1. Gender Identity as it relates to Self Presentation
2. Gender Identity as it relates to Assigned Sex
3. Subconscious Sex as it relates to Assigned Sex

Spectrum 1 was coming from Daisy’s use of cis/transgender at her above-linked post, Spectrum 2 is the commonly-used definition of cis/transgender, and Spectrum 3 is the commonly used definition of cis/transsexual. (If that doesn’t make sense, please take a look at my previous post for a more in-depth explanation of these concepts.)

Basically, Daisy got me thinking about how the commonly-used definition of cis/transgender and cis/transsexual are based off of a a person’s identity as it related to their assigned sex, whereas the definition she was using for cis/transgender was based off a person’s perception of itself as it related to their gender identity. That’s the long-story-short of where the three spectra came from.

With that background out of the way, I have a few more things I’d like to clarify before moving on with this post:

• After hearing Mattie’s thoughts, and thinking things over more myself, I agree that trying to change the definition of cis/transgender is ultimately tilting at windmills
• Perhaps more importantly, it would force people who do identify as transgender to have to massively rethink their own self-identification in a way I’m not comfortable with
• As such, I’ll continue to use the Spectrum 2 (commonly-used) definition of cis/transgender rather than caveating it all the time with phrases like “commonly-used.” Starting….now!

But I still do think there are two big issues which came up in this discussion that are worth examination by anyone at all interested in gender politics and identity issues, and the transgender and transsexual populations in particular:

1. The value of having something along the lines of Spectrum 1 as a more widely-understood concept.
2. The sloppy and problematic nature of the standing definitions of cis/transgender and cis/transsexual

Lets talk about that second point first – I’ll leave the first point for another post.  As I mentioned in my previous post, the words “cissexual” and “cisgender” are structured to mirror “transsexual” and “transgender.” But, looking at their definitions, they don’t mirror them in such a way to avoid all confusion. Here are the definitions I’ll be using, shamelessly stolen from geopunk’s definitions (the only changes I’m making are using cis/transsexual instead of cis/transsexed, and slightly expanding geopunk’s definition of transsexual to include desire as a possible qualification for being transsexual):

Cisgender: Describes a person whose gender identity (and often gender expression) “matches” their assigned gender. This doesn’t necessarily mean that a person has to be comfortable with their society’s determined gender roles.

Cissexual: Describes a person whose physical body (i.e. genitals, reproductive organs, secondary sex characteristics), as far as they know, aligns with their assigned sex — and they have no desire to change their body to conform with their gender identity. Someone can be cissexual without being cisgender; for example, many genderqueer people fall under this category.

Transgender: An umbrella descriptor for a person whose gender does not align with the one they were assigned. May include crossdressing/transvestism, gender fluid, genderqueer, and/or transsexual individuals. Sometimes shortened to trans* (with or without the asterisk) when used to mean “transgender and/or transsexual individuals”.

Transsexual: Describes a person whose body does not align with their gender identity, and either desires to, is planning to, is in the process of, or has completed a process of changing it to align. This process of medical transition may include hormone therapy and/or surgery. There is no “one true way” to go about being transsexual.

I think cissexual and transsexual are pretty successful definitions, as well as being both etymologically definitionally (not a word, but you get what I mean) mirrored. That is, there words themselves imply through their structure that there is no concept in one word that isn’t mirrored in the other. Cis/transsexual describe whether a person’s body aligns with their gender identity.

On the other hand, cisgender and transgender aren’t so beautifully mirrored. Their structure and etymology implies they should be, but they’re not. Specifically, transgender is an umbrella term which contains transsexual – a transsexual individual is inherently a transgender individual – but cissexual person is not inherently a cisgender person.

I’m starting to think this is part of the root cis/trans arguments, because the definitions of cisgender and transgender feel so sloppy that people aren’t able to use them well or with precision. (Also, some people have intentionally gone out of their way to misunderstand how others used cis/transgender, but that goes back to Rule 1*. Not everyone is being intentionally obtuse when having disagreements over the use of cis/transgender.)

