's what this is all about.
__________________-
If "cis" was meant only to differentiate between trans people and non-trans people, where trans people are defined as those who want modify their bodies so that they look like the other sex, it's simply descriptive.
The problem comes when you introduce the idea of gender identity--i.e. the belief that each person has a trait that we can refer to as gender identity--and argue that gender is a spectrum.
Many feminists use gender to describe the norms and values that get imposed on people because of their biological sex. They don't "identify" as a gender; they want to get rid of gender expectations imposed by society.
In a world where "cis" refers to gender identity, and being trans means simply not identifying with the gender expectations of your biological sex, you're actually projecting a worldview onto people when you call them "cis." You're assuming that they identify with the gender associated with their biological sex. They may not identify with gender at all. It's like calling an atheist a sinner and saying that you're simply stating a fact. The label "sinner" only makes sense if you subscribe to a particular religious belief system.