I appreciate your taking the time to reply at length: I wrote this in part because I wanted something I could refer back to, but mostly so that I could get some kind of insight into the objections from those who hold them.
I don't think I can say much about your first point. There are plenty of words I dislike too, though sometimes they are the best ones because they say most precisely and concisely what's to be said. For that I'm prepared to put up with a little ugliness, but writing is always a trade-off.
I think you pretty much talked yourself out of point 2 in your parenthesis - that is, you realized that the kind of situations I was talking about were ones where these were precisely the questions under discussion and it was therefore relevant to mention. Indeed, I have hardly ever heard the word "cis" used except in the context of discussions about gender identity where it was relevant and pertinent. Cis people simply aren't generally defined in terms of their cisness. (Would that trans people were as lucky in that respect.)
I'm not very fond of the "identify as" locution either, though it's the phrase I dislike: I've no objection to acknowledging that some statements about me are true. And I do get that any label can be used reductively, and in a way that obliterates the complexity of one's identity and existence. Again, I think that trans people are far more likely than cis ones to be defined and perceived in these terms, so as far as that is concerned I have all more reason to be sensitive. Nevertheless, desirable as a world in which everyone was left to get one with being themselves might be, we don't live in it - and as long as systematic prejudice, fetishization, etc., exists, there will I think be a place for the terminology that allows us to identify and name it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2014-03-21 12:51 pm (UTC)I don't think I can say much about your first point. There are plenty of words I dislike too, though sometimes they are the best ones because they say most precisely and concisely what's to be said. For that I'm prepared to put up with a little ugliness, but writing is always a trade-off.
I think you pretty much talked yourself out of point 2 in your parenthesis - that is, you realized that the kind of situations I was talking about were ones where these were precisely the questions under discussion and it was therefore relevant to mention. Indeed, I have hardly ever heard the word "cis" used except in the context of discussions about gender identity where it was relevant and pertinent. Cis people simply aren't generally defined in terms of their cisness. (Would that trans people were as lucky in that respect.)
I'm not very fond of the "identify as" locution either, though it's the phrase I dislike: I've no objection to acknowledging that some statements about me are true. And I do get that any label can be used reductively, and in a way that obliterates the complexity of one's identity and existence. Again, I think that trans people are far more likely than cis ones to be defined and perceived in these terms, so as far as that is concerned I have all more reason to be sensitive. Nevertheless, desirable as a world in which everyone was left to get one with being themselves might be, we don't live in it - and as long as systematic prejudice, fetishization, etc., exists, there will I think be a place for the terminology that allows us to identify and name it.