For example, crossdressing is generally included under the “transgender umbrella” but it seems narrow-minded to say someone can’t have a male gender identity and enjoy drag queen-ing or a female gender identity and enjoy drag king=ing.

I was recently convinced that, in most circumstances, simply using “trans” or “cis,” without specifying what one means, is problematic. I think the non-mirrored nature of cisgender and transgender feed into this.

I’m not sure where to go from here, though. Mattie convinced me that trying to entirely scrap the definition of cisgender and transgender, to start over, isn’t the path to take. (Even though I still sort of want it to be.) But is it possible to modify the definitions, to bring them greater clarity? I ask for two reasons. First, because I like elegance and having cis/transsexual mirror each other but cis/transgender trip and fail seems inelegant. Second, because that inelegance seems to keep causing problems with how different people define their identity and the identities of others.

Thoughts? I’d love for Cedar to chime in, so maybe I’ll shoot her an email…

*Rule 1: People are stupid.

I think it’s high time we admitted it: “Cis” IS an insult.

That’s right. Because by calling you cis, we’re calling you no better than a fucking tranny*, and THAT, my friends, is one of the worst insults we’ve got in US culture. We’re calling you no more real than us, and we’re not real. We’re calling you no more a woman than us, that you deserve no more respect than us, and in your eyes, that means tranny-alert.com, that means Ann Coulter jokes, that means it’s fine for the general public to post videos of your genitals all over the internet with big purple arrows and random fetishizing speculations, and fire you unless you show us photos of your genitals. It’s saying you can’t apply makeup. It’s insulting your penis size and your manhood. It’s saying that the only difference between us is that you think you’re better than us.

Meanwhile, I’ve been trying to have a conversation with Carolyn Ann at CaroLINES about the same topic. (Edit: Carolyn Ann told me to use masculine pronouns, so that’s been changed.)

I noticed a little while back that Carolyn Ann had linked to my summary of the whole cis debate thing, saying:

Rebecca, in what started as an interesting and relatively fair survey that rapidly devolved into a purely partizan piece, makes this point [that the argument in favor of cis boils down to "We'll call you cis-gendered because <insert some reason here>, except when you specifically request that we don't call you, specifically, cis-gendered." - ed.] in the most eloquent manner I’ve seen so far. [Added] But, again – she clearly starts out with her opinion already firmly held; once you realize that, the initial fairness simply comes across as a nothing more than a rhetorical device. She sets you up, and you think you’re going to read an impartial survey and: wham! Any hint of impartiality is tossed out the nearest (very high) window.

I went over in the comments at CaroLINES why I think that characterization of my post is unfair, even though I ultimately agree I did a piss-poor job of being impartial and should have owned up to that at the outset, so I’m not going to get into that here. Likewise, I should have read the four part series of posts he wrote on using cis before I jumped in and tried to start a discussion about it.

Had I done so, I might not have bothered to engage in the first place, as it’s clear he is using a different set of definitions than I am for trans/cis to begin with. From the first post about cis:

The term [cis] indicates that the woman in question was born female; it fully identifies her so. “Trans woman” is not quite as precise: it tells us of a history; the person was born male, but in some way has taken at least some steps to be as physically feminine as it might be possible. The prefix “cis” is used as a qualifier, and as a means of narrowing down an identity.

Trans woman is just as precise as cis woman: they both describe whether or not someone who identifies as a woman was assigned woman at birth. Neither inherently describe physical state, although both come with their own implications. Both are about identity, rather than perception or appearance.

Carolyn Ann continues down a similar path from there, saying later in the post

“cis” is not an attempt to “decentralize the dominant group”. It is an attempt, a blatant attempt, at redefining an entire conversation so that it can’t stray into areas that might be uncomfortable. It’s being able to cry about “cis privilege”; it is not about leveling the linguistic playing field.

