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.
I agree it's bothersome - and I don't enjoy using words that are going to lead to annoyance, resentment, and derailing (deliberate or otherwise). On the other hand, I don't think I should be obliged to adopt implicitly trans-pathologizing terms such as "normal", or terms such as "non-trans" that naturalize cis people at trans people's expense. Any alternative that didn't do these things would be acceptable to me, but if no alternative is acceptable that feels like a kind of linguistic dog-in-a-manger-ism. Is this the gender orientation that dare not speak its name?
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".
It was my wondering what more there might be more to it that prompted this post. I do find the contrast with the acceptance of "straight" and "heterosexual" by people who are vehemently anti-gay puzzling; though from what a couple of people have said here this may be explained (at least in part) by the passage of time. Those terms are common currency now, but were they always accepted? I'm too young to remember directly whether there was much resistance to them in the '70s, but fjm's comment above suggests there was.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2014-03-22 02:14 pm (UTC)I agree it's bothersome - and I don't enjoy using words that are going to lead to annoyance, resentment, and derailing (deliberate or otherwise). On the other hand, I don't think I should be obliged to adopt implicitly trans-pathologizing terms such as "normal", or terms such as "non-trans" that naturalize cis people at trans people's expense. Any alternative that didn't do these things would be acceptable to me, but if no alternative is acceptable that feels like a kind of linguistic dog-in-a-manger-ism. Is this the gender orientation that dare not speak its name?
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".
It was my wondering what more there might be more to it that prompted this post. I do find the contrast with the acceptance of "straight" and "heterosexual" by people who are vehemently anti-gay puzzling; though from what a couple of people have said here this may be explained (at least in part) by the passage of time. Those terms are common currency now, but were they always accepted? I'm too young to remember directly whether there was much resistance to them in the '70s, but