Sure, it's puzzling that some don't like the word - and it might be true for some other word in its place, who knows - but it's still bothersome to stick one on them without their consent, given our standards of polite behavior in such matters.
Speaking again of the people whose ancestors were in America before 1492, they're pretty insistent that they're a bunch of distinct and independent tribes, and only grudgingly accept being lumped together as a unit at all. I hear them say "I'm Navajo" or "I'm Cherokee" much more often than "I'm Native American" or "I'm an Indian" (even though some of them still accept that term for the larger unit). It may take time for "cis" to be accepted, here.
There has to be more to it, though, than they "we don't need a term because we're normal" argument, because the same argument ought to apply in other cases. Considering the vehemence of anti-gay prejudice in some quarters, it's surprising that they accept a term for themselves. Or do they? They might object and I just hadn't noticed, same as I hadn't noticed anyone objecting to "cis".
(no subject)
Date: 2014-03-22 01:50 pm (UTC)Speaking again of the people whose ancestors were in America before 1492, they're pretty insistent that they're a bunch of distinct and independent tribes, and only grudgingly accept being lumped together as a unit at all. I hear them say "I'm Navajo" or "I'm Cherokee" much more often than "I'm Native American" or "I'm an Indian" (even though some of them still accept that term for the larger unit). It may take time for "cis" to be accepted, here.
There has to be more to it, though, than they "we don't need a term because we're normal" argument, because the same argument ought to apply in other cases. Considering the vehemence of anti-gay prejudice in some quarters, it's surprising that they accept a term for themselves. Or do they? They might object and I just hadn't noticed, same as I hadn't noticed anyone objecting to "cis".