I used the phrase "cis people" and the person told me to stop "being patronizing to 'cis' people." Which, due to the scare quotes used around "cis" but never "trans," told me this was one of those people who gets offended when trans people use "cis" as an adjective for them. Also ironic, considering they started two threads today specifically to provoke trans people. But I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about people who take offense to being called 'cis."
They all give similar reasons. Transphobic feminists might complain that it "takes away women's right to determine their identification," because trans people clearly want cis women to call themselves cis women all of the time, and never just women (FYI, I'm being sarcastic, that's not true). Other people might complain that they "never" hear trans people use "cis" in a way which is not patronizing.
The latter I can agree with to a point: Sometimes some trans people do use cis as a pseudo-insult. But there are a few things cis people need to realize about that:
- Cis people are privileged over trans people. Because of that, we do not have the power to create useful anti-cis slurs. Same reason nobody reasonably thinks saying "cracker" is usefully oppressing whites or "man-whore" is usefully oppressing men.
- "Cis" is the opposite of "trans" and was chosen because it is etymologically fair. The language people who object to "cis" use to describe themselves in the same context is almost always designed to "other" trans people in favor of cementing themselves as the "real" men or, more commonly, "real" women.
- Despite comments to the contrary, this has happened before. "Straight," for example, originated as slang used by gay people.
- Some uses of cis are meant to be snide and obnoxious... but most of the time, the only real offense is that a trans person has hit a nerve regarding a cis person's privilege. Basically, we have pointed out that the linguistic dynamic of "women versus trans women" or "men versus trans men" is wrong.
- When you think about it, calling people "trans" is incredibly condescending, too, when you actually think about it.
Believe me, I call myself trans. I have no problem calling myself trans when I think it's relevant, which is often because it's just what happens in a social activist context. But the fact that people obligate me to always qualify my gender with "trans" lest I be seen as a con artist is both condescending and offensive. It's also a term which contextually originates in sexology, not trans culture. It's based on a diagnosis. It is an outsider label originally given to us by somebody who, while certainly a supporter by his time's standards, was not us.
That's why the problems people have with "cis" are themselves so problematic... they point the finger at trans people for labeling them without their permission, without even stopping for a minute to consider that trans people have been dealing with for decades, but few if any of them have a problem with this. How many of them are protesting that trans women should have the right to just call themselves "women" without any qualifier? Not many. The reason they don't is because, whether obviously or deep below the surface, they are denying trans people our gender identities as being ersatz or cosmetic.
"We don't need a qualifier, because we're the real ones." And every time they try picking an alternative to "cis," it becomes some variation on "real ones." Like "women-born-women," which is used specifically to denigrate trans women, or "flesh and blood men," which somehow implies that I don't have flesh or blood. Or even "non-trans," which implies that being trans is an abnormal and deviant quality, which it isn't.
And I can't emphasize enough: No, you don't have to identify as cis everywhere you identify your gender. It's an issue of relevance. I call cis people cis people when they are being referred to in contrast to trans people in a relevant manner... and only then. I'm not asking that Facebook create an option for "cis male" and "cis female."
But in the context of talking about trans issues... no, cis isn't offensive, it was never meant to be offensive, and only is offensive if you are falsely claiming yourself to be a genuine woman/man and denying that to trans people. And if that category includes you, I don't quite care if I'm offending you by using it anyway.
Finally, no, not all cis people find the terminology offensive, especially after they have that "aha!" moment where they realize how unfair the popular way of making that distinction really is. An example of this was when my friend Travis was filling out this now-defunct Facebook app called "Genderform." It went on your profile and was an alternative to the "male/female" distinction made on Facebook. You could identify as anything you wanted, including write-ins.
He looked at his options and said, "Why do I have to be 'cis' male? Why can't I just be 'male?'" It was an off-hand sarcastic comment, really, because you could just put "male." But that's not the end of the story.
I responded, "Why can't I?"
And you know what? The point was taken, because Travis isn't a bigot. There is no reason cis people should be able to, 100% of the time, no matter how relevant, display their gender without a qualifier when that privilege isn't open to trans people.
