Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't think it's off-topic (else as a moderator, I would have asked that people get back on-topic rather than participating) because the argument against using a term like cis- is a good example of "__splaining" (in this case, cisplaining).

I am a little wary of the ___splaining concept because it is sometimes used to unfairly shut down discussion, in the sense of saying something like "you are not X so you cannot speak about it." But I also think this is abusing the concept.

Using the concept correctly, I think it is very useful and important. It reminds us that we need to be more empathetic, as Chongara noted above, and not assume that our experience is the standard to judge everyone else's (because it might be socially dominant or most common, for example).

 Manchu wrote:
The term "cis-" does not imply any binary.

Of course it does in this case. The whole point of the term 'cisgender' is to separate people, not to draw attention to a problem. It also isn't something that many, if not most, transgender people go with. Transgender is a process not a destination. Anecdotally the people I know that went through a transition (omg 'trans'!) have reconciled their body/mind issue and are the gender they are, not a FtM, but just a male; not a MtF just a female. 'Cisgender' ends that process and sets people into two groups permanently. One will never be who they are and will always be defined by what they were. I doubt that is what it was meant to do, but in practice that is what it does, and therefor is problematic.

As I said earlier if it helped people empathize and understand the mind/body problem I would be all for it, but it doesn't do that it just creates a new binary and one that is far more permanent and problematic; 'normal' can have problematic attachments, but 'cisgender' absolutely does. People dealing with these issues need to be marginalized less and accepted for who they are more, but 'cisgender' creates another roadblock and misunderstanding. Hell this thread is a good example of that. All it does is make people argue the semantics and not deal with the reality, and that is frankly all the word will do; it is a verbal Molotov Cocktail.

 Manchu wrote:


I am a little weary of the ___splaining concept because it is sometimes used to unfairly shut down discussion, in the sense of saying something like "you are not X so you cannot speak about it." But I also think this is abusing the concept.

This is the problem I have with it as well.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The term "cis-" does not imply any binary.

Of course it does in this case.

No it doesn't. Cis- is just a category of people who identify with the gender traditionally associated with their biological sex. The only thing it implies about other categories is that there could be others. It certainly does not imply that there is only one other category, i.e., "non-cis", any more than the word "blue" implies the only other color is "non-blue."

 Manchu wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The term "cis-" does not imply any binary.

Of course it does in this case.

No it doesn't.

Well suddenly I agree since you said "no".

I obliviously disagree with your assessment and don't find the analogy very apt or comparable, but I don't think continually arguing about it will make a difference either. We could both probably go on till we are both not-blue in the face but I don't see either agreeing with the other on this point.

You are obliviously wrong and nothing will change that.

Could we please leave tumblr out of this? tumblr is on the same level as 4chan on some topics, just on the other side of things, and I don't see anyone bringing up 4chan. Fortunately.

 Ahtman wrote:
Well suddenly I agree since you said "no".

Then I wrote the rest (which you did not quote and merely dismissed) of that post for nothing, drat.

I am not just ignoring your point about setting up a category (called "non-cis") of people who "will never be who they are and will always be defined by what they were." But the point about implying a binary is more basic and needs to be covered first. That's why the color analogy is apt -- yes of course there being a color called blue indicates that there are other colors BUT it does not indicate there is only one other color. The same is true of the term cis-.

So here is the binary you suggest, between people who are who they are and people who "will never be who they are and will always be defined by what they were." Cis- does not give rise to this binary, either. The underlying binary you are pointing out is the traditional gender binary that cis- undermines. "Who they are" and "who they were" in your phrasing refer to the categories of men and women, not cis and trans.

 Manchu wrote:
which you did not quote and merely dismissed

I didn't merely dismiss it, I read it, saw nothing new or compelling, and purposefully demised it. There is no need to repost everything as I imagine you remember what you stated. Just as, essentially, I didn't see the need to repost every bit from before as you restating the same thing for a third time hasn't made it more real or compelling as an argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
"Who they are" and "who they were" in your phrasing refer to the categories of men and women, not cis and trans.

