Last year the Aotearoa Psychotherapists Association of New Zealand (APANZ) held their national conference on the theme of sex, sexuality and gender. With a number of the talks focusing on gender identity, the words \u2018cisgender\u2019 as well as \u2018transgender\u2019 were obviously used. I was disappointed but not surprised to hear that a number of people expressed discomfort about the use of the prefix \u2018cis\u2019, claiming that it was a slur and exclusionary to use it (but not \u2018trans\u2019, presumably).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For those less versed in what these terms mean and where they come from, the prefixes \u2018cis\u2019 and \u2018trans\u2019 are Latin terms meaning \u2018on this side of\u2019 (cis) and \u2018on the other side of\u2019 (trans), just like the greek prefixes hetero and homo are used to mean \u2018different\u2019 or \u2018same\u2019. So transgender simply means \u2018a gender identity on the other side of that assumed at birth\u2019, and cisgender just means \u2018a gender identity that matches that assumed at birth\u2019. So taken at face value it\u2019s hard to see why anyone would take offence to being called cisgender since it\u2019s simply a descriptor \u2013 a confusion that\u2019s reflected by the frequent questions that pop up on trans reddits or discords asking \u2018why on earth do people feel like \u2018cis\u2019 is a slur?\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The most common answer that people give to this question is that some cis people see it as a slur because that\u2019s how they<\/em> use the word trans. That is, to them trans is an insult, something to be ashamed of or that makes you less than and therefore that people using the word cis are doing so in an attempt to reverse the insult, to make the cisgendered person feel judged or criticised. While this is clearly not how the word cis or cisgendered is commonly used, I think there\u2019s some truth to this explanation but I think there\u2019s more to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A second related explanation that I think partly explains this reaction is that some people see the prefix \u2018trans\u2019 as a qualifier when attached to a gender, rather than an adjective. This the people that would write \u2018transman\u2019 or \u2018transwoman\u2019 rather than \u2018trans man\u2019 or \u2018trans woman\u2019 \u2013 making it into a single word, as if \u2018transman\u2019 is a separate category of person that is not-quite-man, and \u2018transwoman\u2019 not-quite-woman. By this logic, both \u2018transwoman\u2019 and \u2018transman\u2019 as well as \u2018ciswoman\u2019 or \u2018cisman\u2019 would suggest a category that\u2019s somehow different from just woman or man. People who make this argument often state that they don\u2019t want to be referred to as \u2018cis\u2019 but rather just as women or men. As it turns out, that\u2019s exactly what trans people want too. Most trans people reject the terms \u2018transman\u2019 or \u2018transwoman\u2019 for that exact reason, and instead use the terms \u2018trans\u2019 and \u2018cis\u2019 as adjectives<\/em>, in the same way that we might say a \u2018smart woman\u2019, or a \u2018kind man\u2019. When used in this way, the terms trans and cis do not take away from the fact that someone is a woman or a man, but are rather just used as extra descriptors in situations in which it is relevant<\/em>. We don\u2019t need to specify that someone is cis or trans any more than we need to specify if someone is tall or short, except in situations where that makes a difference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I think though that this point speaks to what I believe to be the larger underlying issue, which is that the cisgendered people who don\u2019t like this term are often afraid of the normalisation of trans identities because of how it highlights privilege and undermines existing narratives of neutrality and objectivity. In the same way that many white New Zealanders dislike the word \u2018P\u0101keha\u2019, or even \u2018white\u2019, or in the same way that many people reacted negatively to words like \u2018heterosexual\u2019 and \u2018neurotypical\u2019, when we apply a label to the dominant or majority group it highlights the reality that that, too, is an identity. That there is not in fact a single, neutral, \u2018default\u2019 identity or perspective and multiple \u2018abnormal\u2019 and minority identities but that in fact our society is made up of multiple different groups with diverse perspectives and biases. That no<\/em> group can be considered to be \u2018normal\u2019 or objective arbiters of truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This becomes particularly relevant when it comes to research and policy about issues relating to minority groups, such as the Cass report in the UK that examined the benefits of gender-affirming care for young people through the NHS. Leaving aside for the moment the many problems in the methodology and approach of the report itself, if we ignore the cisgender identities of the researchers then we have a report produced by \u2018experts, clinicians and researchers into the experiences of transgender people\u2019. If instead we center those identities, then we have a report produced by \u2018exclusively cisgendered researchers into the experiences of transgender people, with no direct input from transgender people themselves\u2019. This follows a long history of research by majority groups into minority groups that excluded involvement from those minority groups, such as studies on queer people conducted exclusively by straight people, studies on people of colour conducted exclusively by white people, and studies on women conducted exclusively by men.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In many of the cases when research of this nature is conducted the minorities that are the subject of the research are excluded from participating in conducting it due to claims that they would be \u2018biased\u2019 in their perspectives, which leaves the unspoken implication that researchers who are not<\/em> a part of that minority can be objective, dispassionate and factual in their analysis on the basis that they have less of a stake in the matters at hand. When we highlight that the majority group conducting the research are just as much part of an identity group, then that claim becomes harder to maintain. Particularly when we consider that majority groups absolutely do<\/em> have a stake in the way minority groups are understood and the policy that affects them \u2013 because their power and privilege depends upon it. White supremacy, colonialism and racism rely<\/em> on the subjugation and othering of people of colour and indigenous people just as cis-hetero-patriarchy relies<\/em> on the subjugation and othering of women, queer and gender-non-conforming people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, the entry of terms like P\u0101keha, heterosexual, cisgendered and so on into the common vernacular already<\/em> reflects a shift in the expected balance of power in which those in the dominant group are the ones that get to define terms, to label others and to frame the conversation. It\u2019s an uncomfortable experience for those with privilege and power when a minority group gains sufficient influence to create their own labels and have those labels gain traction \u2013 even when the labels themselves imply nothing negative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whether it\u2019s trans and queer people, people of colour, people with disabilities, neurodivergent people or any other minority group it is crucial<\/em> for those who want to uphold the inequitable status quo to frame us as exceptions to the norm, abnormalities, mentally ill, morally wrong or any combination of these. And that\u2019s<\/em> why people are afraid of the term cisgendered: because it highlights the uncomfortable reality that actually, we\u2019re all just human beings and that there is no \u2018default\u2019 way to be.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Last year the Aotearoa Psychotherapists Association of New Zealand (APANZ) held their national conference on the theme of sex, sexuality and gender. With a number of the talks focusing on gender identity, the words \u2018cisgender\u2019 as well as \u2018transgender\u2019 were obviously used. I was disappointed but not surprised to hear that a number of people […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gender-identity","category-trans-rights"],"yoast_head":"\n