Some groups object to anything that identifies their privilege because they need to be important. This is why I was a feminist activist but never one of the radicals - I thought this was a very damaging approach to shared humanity.
There are other uses of a word that's apparently neutral that can hurt, though. Technically, I am a Yid - I'm Jewish and (mostly) of Ashkenazi origin and had a traditional upbringing and I even teach Jews about Jewish history - the word applies to me 100% accurately. If it were used neutrally, it would not be offensive in any way, shape or form. It would be more precise than 'cis' actually, which is a term imposed by others than me on me, whereas yid comes from one of my ancestral languages and describes my actual religion (ie it started as a Jewish self-description). Yid ought to be way more acceptable than cis. But look at the baggage it comes with!
The question is tied closely to who calls whom that and why. Most times I'm called cis as an entirely friendly categorisation, which is not a problem. But I have been called it accusingly, to highlight my lack of knowledge, or my mainstreamness. Now, I lack knowledge and, as regards gendering, I have undoubted privilege and I benefit from it - I am cis.
The label isn't the problem - it is the "You can't know this, be here, think this because this label describes you." Yid used by many people means I am basically a Fagin type or a Shylock type or a wealthy megalomaniac or someone who personally killed someone else's god and the world these labellers live in would be a better place without me. Again, the problem with the label is the way it is used. Apparently neutral labels become *much* more problematic when used negatively, because they expose hatred.
My question is (and it is a question - for I've only encountered negative judgement behind 'cis' on rare occasions) - who is using the term and how? When is it not a simple descriptive label? If it's in the arms of bigots, then the term is not one we (cis people) should be objecting to. Personally, having analysed the negative uses I've encountered, I don't think it carries a huge burden of negativity, so people who object are objecting for other reasons. I'm not sure, though, that we can take any labels on trust - we need to find out if they're used by idiots, to hurt.
The reason I think this is the same reason I used 'yid' as the example. 'Jew' would have been a better example, because I spent much time at school and at university defending my identity, and yid is a less common usage in Australia. People genuinely believed it was fine to use the descriptive label for a particular religion as if it described something not quite human and then defend it (when challenged) as a neutral description of someone who belongs to a minority religion. They genuinely didn't see that their use was inconsistent. The same group of (mostly law students) set a debate topic one year "That Hitler had the right idea" and I lost points from the adjudicator for reacting to it. When anyone is labelled and the label carries baggage, we respond to the label.
I don't believe cis has such baggage, but to know it for certain, we need to know the exact group/s that react to it as a term and then find out why they're reacting. Your categorisation would be better with specific uses, if they exist, or maybe to acknowledge that you've checked and that they don't exist (which is what I suspect - for I suspect the particular use I encountered was part of an idiolect based on the person's own life).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2014-03-22 02:15 am (UTC)There are other uses of a word that's apparently neutral that can hurt, though. Technically, I am a Yid - I'm Jewish and (mostly) of Ashkenazi origin and had a traditional upbringing and I even teach Jews about Jewish history - the word applies to me 100% accurately. If it were used neutrally, it would not be offensive in any way, shape or form. It would be more precise than 'cis' actually, which is a term imposed by others than me on me, whereas yid comes from one of my ancestral languages and describes my actual religion (ie it started as a Jewish self-description). Yid ought to be way more acceptable than cis. But look at the baggage it comes with!
The question is tied closely to who calls whom that and why. Most times I'm called cis as an entirely friendly categorisation, which is not a problem. But I have been called it accusingly, to highlight my lack of knowledge, or my mainstreamness. Now, I lack knowledge and, as regards gendering, I have undoubted privilege and I benefit from it - I am cis.
The label isn't the problem - it is the "You can't know this, be here, think this because this label describes you." Yid used by many people means I am basically a Fagin type or a Shylock type or a wealthy megalomaniac or someone who personally killed someone else's god and the world these labellers live in would be a better place without me. Again, the problem with the label is the way it is used. Apparently neutral labels become *much* more problematic when used negatively, because they expose hatred.
My question is (and it is a question - for I've only encountered negative judgement behind 'cis' on rare occasions) - who is using the term and how? When is it not a simple descriptive label? If it's in the arms of bigots, then the term is not one we (cis people) should be objecting to. Personally, having analysed the negative uses I've encountered, I don't think it carries a huge burden of negativity, so people who object are objecting for other reasons. I'm not sure, though, that we can take any labels on trust - we need to find out if they're used by idiots, to hurt.
The reason I think this is the same reason I used 'yid' as the example. 'Jew' would have been a better example, because I spent much time at school and at university defending my identity, and yid is a less common usage in Australia. People genuinely believed it was fine to use the descriptive label for a particular religion as if it described something not quite human and then defend it (when challenged) as a neutral description of someone who belongs to a minority religion. They genuinely didn't see that their use was inconsistent. The same group of (mostly law students) set a debate topic one year "That Hitler had the right idea" and I lost points from the adjudicator for reacting to it. When anyone is labelled and the label carries baggage, we respond to the label.
I don't believe cis has such baggage, but to know it for certain, we need to know the exact group/s that react to it as a term and then find out why they're reacting. Your categorisation would be better with specific uses, if they exist, or maybe to acknowledge that you've checked and that they don't exist (which is what I suspect - for I suspect the particular use I encountered was part of an idiolect based on the person's own life).