This perhaps is the fundamental disagreement. People who go through the transition are men and women, not cis or trans. The language itself creates an artificial barrier to acceptance as the people they are and really only sees them for the people they were. In academics it is most likely used differently, but used outside that setting it is more of a way of attacking and shutting down conversation, which is how most use it and the prevalent use. Your definition seems more academic in nature, and while I understand your point I don't think it works when placed in the real world like Kool-Aid, Communism, or Vegimite. Sure they sound good on paper, but the real world applications are far more problematic.

Someone asked me how to do something at work today, and I started by saying, "Let me mansplain it to you." True story...she thought it was funny

 Ahtman wrote:
hasn't made it more real or compelling as an argument

Bit of the pot calling the kettle black as you are just declaring that an argument is non-compelling. Certainly that is the least compelling argument of all.

 Ahtman wrote:
People who go through the transition are men and women, not cis or trans.

That is a false dichotomy. The terms cis- and trans- are not mutually exclusive with the terms man and woman. Bifurcating gender from sex (which you have casually conflated ITT*) is a basic premise here. A transgendered person will indeed never have been born with the sex to which their gender is normatively assigned. This historical reality is an inescapable context. Ignoring it, stifling it, pretending it away all amount to denial.

 Ahtman wrote:
The language itself creates an artificial barrier to acceptance as the people they are and really only sees them for the people they were.

The barrier already exists and it is far, far worse to let it stand at "normal v. abnormal" than to open up the scope of how we conceive of gender.

 Ahtman wrote:
Sure they sound good on paper, but the real world applications are far more problematic.

I'm very sympathetic to your point about terms being twisted by those propounding opposing agendas. Much of this thread is a testament to that principle. And I also concede that the usefulness of terminology can be diminished if it is "captured" by those who are hostile to it, as with "reappropriation" campaigns (e.g., the word "gay" is no longer a very effective slur). On the other hand, there seems to be no convincing reason to abandon terms like cis- and trans- to people who would rather declare that gender and sex are the same and anyone not conforming to that "reality" a freak.

* here:

 Ahtman wrote:
Anecdotally the people I know that went through a transition (omg 'trans'!) have reconciled their body/mind issue and are the gender they are, not a FtM, but just a male; not a MtF just a female.

 jasper76 wrote:
Someone asked me how to do something at work today, and I started by saying, "Let me mansplain it to you." True story...she thought it was funny

Try actually mansplaining something to her and see if it gets a laugh. Actually, don't. I can't advise you to go out and be a jerk to someone, even in a tongue-in-cheek way.

I wasn't being a jerk. It was not an actual "mansplaination", just a dumb joke

 jasper76 wrote:
I wasn't being a jerk. It was not an actual "mansplaination", just a dumb joke.

Right, what I called being a jerk is doing actual mansplanation.

I'd hate to quote Bill Clinton but here it is
“I believe that in ways large and small, peaceful and sometimes violent, that the biggest threat to the future of our children and grandchildren is the poison of identity politics that preaches that our differences are far more important than our common humanity.”
Taken from http://gladwinput.com/poison-identity-politics-biggest-threat-future-says-bill-clinton/

 Manchu wrote:
Bit of the pot calling the kettle black

Well duh.

 Manchu wrote:
Certainly that is the least compelling argument of all.

And yet I'll sleep at night just fine somehow.

 Manchu wrote:
That is a false dichotomy.

Honestly I think we might be arguing different things, and that is leading to problems in dialogue. You seem to be arguing what it should be used to mean whereas I am arguing how it is used, and unless we can reconcile the should/is problem I don't know that we will agree, as we are talking past each other. While it may have started out as a benign indicator it has moved well beyond that to something more troubling. I also had a sentence at one point that used 'vis-a-vis' but decided to edit it out. I don't get to say that very often so it pleases me that I could.

Similar to mansplaining, I think people who know what the term means do use it properly.

 Manchu wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I wasn't being a jerk. It was not an actual "mansplaination", just a dumb joke.

