superglucose wrote:"Cis" makes me think of "cyst"
Well, that's your problem. I guess you will have to travel back to 1991 and tell Volkmar Sigusch that he should not use Zissexualität
as the opposite to Transsexualität
, even though it makes perfect sense to use the Latin word meaning "on the same side" as an opposite to the Latin word that means "on the other side" / "beyond", and which has already been used in this sense in other words, like Cis–trans isomerism
or Gallia cisalpina
(Gaul on the same side of the Alpes as Rome) as the opposite to Gallia transalpina
(Gaul on the other side of the Alpes as seen from Rome), just because "cis" sounds similar to a not-so-nice word in some other language when appending a letter.
BTW, do you have the same problem when someone calls their female sibling "sis"?
Also, I am awaiting your suggestions for pleasant-sounding alternatives to "cis".
Heaven forbid I dislike how something sounds! Between your insistence that no one ever
uses cis in a negative way and your complete dismissal of my dislike of the sound of a certain word I wonder... do you
think you see this as neutral?
and also it makes the chemist in me very confused.
How so? Are you thinking of some element?
Whenever I think "trans" I think of "transition" and that's been how I think about it. Whenever I hear the reference to cis-trans isomerism I start thinking about how people's genitals are arranged with relation to their body. I.e. a "cissexual" person would have all their genitals on the same side of the body... as opposed to a "transsexual" person who would have their genitals on opposites sides of the body. I start imagining the stereosexuality and trying to rotate people in my brain to see if they're R or L. I'm (+)Male man, maybe? Or (+)(+) hetero-male man. It's simulataneously amusing and makes me think someone just didn't think the naming through.
If you don't understand why cis-trans isomerism is not exactly a good comparison for sex and gender it's because you don't properly understand what's going on with cis-trans isomerism. A male-bodied man isn't "cis" because his gender and sex are on "the same side." The same side of what, exactly?
It's just a weird term that feels misused and also sounds weird. I see absolutely no reason to get upset by that. Also your comment that I'm whining because obviously I think I'm normal and don't need a term for me is completely out of line.
Vaniver wrote:Compare: "That has not been my experience, but I'll watch out for it!" and "That has not been my experience."
Actually what Monika is saying is "That has not been my experience, therefore that cannot possibly have ever been an experience you've had, and clearly you're just whining and there's nothing wrong at all and you need to man up, you damn cis person."
Personally I would prefer "trans" vs "non-trans," i.e. "people who want to transition" and "people who do not want to transition." Or an even more radical idea: how about "trans-woman" goes away and you're either "man," "woman," or something in between based on how you identify yourself? Especially if "asexual" vs "non-asexual" is an acceptable dichotomy.
I'll also refer you to my previous statement: do you believe it's not bullying as long as someone has it worse?