I don’t understand why some people get so bent out of shape over the term cisgender. Latin prefixes are even more common in English than abbreviations like AMAB.
The reasoning is simple: it’s just straight up transphobia. The term “cis” is just a neutral descriptor to pair with “trans” with no implication of being right or wrong. They’re mad at the existence of a term for the majority that doesn’t imply an insult to the minority.
Thanks. Another commenter pointed that out. They’re not really taking offense to the term so much as objecting to the concept of genders differing from biological sex. It’s awful.
There’s no reason to challenge the term otherwise. Cis is Latin for “on this side of” and trans is “across, beyond, or on the other side.” There’s really nothing objectionable about either prefix.
As someone who used to think it was an offensive term, it’s likely ignorance and because it’s often used in a deragatory and dehumanizing way on the internet.
At first I didn’t know what cisgendered or cis meant, but I definitely saw it used to describe a group of people non-cis folks didn’t like very much. Of course I eventually learned, but still had a bit of a distaste due to the initial impression.
Also, I always saw “cishet” as a cheeky way of saying “cis shit” because it was also often used negatively in the places I originally came across the term. Once someone explained it in a comment section I finally understood it wasn’t hateful terminology but instead descriptive.
You can’t stop someone from being negative but at least knowing what the words are meant to mean can help identify a bad person rather than bad word.
Where were you seeing this online? (How much can I blame cursed social media algorithms feeding you bullshit?)
Reddit was where I came across that the most. I don’t use much social media so my exposure is relatively small.
At first I didn’t know what cisgendered or cis meant, but I definitely saw it used to describe a group of people non-cis folks didn’t like very much. Of course I eventually learned, but still had a bit of a distaste due to the initial impression.
How long was this “eventually”? I feel like it should be a couple minutes to search and land on the Wikipedia page.
Hmm maybe longer that it should have been, but do you really expect everyone to search for something instead of inferring the meaning based on context?
Interesting. I didn’t have that experience myself, but I’ve definitely seen those types of comments. I absolutely understand how that could leave a bad impression. I’ll be more mindful of educational opportunities when having discussions about it in the future. Exposure and understanding are the enemies of bigotry.
Thanks for the insight!
Bigots often have a problem with being accurately described because gaslighting is part of the strategy. Useful ignorants provide cover.
Look, I’ve never been anti-gay or anti-trans, but this kind of attitude isn’t winning over the people who are in the middle.
I’m talking about generalizing and stereotyping type statements that, even if you aren’t homo/transphobic, feel like they’re targeted at you. When someone says, to give a hyperbolic example, “cisgendered white men are bigots”, they are not actually referring to all cis white men. But if you’re cis and white, you now know they assume you’re not a good person by default.
Tribalism is never the way.
It’s just transphobia. If you don’t have cis (wo)men and trans (wo)men, then you just have (wo)men and trans (wo)men, which implies that trans (wo)men are not (wo)men.
Got it. I didn’t understand because they make it seem like it’s an insult to be called cisgender. They’re actually just upset that it removes an avenue of bigotry.
Fucking gross.