Right, what I called being a jerk is doing actual mansplanation.

Gotcha. Sorry, I misread your post.

 Manchu wrote:
Similar to mansplaining, I think people who know what the term means do use it properly.

I know what the term is supposed to mean and how it is supposed to be used but whenever it is brought up it is almost invariably never in that context, which brings us back to the hopes and dreams of what it really means versus how it really is used. Whether a person wants it to mean something different doesn't change the fact that it isn't how it is used the majority of the time. Actual use has outpaced intended use by a far margin.

 Ahtman wrote:
whenever it is brought up

To avoid a battle of the anecdotes, perhaps it would be best to stick with the actual meaning of the term.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
whenever it is brought up

To avoid a battle of the anecdotes, perhaps it would be best to stick with the actual meaning of the term.

Which we can't agree on whether it is actually in use by most or not, and thus are back at an impasse. I don't think irregardless should be a word yet there it is in the dictionary and in spell check.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
perhaps it would be best to stick with the actual meaning of the term.

Which we can't agree on whether it is actually in use by most or not

We can agree what the term means but you refuse to discuss it because it is abused out of ignorance or bad faith. Absurd.

It'll be interesting to see how long this back and forth goes on. Ahtman's made one attempt at saying 'hey, maybe we're just talking back and forth' and Manchu has firmly rebutted that. Who will win? Who will outlast the other? Who MUST have the last word?

My money's probably on Manchu

Well, if that game is who will continue discussing the topic it's probably going to the person who doesn't insist on not discussing the topic.

Sining wrote:
It'll be interesting to see how long this back and forth goes on. Ahtman's made one attempt at saying 'hey, maybe we're just talking back and forth' and Manchu has firmly rebutted that. Who will win? Who will outlast the other? Who MUST have the last word?

My money's probably on Manchu

Well yeah, the pattern's pretty obvious by this point. We'll have a page or two of back and forth, and then he'll lock the thread.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
then he'll lock the thread

You could at least base your personal attack on something resembling truth.

Did the dude mansplain it right?

DELETED. Never mind, probably got confused with another. Thread

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
then he'll lock the thread

You could at least base your personal attack on something resembling truth.

What, like Your comments over the last two pages or so?

How do my comments over the last few pages indicate that I would lock the thread? In fact, I have argued for pages on end with HBMC and never locked the thread. Recently I argued with you for pages on end without locking the thread. It's a petty personal attack based on a lie.

 whembly wrote:
Did the dude mansplain it right?

No I don't think that's mansplaining.

 Manchu wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
then he'll lock the thread

You could at least base your personal attack on something resembling truth.

What, like Your comments over the last two pages or so?

How do my comments over the last few pages indicate that I would lock the thread? In fact, I have argued for pages on end with HBMC and never locked the thread. It's a petty personal attack based on a lie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Did the dude mansplain it right?

No I don't think that's mansplaining.

Never mind. Thought I recalled reading a thread recently with 2 or so entire pages of you bickering back an forth with just one or two others then checked back and round you hadn't commented on the previous page. Must hah got confused with someone else, or a different thread.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Never mind. Thought I recalled reading a thread recently with 2 or so entire pages of you bickering back an forth with just one or two others then checked back and round you hadn't commented on the previous page. Must hah got confused with someone else, or a different thread.

I'm fine with people disagreeing with me on Dakka; I'm here to discuss things (it is a message board after all). I'm not going to shut down a discussion because someone disagrees with me and I never have.

 Manchu wrote:
We can agree what the term means but you refuse to discuss it because it is abused out of ignorance or bad faith. Absurd.

Absurdity is pretending original use is the common use. We agreed that there are different meanings and that the original use is less problematic, but not that the original is what is used most of the time. It is bad faith and ignorance to ignore actual context in the hopes in the hopes of negating it. I can pretend 'irregardless' isn't a word either but that doesn't change the fact that it is now a word, and that we can agree that 'cisgender' had a different use at one time doesn't change that it has been used more outside that context at this point than in it.


I was just going to let it go to be honest but it seems we are entertaining.