Replying to Perdida (2nd response)
You say “cis” is just a word and then you say I should state “trans women” because it’s two words… Hmm, seems to me there are double standards at play here.
Perdida, it seems you’re determined to find fault. “Cis” is short for “cisgender.” Same as “Trans” is short for “transgender.” Do you see a double standard thus far?
I ask that you refer to trans women in two words, as women who are trans. I refer to cis women in two words — as women who are cis. And, unless I’m trying to make a specific point about medical or about marginalization, I generally just speak of WOMEN — cis or trans, together.
You’re telling me that trans people are forcing labels onto cis people. You’re using slavery as an example. Perdida, trans people make up about 0.6% of the population, and we’re deeply disenfranchised. Are you really trying to stretch logic to the point of claiming WE can enslave YOU?
It is not trans people who are “forcing” the label “cis.” A German sexologist came up with the term, and other scientists picked up on it.
Perdida, I wasn’t trying to lecture you or make assumptions about your language (again, you can find fault if that’s all you look for) — I was trying to explain why the word “cisgender” serves a purpose. But the word “natal” is just as useful, and if you like that word, knock yourself out. I really don’t understand why you’re so upset about this.
It occurs to me that if you have such a huge chip on your shoulder about one word, if you find that trans rights create such a huge imposition in your life, we might find it difficult to have any useful dialog.