136
No One Actually Believes That Cis Is A Slur, Here’s Why They Pretend To — Katy Montgomerie
(katymontgomerie.com)
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
136 points (100.0% liked)
LGBTQ+
6187 readers
25 users here now
All forms of queer news and culture. Nonsectarian and non-exclusionary.
See also this community's sister subs Feminism, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC
Beehaw currently maintains an LGBTQ+ resource wiki, which is up to date as of July 10, 2023.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As non-trans person, I can partially confirm. First time when I heard it, my reaction was "why do you need a new word for that?" Now I kind of used to it, but still there is some amusement each time I hear this word - it seems unnecessary, when "non-trans" would suffice if needed to avoid confusion. But slur? That's nonsense is only in Musk's head.
To be fair, "cis" comes from latin which means "on the same side of," in contrast to "trans" which means "on the other side of."
Why use that instead of non-trans? I don't know, but yeah, I don't think the word is a slur.
It's not an eiher/or. E.g. non-trans could also be non-binary. So cis is more specific and leads to more inclusive language and thinking.
If we are talking about sociology journals, then yes, I agree, cis is the right term. If we are talking about general use, like in newspaper, then there is natural reaction of bewilderment - why would you need this term? Please understand that most of the people (me including) do not meet/do not see trans people in their lives (at least they do not know they are trans). I personally know exactly zero of such people. So, the world from the point of not-trans person looks very different - they read about trans people on internet and in the news, it is rare phenomenon, that is not even observed by them personally. That's why it seems as really unnecessary world. Do you have a special word for non-albinos or for non-red-heads? And those (albinos and red-heads) they see in their life more frequently.
And here is where insisting and pushing this word on other people comes at disadvantage to trans community - the right will use any opportunity to use bewilderment of non-trans people to propagate whatever stereotypes they want to propagate about trans. They will say that trans people are "forcing" other people to call themselves "cis", and that this is derogative term, and nobody likes to be forced to do something like that.
English loves antonyms.
You can always use the word "non-trans" if needed. But insisting that all others (who are like what? 98% of people?) have to have a special word for this is strange. It is like insisting that non-albino should be a special word.
And importantly, asking for some kind of special status for cis people so that it requires a special word, as if it is important and fundamental to split people into these too groups, as oppose to being trans is just one of the many features of human being, somewhat rare, but not something to be so important that not being trans must have a separate word. By insisting to have a separate word you are moving away from acceptance of trans people.
And while I do understand that in today's society with many bigots it is sometimes difficult and important process of "coming out" and admitted that you are a trans, thus, indeed, for a trans person, today, it might be the most important thing in their lives, their identity. But in ideal society it just should not be so. So what that one person is trans, and another is albino, and yet another is red-hiared? Nobody should think twice about these variations of humans. I mentioned. I want to move towards ideal society, not away from it.