From reading other posts, the “areas that might be uncomfortable” seem to be Carolyn Ann’s claim of essential, immutable characteristics of gender (nearer the end) which is also the post where he again references my original timeline.

Yet, here, I would actually almost agree with Carolyn Ann. Yes, the use of cis as a tool for precise language is, in part, about being able to observe, react to, describe, and dismantle cis privilege. You can’t very well push for equal treatment, as Carolyn Ann elsewhere expresses a desire to do, if you can’t describe why treatment is unequal to begin with.

Nonetheless, I responded to Carolyn Ann’s above-linked post, saying that the way pro-cis-usage arguments were being framed seemed inaccurate and that I didn’t appreciate being called a liar.

He responded today, so I’ll use this as an opportunity to respond back (this chunk will be cross-posted as a comment on CaroLINES as well).

I disagree that, when the trans community asked questions about the use of cis, answers were ignored. The fundamental question being asked was, “How should the non-trans population be described?” Cis already exists, but I’m open to alternatives. However, Carolyn Ann has used strawman after strawman while expressing what members of the trans community think, allowing him to claim to have given a full and complete explanation of hiss views and a full and complete refutation of the trans community’s arguments, while ultimately failing to do either.

(For example, Carolyn Ann claim’s “‘I am a woman’ with no explanation or justification is the simplification” of gender. And yet, what’s actually being said is that the definition of woman should revolve around self-identification, not imposed identity. But by setting up an argument that doesn’t exist – that there should be no debate or discussion over what constitutes “woman” – he of course have an easy time knocking it down.)

Ultimately, I’m going to state my disagreement with Carolynn Ann and try to move on. He was totally valid in saying I didn’t do a good enough job exploring why people were against using the term “cis.” But, now that I have done some more exploration and delved more into my own thoughts and attitudes, it seems like he and I simply won’t be able to see eye to eye. It’s become obvious to me that either I’m not making myself clear or Carolyn Ann isn’t willing to listen, and vice versa.

I’ll continue to try and refine my views, and I’ll definitely try to do a better job in the future of listening to those with whom I have disagreements, but I think my attempts at discussion with Carolyn Ann are really going nowhere.

Well, the (queer) blogosphere is (once again) up in arms over trans related discussions, so I thought I’d (once again) try and construct a timeline so that I could better understand what the heck has been going on. Here we go!

General note: I’m realizing, rereading this, that I switch between present and past tense. I’m too lazy to got back through everything, particularly since WordPress is still making me write posts in HTML and not with a WYSIWYG editor. Deal with it. Also, if you don’t care about the specifics and want to know what I think, scroll way to the bottom, past all the bullet points.

• On June 26, Autumn Sandeen posted Aravosis Needs To Issue His Own Apology To Trans People Before Citing TGs Regarding Fed LGBT Issues at Pam’s House Blend. Autumn called out Aravosis for a number of different things, and she said why better than I could:
  

  Mr. Aravosis owes an apology to the transgender subcommunity of the LGBT community for personally approving of kicking transgender people and issues out of the broad lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community for the benefit of ENDA 2007/2008, and now he currently owes a fresh apology to the transgender subcommunity of the LGBT community for using a story about the transgender subcommunity to make a point about the Obama Administration’s treatment of LGBT people.

  The comments and conversation in Autumn’s post got rather accusatory, not only at Aravosis, but at cis, gay men in general. From what I can tell, the thread really started to get argumentative around here, and turned from discussing Aravosis to discussing the use of cis as a label/identifier, and whether or not it is/can be/should be offensive. (Note that I’m trying not to say right now which side I think I agree with, just pointing out what I’m seeing. “Argumentative” does not mean “wrong.”) And the meta-argument about the use of cis, which became the main issue in the days to come, really got going slightly further down the thread, here, with someone saying:

