![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Cis is Not a Slur, Grues.
I am baffled by the existence of people who are outraged that they are being called cisgendered instead of "normal." I guess maybe they consider every label to be inherently derogatory because it points out that a thing needs to be linguistically marked and I guess that is inherently degrading? Calls into question THEIR intentions when they refer to LGBT people, doesn't it?
Maybe I just know too many chemistry geeks, but everybody I know immediately got that "cis" is just the companion term to "trans." That's it.
I suppose this is more from the files of people who don't mind equality as long as by "equal" we mean "everybody is okay but I am obviously more so and please don't imply that you are good as my kind." As long as we can define "equality" so that it preserves their sense of natural supremacy and superior "rightness," they're okay with it.
Never mind that this makes no goddamn sense at all even linguistically. If these people were better at thinking about words and what they mean, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.
For people who are confused that I am annoyed, here is your crash course on what folk sound like when they object to the idea that they can't just refer to themselves as "normal" and define everybody else in opposition. "Other people are either failing or succeeding to be like me and should be classified accordingly and any implication that I am an asshole for classifying them this way is ZOMG CISPHOBIC OPPRESSION."
This is what it looks like applied anywhere else. Thinking of people like this is... honestly kind of hard to avoid because it is taught and enforced in a lot of cultures, but you turn the corner into Asshole Town when you start defending this like it is acceptable or even desirable. Here are ways that you should not be classifying people:
Normal people and gay or trans people.
Regular people and women.
Americans and Black Americans.
Get it?
tl;dr: You can't call yourself normal without calling someone else deviant. If that isn't your intention, then accept that gracefully allowing yourself to be linguistically marked just like everyone else is the decent thing to do. If it is your intention, you are horrible and as I have seen threatened elsewhere I will literally change you into an animal using my magic powers.
(Disclaimer: This blogger does not have magic powers, nor was she processed in a facility that also processes magic powers.)
If you want to link this anywhere, that is fantastic, but I do ask that you link to my "public" blog. Here is the link you want for that.
I am baffled by the existence of people who are outraged that they are being called cisgendered instead of "normal." I guess maybe they consider every label to be inherently derogatory because it points out that a thing needs to be linguistically marked and I guess that is inherently degrading? Calls into question THEIR intentions when they refer to LGBT people, doesn't it?
Maybe I just know too many chemistry geeks, but everybody I know immediately got that "cis" is just the companion term to "trans." That's it.
I suppose this is more from the files of people who don't mind equality as long as by "equal" we mean "everybody is okay but I am obviously more so and please don't imply that you are good as my kind." As long as we can define "equality" so that it preserves their sense of natural supremacy and superior "rightness," they're okay with it.
Never mind that this makes no goddamn sense at all even linguistically. If these people were better at thinking about words and what they mean, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.
For people who are confused that I am annoyed, here is your crash course on what folk sound like when they object to the idea that they can't just refer to themselves as "normal" and define everybody else in opposition. "Other people are either failing or succeeding to be like me and should be classified accordingly and any implication that I am an asshole for classifying them this way is ZOMG CISPHOBIC OPPRESSION."
This is what it looks like applied anywhere else. Thinking of people like this is... honestly kind of hard to avoid because it is taught and enforced in a lot of cultures, but you turn the corner into Asshole Town when you start defending this like it is acceptable or even desirable. Here are ways that you should not be classifying people:
Normal people and gay or trans people.
Regular people and women.
Americans and Black Americans.
Get it?
tl;dr: You can't call yourself normal without calling someone else deviant. If that isn't your intention, then accept that gracefully allowing yourself to be linguistically marked just like everyone else is the decent thing to do. If it is your intention, you are horrible and as I have seen threatened elsewhere I will literally change you into an animal using my magic powers.
(Disclaimer: This blogger does not have magic powers, nor was she processed in a facility that also processes magic powers.)
If you want to link this anywhere, that is fantastic, but I do ask that you link to my "public" blog. Here is the link you want for that.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-15 06:40 am (UTC)From:Not having a background in chemistry, I didn't recognize the term "cis" when I first ran across it, and still don't have any context for it aside from the social labels. However, I *embraced* it... here was an actual label, something that could be used to divide people into two obviously distinct groups, without saying "here's the group with Distinguishing Characteristics and here's the group of um-just-people."
If I ever find a term that means not-Pagan, or not-Neopagan, I will weep for joy. I can't imagine wanting a term for "them" and not wanting a term for "us," for every category in which I might be an "us" or a "them." I'm constantly stunned at how many people seem to think that being grouped by category they didn't choose is some kind of insult.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-15 09:30 pm (UTC)From:Which always makes me wonder what's going on in their heads when they refer to people who aren't like them. How committed to valuing diversity can they really be if they think that all things which are named are being slurred? What are they really saying about someone who's different from them when they linguistically mark them? Nothing good, I'd guess.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-15 05:51 pm (UTC)From:It does boggle the mind, though, how people can sometimes be "I will label you whaatever I damn well please, but the minute you use a lbel on me, you're being offensive to me."
no subject
Date: 2012-04-15 09:32 pm (UTC)From:If people really thought that words and language were no big deal and should be easy to blow off, they'd be more ready to adjust their own language because they wouldn't think that their bullshit bustedness was worthy of being so attached to and defensive of.
I suspect what they really mean is, "YOU'RE JUST (insert slur) YOU GUYS. NOBODY CARES."
no subject
Date: 2012-04-16 05:08 am (UTC)From: