Heh. She said that in reference to something I wrote on her boards--one of my many long defenses of why we need the word cis or a word at least for it (believe it or not, most people there wanted to go with "non-trans," FFS.)

I don't want to bash helen too hard here--because she's been a good ally in the past, and if anyone can be said to have propelled me down the path of feminism/activism, it's her. I think we can acknowledge that allies can and do fuck up, just like trans people, and yet still have the capacity to continue to do good. And that one fuckup shouldn't cast you forever into the pit of Bigoted Asshole. Likewise, I'm always careful to watch for falling into the traps of doctrine--it's part of my antikyriarchial radicalism.

All that said, I'm completely blindsided, baffled, and appalled by this post. I mean, what? Butches aren't cis? Let me check: do they identify as women? When they stop doing that, do we call them something else (like, trans men?) And seriously, butch is especially problematic to use as an example because if ever there was a sunken community of trans people, it was in the butch community.

I know she understands power differentials and privilege, so I just don't get it here, except that sometimes people have used the word cis in a mean way and that means we can't have nice things anymore, except in approved settings. I'd be willing to have a discussion about some of the issues she raises about cisgender/cissexual, but we'd actually have to be able to use the fucking word for that to happen.

I mean, is it really that it comes down to a tone argument? a TONE argument?

So, yeah. I feel like I want to write about this too, but the thread on the boards there left me so furious and exhausted that I just don't know if I have the energy. Which is part of the whole silencing tactics to begin with.

--CL Minou
http://secondawakening.blogspot.com