  I still find it offensive to be described as such [cisgender]. It is no different that for a trans person to say do not refer to me as pre-op or do not define me as the gender I am from. If I were to do it anyway…. that is not acceptable no more than to lump all white gay men into this category. Just admit that you have issues with gwm [gay white men] and leave it at that, but to lump everyone into one category is offensive to me. To call me CIS is offensive when it is a made up name and not an identity that I choose it is offensive. This is done because it is easy for you and rather than to have a dialogue you choose to dump us all into one category as the enemy and that is what I find offensive. Don’t put words into my mouth and do not fucking pretend that you are any more righteous than me, because when you use this language it only serves to distance us from each other and offends me. It is no different than if I started calling you a tranny… I would think that would be offensive.

  The comments went from there to a healthy mix of people continuing to try and have a constructive, rational discussion, and a number of people engaging in name-calling, intentionally/unintentionally misunderstanding what other people were saying, and the like.

• On June 28, Autumn posted a followup, Enough Already, in which she said, in part:
  

  To say I’m angry at some of my trans peers for their comments on white, gay men in the diary Aravosis Needs To Issue His Own Apology To Trans People Before Citing TGs Regarding Fed LGBT Issues is an understatement.

  How does one take a diary about one famous blogger’s comments on trans people and turn it into a thread where white gay men are attacked with a broad brush? Especially with the diversity focus of Pam’s House Blend? Incredible.

  Again, the initial discussion was (mostly) calm and (mostly) reasonable. What seemed to set things off again was turning the discussion toward the use of cis:

  For the record, I find cis- to be offensive. In general, I thought our community (I mean the whole LGBT rainbow here) uses terms that are acceptable to those being described. That is, we use the preferred gender of trans people, we call someone bi if they identify as bi, we don’t say tranny, etc.

  So why is it okay for (some of) the trans community to call us cis-? If members of the trans community said “stop calling us trans, we find it offensive” would we here at PHB continue to say “trans”? I doubt it very much.

  Why the lack of respect in the other direction?

  Again, I’m not commenting on whether or not this commenter was right, wrong, inflammatory, conciliatory, whatever. Just noting that bringing cis back into the discussion did turn it away from talking about civility and how to hold discussions on The Blend to a discussion (often ugly) about cis/trans terminology.

  Autumn stepped in here to say, “Public warning in this thread — next person who uses this thread to make comment defending “cis” terminology gets a trap door drop.”

• Early on June 29, Lisa at Questioning Transphobia responded to all this by posting Cis is hostile terminology? Really? In it she reminded people:
  

  Cis is a neutral term applied to people who aren’t trans. It’s intended to decenter the notion that not being trans is the natural, default state for human beings and that being trans is a deviation, and that trans people are other. Most terminology that cis people use to define themselves as cis generally reifies cissexism and cissupremacy.

  (Can you tell I’m doing a bad job staying neutral?)

  Lisa continued by saying, “Just to be clear, it’s not [my concern] that Autumn disagrees with “cis” terminology. It’s the tone argument (used at least twice), and the threat to ban anyone who defends “cis” usage.

  The comments and discussion are generally supportive of the word/concept cis(gender/sexual). It looks like (as of writing this) discussion has also turned to Pam’s House Blend removing comments without any acknowledgment or discussion, and of how to hold better and more civil discussions in the future.

• Later on June 29, Renee at Transsexual Ferox posted Poison?, with her initial thoughts on what’s been happening:
  

  I was a little surprised really. I see it as an academic term, used mostly to distinguish between tran and non-trans when context is important for such things. I hadn’t considered its negative impact because, really, let’s face it, I wish I was cisgendered. Or natal. Or genetic. Or normal. Or whatever other word means born with a coherent female identity…pick your poison.

  Which suggests that perhaps the problem really does lay with me. I can’t speak about others because, well, I’m not them. Among my friends and I, if someone’s using the word trans, it’s usually me. I’m the one who brings it up. I’m the one who talks about it. I’m the one assigning labels.

