Comments on: Are we really doing this again? (OR: The Great Trans Blogging Shakeup of 2009, pt 2)

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:27:47 +0000

Thanks for stopping by, Jasper. I’m glad my (somewhat convoluted) writeup was useful.

I am curious what you mean by “…I think defenders of the term [cis] are avoiding a simple issue.” Are you saying part of the whole hullabaloo is that, regardless of Autumn’s behavior, some people were using cis as a negative term? (I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I’m wrong. I’m just hoping to understand where you’re coming from.)

By: Jasper

Jasper — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:43:30 +0000

Rebecca,
Thanks for the write up. I discovered the ‘cis’ controversy today, and have been busily reading all about it. I agree with you that Autumn’s reaction was not the best, but I think defenders of the term are avoiding a simple issue. I must have read a hundred comments today where cis was used as a term of hate and as a pejorative.
Personally I am genderqueer and I refuse both the labels cissexual and transsexual.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:05:53 +0000

I’m so glad you found it useful! The whole situation has definitely been a little ridiculous, and I know I sort of lost my momentum by the end of this post, so sorry for any unnecessary confusion or poor outlining. (And sorry for any necessary confusion, but I’m not taking the blame on that count!)

By: Random Gay Trans Guy

Random Gay Trans Guy — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:57:55 +0000

I meant to add earlier … thanks for this write-up. I think it’s a pretty good summary of events that makes it easy(ish) to understand the chronology of posts and comments.

By: Rachel_in_WY

Rachel_in_WY — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:21:29 +0000

I’m curious as to your criteria for a word to exist. If “trans” exists, which you seem to think it does, then it seems that “cis” does as well. These are value-neutral opposite prefixes in Latin. So obviously “cis” existed long before you and I were born. Are you suggesting that we haven’t properly adopted cis in the way trans has been adopted from the Latin? Are you commenting on how widely used “cis” is? Is it an issue of which contexts “cis” is used in? Those of us who teach courses that cover gender issues have been using “cis” as the counterpart to “trans” for at least the last 5 years, since it’s the only non-othering term available, although this application of cis did not originate in an academic context. Does it have to be widely accepted on the street before it exists? It’s unclear to me what you mean by “exist.”

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:24:58 +0000

Definitely. And thanks for stopping by, Random Gay Trans Guy. =)

By: Random Gay Trans Guy

Random Gay Trans Guy — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:35:03 +0000

THANK YOU.

The “LGBT” vs. “T” distinctions drive me batty.

By: Mattie

Mattie — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:02:20 +0000

Added to which some trans people are also gay men of course so it’s not good to set up the idea that one can exclude the other.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:48:17 +0000

I keep going back and forth about whether the main issue was about how the objection to these specific words was handled, or how the objections were handled. That is, is Autumn’s response the primary issue, in a vacuum of what was originally posted, or should the response be weighted equally (or even lesser than) the original argument about using cis.

After reading Nelson’s post, I responded (below) indicating that Autumn’s response was the more important issue, but now I’m less sure. I think you’re right, Mattie, that the response/discussion/etc since the original argument(s) didn’t happen in a vacuum. As such, the whole picture (the cis argument, Autumn’s status in the trans community, the history of PHB, and so on, and so on) is important, and each facet played into the larger ‘shakeup.’

As for Nelson’s use of “T’s & G’s,” I honestly missed that the first time I read his post. Nelson, the argument was larger than simply “trans people versus gay men,” and I’d likewise disagree that it was people “of all demographics” who were pissed off – it was specifically people who had a stake, for whatever reason, on the use (or absence) of cis.

Likewise, I’m not sure what you mean by “a word that doesn’t officially exist.” Cis(gender/sexual) probably isn’t in most dictionaries, but it’s (at least for the time being) a niche word useful for discussions about gender, identity, and privilege. I don’t think there needs to be any more officialness than that.

Again, I agree with you (Nelson) about how Autumn’s response has had a negative impact on the two ‘sides’ in this debate, as well as on the general ability to hold a civil discussion about any trans-related topics at PHB. But I think I was premature in saying that the specific arguments about the use of cis (the catalyst for all this) wasn’t also important and worthy of consideration.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:31:54 +0000

Yeah, that’s kind of where I am too. I love Ye Olde Interwebs because it does allow discussions of (for example…) whether or not cis is an appropriate label/identifier/descriptor. At the same time, I think what you said:

And I’m learning that I have to get over the assumption that other participants in the discussion are invested in constructive dialogue. They may or may not be, and they certainly have no obligation to have this commitment. So I guess you take the good with the bad…

…is really important, and kind of the big thing I’m trying to beat into my brain, both in online and offline discussions.