I think there might have been a bit of a misunderstanding here. Cis is technically a scientific term, scientific as in sociology and social theory.
It is only used in the context of describing sociological phenomenons of privilege, trans/cis interaction and comparing the situation of the marginalized trans group and the elevated cis group.
That's it. It isn't used for identity, in any way or form (one can if they want to, but that isn't its intention). In order to have discourse about the sociological issues that plague us, one has to have language to discuss the groups involved. These discussions do need to happen, sometimes even on a layman level because even laymen are part of the problem.
And that's where the issue arises. In order to have these discussions, one has to be able to reference two different groups. The first group being transgendered folk. The second group being those who are not in the first group (essentially, not transgendered folk). Normally you shouldn't define things based on what they are not, but in sociological analysis, one finds that by virtue of simply not being transgendered, society affords you certain benefits and protections and then assumes you to be the expected/standard/acceptable outcome.
So by reason of the very specific set of things that one receives based on the phenomenon known as (insert group here) privilege, we are forced to define a group by what it is not in order to articulate the issues plaguing our society relating to marginalization of groups.
Before cis was devised, there was only one way to refer to trans people and the group of those not trans for these purposes: trans vs. normal.
I'm sure you can agree how othering that is. How much it pushes the word trans into some deviant, outsider category. Othering language like that actually worsens marginalization (because elements built into our language train us subconsciously as we use them, this is why even people who think they aren't racist but use racial slurs tend to adopt more racist attitudes as they go along. This is also how religious brainwashing works.)
So cis was devised, as a scientific term. Now, I would have been fine with cis folk choosing a term on their own to describe themselves in relation to trans folk... except that invariably all of them choose one of these words, "Natural", "Biological", "Born", "Real", "Normal"
Now you see the problem. For the most part cis folk aren't trying to create a language for discourse on transphobia and sociological issues orientating trans and not trans. They're trying to get themselves (subconsciously) labeled as the real and us labeled as the false. At the very least, they are unable to get past the self orientated viewpoint of the previous long enough to actually make a viable term, despite their good intentions.
I could see you as being an exception, but really, what term would you choose for such discourse? If it was any of the ones that I listed above then, unfortunately, you are actually contributing to the problem in the end.
On the double standard, I can see where you're coming from there. Conceptually, it sucks. But practically it is true. In the end, the effects of the word trans are far worse and far more high impact on us then the effects of the word cis are for you. That will have a practical effect on how the words are handled. In an ideal world, it would just be based on personal offense and irritation. But we are far from that world, sadly.
no subject
It is only used in the context of describing sociological phenomenons of privilege, trans/cis interaction and comparing the situation of the marginalized trans group and the elevated cis group.
That's it. It isn't used for identity, in any way or form (one can if they want to, but that isn't its intention). In order to have discourse about the sociological issues that plague us, one has to have language to discuss the groups involved. These discussions do need to happen, sometimes even on a layman level because even laymen are part of the problem.
And that's where the issue arises. In order to have these discussions, one has to be able to reference two different groups. The first group being transgendered folk. The second group being those who are not in the first group (essentially, not transgendered folk). Normally you shouldn't define things based on what they are not, but in sociological analysis, one finds that by virtue of simply not being transgendered, society affords you certain benefits and protections and then assumes you to be the expected/standard/acceptable outcome.
So by reason of the very specific set of things that one receives based on the phenomenon known as (insert group here) privilege, we are forced to define a group by what it is not in order to articulate the issues plaguing our society relating to marginalization of groups.
Before cis was devised, there was only one way to refer to trans people and the group of those not trans for these purposes: trans vs. normal.
I'm sure you can agree how othering that is. How much it pushes the word trans into some deviant, outsider category. Othering language like that actually worsens marginalization (because elements built into our language train us subconsciously as we use them, this is why even people who think they aren't racist but use racial slurs tend to adopt more racist attitudes as they go along. This is also how religious brainwashing works.)
So cis was devised, as a scientific term. Now, I would have been fine with cis folk choosing a term on their own to describe themselves in relation to trans folk... except that invariably all of them choose one of these words, "Natural", "Biological", "Born", "Real", "Normal"
Now you see the problem. For the most part cis folk aren't trying to create a language for discourse on transphobia and sociological issues orientating trans and not trans. They're trying to get themselves (subconsciously) labeled as the real and us labeled as the false. At the very least, they are unable to get past the self orientated viewpoint of the previous long enough to actually make a viable term, despite their good intentions.
I could see you as being an exception, but really, what term would you choose for such discourse? If it was any of the ones that I listed above then, unfortunately, you are actually contributing to the problem in the end.
On the double standard, I can see where you're coming from there. Conceptually, it sucks. But practically it is true. In the end, the effects of the word trans are far worse and far more high impact on us then the effects of the word cis are for you. That will have a practical effect on how the words are handled. In an ideal world, it would just be based on personal offense and irritation. But we are far from that world, sadly.