  And if you feel the need to tell someone they’re cisgendered – if you give them that label – are you merely drawing a distinction between the two of you, or are you implicitly suggesting some level of cissexism on their part? And if you are, isn’t that a little bit cisphobic of you?

  Does the term cisgender mean a whole lot more than: a person whose biological sex and gender identity are synchronous?

• Keeva also weighed in on June 29 with “cis”, summarizing what had been happening thus far, expressing her disappointment in Autumn and PHB, and finding a choice comment comparing trans people using ‘cis’ to what the Nazis did to the Jews.
• And, lastly for June 29, Jackson at Queer Subversion put in his two cents, as did geopunk.
• On June 30, Mattie at xoros posted Cis. Particularly relevant:
  

  The trans modifier is only there when… relevant. Cis modifiers are even less often relevant, because it’s the unspoken expectation. The only time it needs using is when it would be confusing or othering not to use it. So, it’s not meant to be used as an identifier. It is a descriptor. That’s all. Just a way to avoid saying “woman and trans women”, or “women don’t face some of the issues trans women do” cos that would be like othering. You know? What is wrong with being able to say those with equality and respect for each other in the form “cis women don’t face some of the issues trans women do”?

  You don’t have to use it like an identity or use it all the time or use it when it’s not relevant or if there is no need to distinguish between trans and cis people or use it when shopping or use it when you need to pee or anything else? Kthxbai.

  Likewise, I appreciate this summation:

  Cos, you know, there is little more soul wearying than talking to someone who wants to say “I’m normal, you’re not, no need for a word to describe me! I’m normal! Now stop being an angry, difficult trans person so I can go back to feeling sorry for you and happy about my normalness.”

  Mattie followed up on July 1 with And even more cis use and on July 3 with Cis the Third. If your eyes are crossing at this point, go read Cis the Third, if nothing else, to get an idea of what the argument about whether or not to use cis boils down to.

  (At this point I realize I’ve dropped any real pretense of neutrality…)

• On June 30, Marti at TransAdvocate posted A Strange Brew – Pams House Blend now serving Privelege.
• July 1 also saw Veronique from TransCanada post Counteroffensive, which reiterates the importance of ‘cis’ in gender dialogue.
• On July 2, Nelson (note: name corrected since original post) at NGblog posted Stop Bleeding Pam, who isn’t happy with out PHB is handling things, but also isn’t actually correct with his take on what’s happening in the first place:
  

  So here we have, Autumn, a transgender, taking issue with people who, for whatever reason identify as cisgender, and who herself has a website/blog thingy with the word “abnormal” in it.

  Ignoring the “a transgender” faux pas, the issue was with people not identifying as cis and, indeed, rejecting that as an identity. Just so we’re clear, I agree with Nelson that PHB is in trouble, but wanted to point that out.

• Autumn returned on July 2nd, posting I Have An “Angry Inch”. She points out where she “began seeing the terms cisgender and cissexual as weapons in the Pam’s House Blend threads,” and how it has turned her off to the words in general. This post also began a larger discussion on how discussions should be held on the blend.
• July 2 also saw Keeva post The post Autumn Sandeen does not want me to make. In it, she posts an email from Autumn about her previous post (see above) “I have an ‘Angry Inch’”. Keeva follows up on it soon thereafter, with more information about her communication with Pam and Autumn.
• On July 4, Lisa posted A Point about Cis, reiterating that
  

  Cis is not an insult, it’s not a slur. It is, however, as much of an identity as trans is, even if most cis people never stop to think about the fact that they’re cis, that they just assume that being what they are (”I’m just a person, I’m not cis/white/het/able-bodied!”) is the normal way to be.

