... how many people speak of 'cis' as a term adopted from chemistry, when my own first encounter with it was astronomical. Cislunar space, translunar space.
Funny that! As a historian, my first vector of approach to 'cis' was via Latin, as in, say 'Cisalpine Gaul'. I have to admit I'd never heard the term used for describing peeps not born trans before signing up to LJ :o)
I find it curious too, or at least cisgender to be so. Trans is something that in general can be seen by apparent differences between another person's behaviour or appearance and one's expectations of them. Trans is a label that a person can claim themselves. But cis doesn't appear to be, and seems to be a label describing an assumption about others.
Insomuch as trans "can be seen", so can cis be seen by the simple lack of these factors. They are both very much assumptions about others. I do know more people who claim the trans label than the cis label, but a lot of this seems to be that trans people are forced to think about it (and I know a lot who would really rather just be called women)
As for "claiming a label for yourself", I don't particularly claim 'white' or 'fat' as labels for myself. They're factually accurate and I accept them as descriptors, though. Just because someone "doesn't choose to identify as cisgendered" doesn't mean it's not true.
Though people do claim both those labels. I did an artwork a few years back called "Labels are for Tin Cans" which had about two dozen cans with mocked up labels that may have applied to me one time or another. The ingredients listed in the image above reads:
I guess the real question for me is why :cisgendered" and not "non-trans"?
a lot of this seems to be trans people are forced to think about it
Very true. I made a comment yesterday how the privileged tend to have more or less private lives, and the unprivileged much less so. This is very much the case with trans folk.
Because 'non-trans' unmarks them as normal, default, and trans as abnormal, needing accounting for. It means they get to be women plain and unmodified and you have to be a trans woman, the marked exceptional case whereas cis woman and trans woman can be different categories of class 'woman'.
It does remind me of labels such as "non-autistic" - it implies that being trans is a "condition" rather than a part of one's identity to me. I don't know a lot of people that identify as "non-white" or "non-gay" (they'd agree factually WITH these labels, but I've never had someone use those labels as an identity)
It's like calling short people "non-tall" - the category of "non-tall" also includes plenty of people in the middle. "Non-transsexual" includes genderqueers, cissexuals, people who are on the fence. It just isn't the opposite of transsexual.
Linguistically, it's also just unusual to label someone as "not part of X" - generally we have distinct terms, which allows us to define a spectrum (trans-cis, short-tall, skinny-fat) rather than a binary (is/isn't trans).
I hadn't heard that term either before, but it makes a logical extension of the terminology. In old terms I'd call them "straight", but that implies the opposite is "bent" and I've met a good number of queer folk who seemed pretty "straight" otherwise ;)
Surprised you hadn't heard the term cissexual before, although I admit I usually hear cisgendered these days - "transsexual" seems to be getting frequently replaced with "transgendered" too.
Yup! I hadn't heard about it before then either. Have not searched out the actual origin, but would not be surprised if it had come from Latin... mainly I was finding it interesting how often specifically chemistry gets used as the analogous example for the terms when they show up in so many other places.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-27 13:45 (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2009-04-27 14:59 (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2009-04-27 22:03 (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2009-04-27 22:16 (UTC)From:As for "claiming a label for yourself", I don't particularly claim 'white' or 'fat' as labels for myself. They're factually accurate and I accept them as descriptors, though. Just because someone "doesn't choose to identify as cisgendered" doesn't mean it's not true.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-27 23:10 (UTC)From:INGREDIENTS: XY CHROMOSOMES,
ESTROGENS, EXPERIENCE, INTELLIGENCE,
EMOTIONS, HOPES, FEARS, LOVES, HATES,
OPINIONS AND INSECURITIES.
a lot of this seems to be trans people are forced to think about it
Very true. I made a comment yesterday how the privileged tend to have more or less private lives, and the unprivileged much less so. This is very much the case with trans folk.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-27 23:47 (UTC)From:Why non-trans instead of cissexual?
no subject
Date: 2009-04-28 00:31 (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2009-04-28 00:56 (UTC)From:That makes a great deal of sense!
no subject
Date: 2009-04-28 00:29 (UTC)From:Linguistically, it's also just unusual to label someone as "not part of X" - generally we have distinct terms, which allows us to define a spectrum (trans-cis, short-tall, skinny-fat) rather than a binary (is/isn't trans).
no subject
Date: 2009-04-28 01:00 (UTC)From:I hadn't heard that term either before, but it makes a logical extension of the terminology. In old terms I'd call them "straight", but that implies the opposite is "bent" and I've met a good number of queer folk who seemed pretty "straight" otherwise ;)
no subject
Date: 2009-04-28 02:44 (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2009-04-28 03:02 (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2009-04-28 13:29 (UTC)From: