Since writing this post, I’ve expanded my understanding of butch and femme as gender and/or gender identity. (In large part due to Bond’s writing over at Dear Diaspora, so I think I have a better understanding of where you were coming from in your original post. Likewise, I’m backing off from what I originally said…

And I really have a problem with Boyd relating gender performance – butch, femme, etc – with gender identity. Is a femme-y gay man who performs a more gender normative masculinity for his job cisgender? If he identifies as a man and was assigned ‘male’ at birth, then yes, he is. Trans/cisgender, as much as I might wish they were, are not about gender performance or presentation; they’re about self-identification.

…because you’re right, butch/femme can be more than simply gender presentation.

As for how and when to use cis, I do agree that erring on the side of caution is a good thing. Using cis to describe solely attitudes and behaviors, rather than individuals, makes sense to me. On the same line of thought, I agree that using cis(gender/sexual) as a derogatory label for those who aren’t trans, or implying they can’t care about trans issues, isn’t really helping anyone.

I still feel like that’s a somewhat separate issue, though, from how to label people – like yourself – who are very much a part of the trans community even though they don’t identify as trans. In that sense, I’m still not sure expanding the definition of ‘trans’ to be more inclusive is the right way to go. I’d rather focus on redefining ‘allies,’ personally. (And, if I’m mistaken and you do identify as trans, please accept my apologies for mis-labeling you. But I think the point still stands.)

i will say, as a partner, there are a boatload of us who have gender stuff going on – not trans per se, but often oddly gendered. that is, when i describe my own gender, expression or experience or identity, i often have others tell me i’m trans, even if i don’t identify that way myself.

what i’m saying, i suppose, is that these clear distinctions aren’t always very clear. for now i’m settling with using cis ONLY as an adjective for attitudes & behaviors, as in cis privilege, or cis-centrism, & not using it to describe people.

anyway, thanks for the interesting & useful discussion.

Tend to use cissexual, since for me it describes the institutional dimensions of transphobia–which to me seems like a more urgent task…

It sounds like we’re definitely on the same page – anyone who expresses or identifies their gender as anything other than the norm are natural allies and should stick together. (And I’d say this includes include cisgender and cissexual gay and lesbian people, too!) But that doesn’t mean any sort of non-normative gender behavior needs to fit within transgender.

I do think the ‘trans umbrella’ complicates things, and I’ve tried to shy away from using trans as an umbrella term to describe other people. I still like it and use it to describe myself, but I think trans (and cis, to a greater extent) can become problematic when used vaguely.

Anyway, thanks for stopping by, and for the comment! I’m glad you’ve enjoyed the post, and hope to see you around again.

“Is a femme-y gay man who performs a more gender normative masculinity for his job cisgender? If he identifies as a man and was assigned ‘male’ at birth, then yes, he is.”

I understand transsexual, transgender and gender-variant people to be part of the same or similar communities, as we’re all dealing with many of the same problems, like Helen says… but, I still think it’s important not to confuse gender variance with having a trans identity. It’s not (necessarily) the same thing!

So, just wanted to say hi, I agree with you, and thanks for saying that.
-Sadie Ryanne

I do, however, identify a tiny bit with her complaint that those who have a trans loved one are not viewed as being invested in trans issues. Of course it’s not the first-hand, personal experience that it would be if you yourself were trans, but you do get a much more nuanced sense of the trans experience, and you are invested, you do fear for them, and feel fiercely protective of them, etc. And that’s an experience that is hard to capture using the trans/cis terminology.

I completely agree.

But I don’t think this terminology has to capture this experience. That’s not really what it was developed for.

Exactly. I don’t really agree with Boyd’s issues with “allies” or SOFFAs (significant others, friends, family, and allies) as a description. Yes, it doesn’t have the same nuance as “invested individual who has specific emotional attachments to trans issues by blood or close relationships,” but not every nuance can be conveyed with a single word…