flexibeast

That's a great article. radicalyffe++

!!!

* i agree both issues have importance. And certainly it's possible that progress on one issue could lead to progress in the other. i also feel that the queer community has the resources to raise public awareness and make progress on both issues. If that is indeed the case, then why should one of those issues be so much more heavily emphasised than the other? But if that's not the case, and we have to choose one issue, should we not choose to directly work on solving the problem where lives are at stake, rather than solving the one where this is much less the case and hoping that the other issue is solved indirectly?

* i was not trying to be disrespectful, nor sarcastic. i was trying to work out, from the little information you provided, where you might be coming from. And indeed, i actually tried to make an effort to withhold from my reply the anger that i felt upon reading your remarks, because i was concerned that i was leaping to false conclusions about your position. Apparently i failed; but i must say your most recent comment leaves me wondering whether i should have even made the effort.

Your comments are not conducive to mutual understanding. You have stated that you are offended, but have failed to give any explanation of why this is beyond "I just dont' like the sound of the term and think it doesn't really make sense scientifically or definitionally". And your remark that you "won't bother to dignify" my question with a response strongly suggests to me that you actually don't have anything substantial to say, and are thus refusing to engage in discussion that would clarify your position. Thus, since i have nothing else to go on, i will concentrate on the last sentence of your comment.

"Don't like the sound of the term"? Well, 'cis' is simply a prefix that is the opposite of the 'trans' prefix, and has no eytmologically negative connotations that i'm aware of. To describe, for example, one train service as 'cisalpine' and the other as 'transalpine' is purely descriptive, and does not imply something negative about the former that does not apply to the latter: one doesn't cross mountains, the other does. That's it. Yes, i acknowledge that the term 'cissy' has been used as an insult by some trans people; it's a term i don't like either, which is why i don't use it, and use the purely descriptive term 'cisgendered' instead.

Moving on to "it doesn't really make sense scientifically or definitionally". i can only presume that you are alluding to the fact that gender is (at the least) a continuum, and that hard-and-fast divisions are not possible. i agree. But does the fact that sexual orientation, for example, is also, at least, a spectrum mean that it's senseless to talk of 'heterosexuals', a purely descriptive term to identify those who are solely attracted to the so-called 'opposite' sex? No. Similarly, in terms of gender, we can make a rough division between those who basically identify with the sex / gender assigned to them at birth, and those who don't. i use the term 'cisgendered' to broadly refer to the former group; 'transgender' to broadly refer to the latter.

Now, if you don't identify with the sex / gender assigned to you at birth, then i, for one, would consider you to be, in some sense, transgendered and not cisgendered. And if that is indeed the case, i am genuinely intrigued, and would like further details about why you find the term 'cisgendered' so offensive that you struggle to give a full explanation of why you find it so; and also what, if any, term you think could be instead used to describe those who aren't trans. If that's not the case, then i am offended, very much so: offended that someone in a position of privilege with regards to their gender is whinging about the offensiveness of a purely descriptive term, instead of confronting their position of privilege. Just as i would find it offensive for a heterosexual to be complaining about the term 'heterosexual', given society's oppression of non-heterosexual people. i'm hoping, however, that the latter interpretation of your vague remarks is incorrect, and that you will provide a clear explanation of where you're coming from which demonstrates this.

I find it interesting that noone has taken note of the main theme of my overall post - "over all this bull shit regarding wanky arguments regarding termonilogy like "cis" "trans" "dyke" "poof" or whatever .....big deal Not.... this shit is all so wanky really...."

See my latest LJ entry (http://flexibeast.livejournal.com/110838.html).

the main point was terminology can be both bullshit and thought provoking

*nod* Agreed.