[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

[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'.

[Cherie]

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.