  Being cis doesn’t make anyone a bad person. Having privilege doesn’t make anyone a bad person. When you sit back and you think “that person who’s calling me cis is saying I have privilege and thus I AM A TERRIBLE PERSON” consider that the trans person who says that may be white, heterosexual, middle-class, able-bodied, or otherwise privileged. That trans person who says that may even have come to terms with hir own privileges, and does not take it personally when her privilege is pointed out to her.

• Also on July 4, Autum posted What, In The Grand Scheme Of Things, Is Important?. In it, she says that the meta-discussion has distracted and is distracting people from more important issues, such as ongoing trials and legislation affecting trans men and women.
• Keeva responded, calling Pam out for connecting Keeva’s online and offline personas. Keeva has continued to post since then, and it seems like she and Pam/Autumn are now sniping back and forth every so often…

Dear lord.

So, after all that, what do I think??

How kind of you to ask.

Ultimately, I think Mattie sums it up with Cis the Third. As I said before, you should go read it. She’s sarcastic and sharp (both plusses, in my book) so if you agree that cis is offensive, you probably won’t find Mattie’s post particularly enlightening. That said, she’s still right.

However, more broadly, I find myself continuing to go back to my recent post about thinking before speaking. It does seem like Aravosis (remember him? from the first post way back in June?) should apologize, and is transphobic. (Or, at least, a jerk.) But, rereading the initial comments that sparked things, I find a lot of people making accusations and assumptions that I simply can’t imagine them saying face-to-face. From there, everything kind of snowballed, with few people wanting to A) admit they were rude, even if they were right, B) appolgoize for being rude in the first place.

I don’t want to oversimplify the situation, or to say, “Had everyone been nicer, this never would have happened.” It does seem like there is a substantive disagreement over whether or not to use cis(sexual/gender) to describe people. I happen to agree with the pro-cis-usage camp, as I think it’s an important word and concept for discussing gender, identity, privilege, and their intersections. But that doesn’t mean it should be impossible to hold a civil conversation with someone who disagrees with me.

Ultimately, I’m disappointed with both ‘sides’ of the issue – those agreeing with PHB and those thinking PHB handled things poorly. I do think Autumn did a poor job attempting to get the discussion back on track, as did Pam, and ultimately much (but not all!) of the origins of this blowing into a multi-blog storm lie with their actions. Taking a stern tone can work well in a face-to-face argument, but rarely seems to in online discussion. I’d wager this is because the perceived cost of matching the other in tone and “volume,” so to speak, is minimal. That is, if I literally get into a screaming match with someone, it’s much more emotionally and physically dangerous than getting into a figurative screaming match online.

Likewise, there were members of the trans community – in blog posts and discussions – who assumed Autumn, Pam, and others were acting with ill-will or attempting to be overly conciliatory to their (cis) readers, and acted rudely as a result.

To be perfectly clear, I’m not attempting to absolve either side of blame, to try and avoid taking sides, or to pretend that I can float above the fray. I agree with those who said ‘cis’ is an entirely appropriate and acceptable word. People who dislike it’s use have every right to request it not be used to apply to them specifically, as an identity, but don’t get to bow out of their cis privilege simply because it makes them feel icky. (I don’t get to bow out of my white privilege either, even though I don’t have a strong “white identity.”) And Autumn, in my opinion, unintentionally fueled the flames by attempting to cut off conversation rather than further it.

But life (like gender!) is rarely black-and-white. I’m also not thrilled with the level of discourse by some of the trans men and women in the comments through the above links, and while saying “You’re being hostile” is often simply used as a derailing technique, that doesn’t mean it’s never true, or that it’s impossible to both be right and rude.

That doesn’t mean I’ve never flown off the handle in an online discussion, or that I won’t ever again. And it doesn’t mean people should continue to call out obnoxious and X-phobic privilege when they see it. But I hope everyone will take a deep breath and count to ten before posting in the (inevitable) next round of controversy. ]]> http://fridaythang.com/blog/2009/07/08/are-we-really-doing-this-again-or-the-great-trans-blogging-shakeup-of-2009-pt-2/feed/ 14