[Northern Monkey]

Cis sounds like something from Starwars.I aint no Cis Lord.
It’s a ridiculous word.There is no need or reason for me to ‘identify’ as cis or any other made up bollox.
Human man will do fine.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Cis sounds like something from Starwars.I aint no Cis Lord.
It’s a ridiculous word.There is no need or reason for me to ‘identify’ as cis or any other made up bollox.
Human man will do fine.

You don't need to "identify" as cis.

It's just a descriptive word when discussing transsexuals to differentiate. Let's not make it into some diagnosis people are having thrust upon them. It's merely language.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Cis sounds like something from Starwars.I aint no Cis Lord.
It’s a ridiculous word.There is no need or reason for me to ‘identify’ as cis or any other made up bollox.
Human man will do fine.

It's not an identity. I'm amazed that people are so strung up on this word that means nothing other than 'non-trans' And it's ironic that it's only purpose is to make conversation about trans topics easier, yet here we are.

It's like referring to yourself as a 'heterosexual man' to differentiate during a topic about homosexuality. It's meaning is literally no different to that. You don't need to 'identify' as heterosexual you just are. It's a description. This is currently a debate about nothing other than semantics.

(never mind, Marsh got there first )

[Cherry Christmas]

trans is enough of a descriptor, why do we need "cis" if you are non trans, it adds nothing expect a label where it isnt needed

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Cherie

trans is enough of a descriptor, why do we need "cis" if you are non trans, it adds nothing expect a label where it isnt needed

I guess because people usually would fall into the habit of saying "normal" instead of cis, when referring to anyone who isn't transgender, thus rendering the alternative (trans) as 'abnormal'.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Shaun

I guess because people usually would fall into the habit of saying "normal" instead of cis, when referring to anyone who isn't transgender, thus rendering the alternative (trans) as 'abnormal'.

that makes sense I guess

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

trans is enough of a descriptor, why do we need "cis" if you are non trans, it adds nothing expect a label where it isnt needed

You could say the same about the word "heterosexual" or "straight" though, I guess... But people seem to be OK with those descriptions at this point.

To be fair for my own part... I do think there needs to be a word, but I also think "cis" is a phonetically daft word with a flimsy etymology and I wish it was a different word... ... ... But, its here now so its probably going to stick.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Cherie

trans is enough of a descriptor, why do we need "cis" if you are non trans, it adds nothing expect a label where it isnt needed

It doesnt describe everybody though? Caitlin Jenner and Kendall Jenner walk in to a bar, the woman orders a drink.

The descriptor 'woman' is not helpful in that sentence. Whereas the descriptors 'transwoman' or 'ciswoman' would have been.

The place is going to go in to a meltdown when the bigender woman enters the bar.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Withano

The place is going to go in to a meltdown when the bigender woman enters the bar.

Nah, she'd just be referred to as a woman.