Cisgender – SILOTI

Today I finally learned what the word “cisgender” means. I had seen it used on various gender-related blogs, but I never bothered to Google it before.

Cisgender (pronounced sis-gender) is a term used to describe someone who identifies with the gender they were born with, or in other words, the opposite of transgender. I was born female and I’m comfortable being female, so I’m cisgender. Sweet! The word will come in handy if I’m ever discussing gender identity, as it’s a good neutral term.

I much prefer thinking of people as either transgender or cisgender to thinking of them as either transgender or normal – rather than setting transgender people apart as abnormal, it’s just two different types of gender identity.

And that’s Something I Learned On The Internet!

Advertisements

7 Responses to “Cisgender – SILOTI”


  1. 1 Chelsea November 12, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    I learned that recently too! Sadly, it was in an ignorant, snarky post: “Oh GREAT, now we need a word to say that we’re NOT transgendered!” Whatever. Still a good word.
    You’re on a roll with all these posts today! Keep it up (if you can!)

  2. 2 EnlightningLinZ November 13, 2010 at 10:25 am

    Yeah I was pretty proud of all my posting today! I’ll try to post more often 🙂 it feels good!

  3. 3 Global Villager November 14, 2010 at 10:57 am

    NORMAL – adjective
    1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

    I think according to this definition it is accurate to refer to cisgendered people as normal. I am not sure why abnormal has developed such a negative connotation but grammatically it is not incorrect to refer to transgendered as such. The only issue here is the use of the word “natural” in the definition as transgendered people are certainly not “un-natural”.

    I appreciate the spirit of using such a word but sometimes I find that our politically correct world needs to grow a pair and call a spade a spade.

  4. 4 Chelsea November 14, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    Languages adapt over time, and we need to adapt with those changes. For example, whereas “fag” used to mean cigarette (and it also used to mean a LOT of other things, according to South Park), it is now a derogatory term for homosexuals. The definition changed because the usage of the word changed, so we should respect that change and NOT go around saying “fag”. Same goes for abnormality. Though I think many transgendered people would embrace their abnormality, it is nonetheless a word which carries negative connotations in our modern society. “Normal” on the other hand carries superior connotations. So I guess my point is that the use of words “normal” and “abnormal” is too polarizing, and also WAY too unspecific (because it could mean many things, not just sexuality/gender). We don’t want trans kids not being true to themselves because they’re afraid of not being normal.
    Also, if we reject a term like cisgendered for the simpler term of “normal”, where does it stop? WHo else qualifies as abnormal? Are minorities like Jews abnormal? Or even atheists? Should we say normal instead of heterosexual? Blonde and blue-eyed people are rarer than brunettes, are they abnormal?

  5. 5 EnlightningLinZ November 16, 2010 at 7:53 pm

    Couldn’t have said it better Chelsea! Also – I see nothing wrong with political correctness, especially when it’s in the spirit of equality.

  6. 6 Global Villager November 17, 2010 at 12:27 am

    Good points for sure on language.

    I think you are right when you say that many people embrace their “abnormalities” – whatever they may be. I don’t think there is anything necessarily wrong with being abnormal, nor do I think it is always right to be “normal”!

  7. 7 Spence February 9, 2012 at 10:06 pm

    The usage of abnormal is gramatically correct to describe any deviation from normal. Normal in scientific usage connotes the most common state.

    Normal is not grammatically correct word usage to describe any group that does not have a general baseline characteristic set, or to describe characteristics that vary greatly within a group. To wit, skin/hair/eye color in humans are far too variable to describe as normal. Normal derives from the technical term norm, meaning a standard. There is no standard appearance in humans other than they are laterally simmetrical, tailless primates who stand upright.

    Normal is, however, an acceptable usage when describing behaviors. If a certain behavior pattern is predonimant, i.e. a significant majority of the population engages in that behavior, then it is normal. All other behaviors that deviate from the normal behavior are abnormal. Personally, I prefer “abnormal” to the equally correct “deviant”.

    Unfortunately, “normal” is often mistakenly associated with “correct”. One could probably accept that placing faith in a god or gods is normal by this definition, although you still would not consider it to be correct. If one was to genuinely interfere with another’s person belief system, be it Roman Catholic or Shinto or Atheist (see how I capitalized them all? See the next paragraph for an explanation), their actions would be simultaneously “normal” and “incorrect”. Everyone has the right to be wrong, so long as they don’t hurt anyone else.

    Atheism is a belief system even if it is not an organized religion. In that usage, capitalization is appropriate. One does not capitalize insignificant, common, everyday things, but those things which are important or unique in some way. One normally capitalizes one’s name in english usage, for example. In German, all nouns are capitalized rather than just proper nouns.

    To sum up: Normal and abnormal are appropriate terms gramatically and sometimes scientifically; abnormal is scientifically synonymous with deviant when describing behaviors; normal is often confused with correct; capitalizing Atheism is gramaticaly correct; and everyone has the right to be wrong so long as they are not hurting someone else.

    Oh, and the fact that I have faith in God does not automatically make me mistaken. There is no burden of proof in faith, be it in the divine or in only the mundane. I believe in God, and you do not have to do so just because I do. Consider, however: if I am wrong, when I die I lose nothing for having been wrong and surrendered nothing in this life that I will miss. If you are wrong, every organized religion contains some sort of penalty for your lack of faith, from reincarnating as a lower life form to spending eternity in torment. After much careful consideration, I have decided that for myself I need no further proof of God’s existence. I hope that you will respect that decision as much as you wish for me to respect yours.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 49 other followers

AtheistBlogroll5
Free counters!

%d bloggers like this: